United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
oEPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9541.00-17
TITLE: State Program Advisory #11
APPROVAL DATE: September 23. 1993
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23. 1993
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste
FINAL
DRAFT
. STATUS: Q A -. Pending OMB Approval
D B - Pending AA-OSWER Approval
REFERENCE (Other Documents):
OSWER Directive #9540.00-09A
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9541.00-17
TITLE: State Program Advisory #11
APPROVAL DATE: September 23, 1993
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1993
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste
X
FINAL
DRAFT
STATUS:
A - Pending OMB Approval
B - Pending AA-OSWER Approval
REFERENCE (Other Documents):
OSWER Directive #9540.00-09A
OSWER OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
&EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9541.00-17
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Keely Clifford
Mail Code
5303W
Office
OSW/PSPD/SRPB
Telephone Number
703-308-8763
3. Title
State Program Advisory #11
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose) Thjs Directive updates the State Authorization
Manual (SAM), covering RCRA program changes for the period of January 1 - June 30. 1991. SPA
11 contains nine new revision checklists, Model Attorney General's Statement language for the
changes covered in the SPA, a Consolidated Land Disposal Restrictions Checklist, and other re-
vised materalis.
5. Keywords
State Authorization / RCRA / State Program / Guidance
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes What directive (number, title)
Supplements OSWER
Directive #9540.0O-09A
aft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
X
Yes
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator ^J^fljujt*' A. &%jJlA^L—
Jennifer A. Barker, OSW Policy Directives Coordinator
1 0. Name and Title of Approving Official
Jeffrey Denit, Acting Director, OSW
Date
9/25/93
Date
9/23/93
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER Directive #9541.00-17
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C, 20460
SEP «- OMIC«OF
SOLID WAStC AND IMEAOENCV HESI»ONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: State Program Advisory Number Eleven
FROM: y&rSrZrey Denial Acting Director
Office of Solid Wast*
TO: Regional Division Directors, Regions Z-X
The State and Regional Programs Branch (SRPB) periodically
issues State Program Advisories (SPAs) to update the State
Authorisation Manual (SAM) as new RCRA program policies,
regulations, and self-implementing statutory provisions come into
effect.
with this memorandum, I am transmitting SPA #11* which
covers RCRA program changes for the period of January 1, 1991 to
June 30, 1991. SPA fll contains/ninejnew revision checklists,
Model Attorney General's Statement ..language for the changes
covered in the SPA, a Consolidated [Land Disposal Restrictions
checklist through June 30, 1991, and other revised materials.
One of the revision checklists addresses the Boiler and
Industrial Furnaces rule that was promulgated February 21, 1991.
Another addresses the revisions to the Third Third Land Disposal
Restrictions. %
If you have any questions about any of these materials,
please contact State and Regional Programs Branch Authorization
section Chief, Richard LaShier at 703-308-8766.
Attachments
cc: Dev Barnes, PSPD
Section Chiefs, Regions I-X
Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
State Program Liasons '
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Summary for State Program Advisory Eleven
The following points briefly highlight the content of SPA 11. These points are organized by
topic.
Checklists
a. New
This SPA provides nine new Checklists (Numbers 83 through 91) covering
RCRA regulatory changes for the period January 1, 1991 through June 30,
1991. These checklists address the following:
corrections to the land disposal restrictions,
suspension of the toxicity characteristic for certain used
chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants,
corrections to the boilers and industrial furnace requirements,
removal of strontium sulfide from the lists of hazardous wastes,
corrections to the organic air emission standards for process vents
and equipment leaks,
administrative stay for the K069 listing,
revision to the petroleum refining primary and secondary oil/water/
solids separation sludge listings,
the third revision to the mining waste exclusion (Bevill), and **
corrections to the wood preserving listings.
All checklists are in RCRA Cluster I. Revision Checklists 83, 84, 87 and 89
contain HSWA provisions only. Revision Checklists 86, 88 and 90 contain
non-HSWA provisions, and Revision Checklist 85 and 91 contain both.
SPA 11 includes a Consolidated Land Disposal Checklist updated through
June 30, 1991, including the January 31, 1991 amendments to the Third
Third rule.
b. Existing
No changes were made to existing checklists.
Cluster Information
• SPA 11 delineates timeframes by which States must obtain authorization for
RCRA Cluster I. The checklists in SPA 11 close this cluster. The due date
is July 1, 1992 (July 1, 1993 if a statutory change is necessary). For further
information on the cluster rule, see September 26, 1986 (51 FR 33712), and
the OSW memo of November 6, 1992.
SAM
This SPA provides updated Tables G-1 and G-2, a Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement, and a Checklist Linkage Table to insert into the SAM.
SUM11 - 11/12/92 Printed: »1S93|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
STATE PROGRAM ADVISORY #11
A. STATE PROGRAM CHANGES FOR JANUARY 1, 1991 - JUNE 30, 1991
1. Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes; Technical
Amendments
Date: January 31, 1991 Reference: 56 FR 3864-39281
Effective: January 31, 1991
Summary: On June 1, 1990, EPA published regulations promulgating congressionally-
mandated prohibitions on land disposal of the Third Third scheduled wastes (55 FR 22520;
Revision Checklist 78). The technical amendments addressed by this January 31, 1991
rule do not create any new regulatory requirements; rather, they restate and clarify existing
requirements by correcting a number of errors in the June 1, 1990 final rule.
State Authorization: This is a HSWA rule and will be included in RCRA Cluster I. The
State modification deadline is July 1, 1992 (or July 1, 1993 if a State statutory change is
necessary). All changes go into effect immediately. Both interim and final authorization
are available. The State revision application must include a revised program description,
an AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist
83, and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 83 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
2. Toxicitv Characteristic; Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants
Date: February 13, 1991 Reference: 56 FR 5910-5915
Effective: February 5, 1991
Summary: This interim final rule suspends the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule for
Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants that are recycled and that were used as the heat
transfer fluid in a refrigeration cycle in totally enclosed heat transfer equipment. These
chlorofluorocarbons include CFC-11, CFC-113, and the other Chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants,
including HCFCs. Examples of the equipment in which these CFCs may be used include
mobile air conditioning systems (e.g., those used in mass transit vehicles), mobile
refrigeration (refrigerated trucks and rail cars), and commercial and industrial air
conditioning and refrigeration systems. After promulgation of the TC rule (55 FR 11798;
March 29, 1990; Revision Checklist 74), the Agency received information that the rule could
1 Note the volume number on this Federal Register incorrectly reads "Vol. 55." It
should read "Vol. 56."
DTEXT11 - 3/06/92 prim*: 6/17/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
cause certain used C PCs to be subject to hazardous waste regulations because they
exhibit the TC. The concern is that subjecting used CFC refrigerants to Subtitle C
regulations will promote continued or increased venting, increasing the levels of ozone-
depleting substances in the stratosphere. To allow time for gathering additional information
and for giving all relevant facts careful consideration, the Agency is suspending the TC rule
for used refrigerants which exhibit the toxicity characteristic and which are recycled. The
exemption only applies if the refrigerants are reclaimed for reuse.
State Authorization: This is a HSWA rule and will be included in RCRA Cluster I. The
standards promulgated in this rule are narrower in scope than would be imposed in the
final Toxicity Characteristics rule. Therefore, States are not required to mandate the
management of specified CFCs in order to retain their RCRA authorization. States may,
however, impose requirements that are broader in scope or more stringent than those
imposed under Federal regulations. As such, the checklist developed for this rule has
been designated as optional. If a State chooses to adopt these provisions, it must include
in its application a revised program description, an AG Statement addendum, an addendum
to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 84 and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 84 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
3. Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
Date: February 21, 1991 Reference: 56 FR 7134-7240
Effective: August 21, 1991 (except technical corrections to §270.73 are effective
February 21, 1991)
Summary: This rule expands controls on hazardous waste combustion to regulate air
emissions from the burning of hazardous waste in boilers and industrial furnaces.
Emissions of toxic organic compounds, toxic metals, hydrogen chloride, chlorine gas and
particulate matter are controlled under the rule. In addition, owners and operators of
boilers and industrial furnaces are subject to the general facility standards applicable to
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Further, hazardous waste
storage units at regulated burner facilities are subjected to Part 264 permit standards. The
rule also takes final action on two pending petitions for rulemaking: 1) halogen acid
furnaces are designated as industrial furnaces, and 2) coke and coal tar fuels produced by
recycling coal tar decanter sludge, EPA Hazardous Waste No. K087, are classified as
products rather than solid waste. Technical corrections to regulations dealing with loss of
interim status for facilities that achieved interim status as of November 7, 1984 are also
made. (Note: A July 17, 1991 (56 FR 32688; Revision Checklist 94) notice made
numerous technical corrections to the February 21, 1991 rule. These technical corrections
are addressed by SPA 12.)
State Authorization: The majority of this rule is promulgated pursuant to HSWA. Non-
HSWA provisions include those for sludge dryers, carbon regeneration units, infrared
incinerators, and plasma arc incinerators. However, this rule does not make distinction
between the different types of incinerators; as such, this rule's provisions are non-HSWA as
DTEXT11 - 3/06/92 |Prim»d: 6/15/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
they apply to the previously listed non-HSWA burning devices. As applied to all other
regulated burning devices, the regulations are considered promulgated under HSWA. EPA
will implement the HSWA provisions in authorized States until States modify their programs
and such modifications are approved by EPA. The non-HSWA provisions are applicable in
only those States which are unauthorized. In authorized States, the non-HSWA
requirements will not be applicable until the States revise their programs to adopt
equivalent requirements under State law.
Both the HSWA and non-HSWA provisions will be included in RCRA Cluster I. States may
apply for either interim or final authorization for the HSWA provisions; only final
authorization is available for the non-HSWA provisions. Interim authorizations expire
January 1, 2003. The State modification deadline is July 1, 1992 (or July 1, 1993 if a
State statutory change is needed). The State revision application must include a revised
program description, an AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if
appropriate), Revision Checklist 85, and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 85 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
4. Removal of Strontium Sulfide From the List of Hazardous Waste; Technical
Amendment
Date: February 25, 1991 Reference: 56 FR 7567-7568
Effective: October 31, 1988
Summary: This technical amendment corrects the October 31, 1988 rule (53 FR 43881;
Revision Checklist 57) in which EPA took regulatory action to remove strontium sulfide from
the list of hazardous waste. Because of an error in the amendatory language in that 1988
rule, the chemical was not removed from 40 CFR 261.33 or Part 261, Appendix VIII in the
most recent editions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This technical amendment
corrects that error by removing strontium sulfide from the two lists.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included in RCRA Cluster I.
The standards promulgated in this technical amendment reduce the scope of existing
Federal regulations. Therefore, States are not required to modify their program to adopt
these provisions unless a State has chosen to remove strontium sulfide from its lists of
hazardous wastes (i.e., adopted the Revision Checklist 56 provisions). In this latter case, a
State would need to adopt the Revision Checklist 86 provisions to assure that strontium
sulfide has been properly removed from its lists. As such, Revision Checklist 86 is
considered a conditionally optional checklist. The modification deadline for those States
who choose to adopt these provisions is July 1, 1992. Only final authorization is available.
The State revision application must include a revised program description, an AG
Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision Checklist 86,
and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
DTEXT11 - 3/06/92 [Printed: 6/15/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 86 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
5. Organic Air Emission Standards for Process Vents and Equipment Leaks: Technical
Amendment
Date: April 26, 1991 Reference: 56 £R 19290
Effective: December 21, 1990
Summary: This technical amendment corrects the June 21, 1990 rule (55 FR 25454;
Revision Checklist 79), which promulgated final standards limiting organic air emissions as
a class at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that are subject to
regulation under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This
technical amendment corrects typographical errors and does not alter the requirements of
the standards.
State Authorization: This is a HSWA rule and will be included in RCRA Cluster I. The
State modification deadline is July 1, 1992 (or July 1, 1993 if a State statutory amendment
is necessary). The State revision application must include a revised program description,
an AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if appropriate)(, Revision Checklist
87, and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 87 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
6. Administrative Stay for K069 Listing
Date: May 1, 1991 Reference: 56 FR 19951
Effective: May 1, 1991
Summary: This notice administratively stays a portion of the K069 listing so that this listing
does not apply to slurries generated from air pollution control devises that are intended to
capture acid gases and are not dedicated chiefly to controlling particulate air emissions.
The original listing of K069 was intended to apply to the lead-rich particulates captured by
secondary smelting air pollution control devices utilized for controlling particulate matter.
However, the literal language of the listing encompassed not only this residue, but sludges
captured by other types of air emission control equipment. This latter group of sludges are
unlike those EPA intended to list in terms of physical form, volume and toxicity. In the
near future, EPA intends to amend the language of the K069 listing to clarify the scope of
listing to exclude sludges generated by air pollution devices that are not a plant's chief
means of controlling lead emissions. In the interim, however, the Agency has granted a
limited administrative stay of the K069 listing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 705 so that the listing
does not apply to the slurry generated by the Exide (a company examined closely by the
Agency as part of this administrative stay) acid gas scrubber or to any other similar waste.
DTEXT11 - 3/06/92 |Prim«j: e/15/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
The administrative stay will remain in effect until 30 days after completion of rulemaking
dealing with the scope of the K069 listing.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included in RCRA Cluster I. As
this administrative stay narrows the scope of existing regulations, States are not required to
adopt this change. As such, this checklist has been designated as optional, for those
States choosing to adopt this stay, the modification deadline is July 1, 1992 (or July 1,
1993 if a State statutory change is required). The State revision application must include a
revised program description, an AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if
appropriate), Revision Checklist 88, and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 88 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
7. Revision to F037 and F038 Listings
Date: May 13, 1991 Reference: 56 FR 21955-21960
Effective: May 2, 1991
Summary: This interim final rule revises the definition of listed wastes that were made in
regulations promulgated in a November 2, 1990 (55 FR 46354; Revision Checklist 81) final
rule. These wastes, designated as F037 and F038, are generated in the separation of
oil/water/solids from petroleum refinery process wastewaters and oily cooling wastewaters.
The Agency is revising the definition of wastes subject to the F037 and F038 listings to
state that sludges from non-contact, once-through cooling waters are not included. Also,
the Agency is amending the definition of petroleum refinery secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludge, F038, to clarify that floats generated in aggressive biological treatment
units are not included in the listing description of that waste stream.
State Authorization: This is a HSWA rule and will be included in RCRA Cluster I. This
interim final rule revises and narrows the scope of the existing listing for primary and
secondary oil/water/solids separation sludge. Under RCRA 3009 States remain free to
impose more stringent requirements than those imposed under Federal regulations, i.e.
States may choose to regulate wastes from non-contact, once-through cooling wastes or
aggressive biological treatment units or may require other more stringent conditions upon
management of these wastes. As such, Revision Checklist 89 is designated as optional.
For States choosing to adopt the Revision Checklist 89 provisions, the modification
deadline is July 1, 1992 (or July 1, 1993 if a State statutory change is necessary). The
State revision application must include a revised program description, an AG Statement
addendum, and addendum to the MOA (if appropriate), Revision checklist 89, and
associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of the SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 89 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
DTEXT11 - 3/06/92 print*: 6/15/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
8. Mining Exclusions III
Date: June 13, 1991 Reference: 56 FR 27300
Effective: July 15, 1991
Summary: This final rule provides the Agency's final regulatory determination for 20
special wastes from the processing of ores and minerals, as required by RCRA
§3001(b)(3)(C). The Agency has concluded that regulation of these wastes under RCRA,
Subtitle C is inappropriate and will instead regulate 18 under Subtitle D and two
(phosphogypsum and process waste from phosphoric acid production) under TSCA. EPA
also plans to use existing RCRA §7003 or CERCLA §106 authorities to address any site
specific ground water contamination problems that may pose imminent endangerment to
human health or the environment. A ban on utilizing elemental phosphorous production
slag in construction and/or land reclamation has been postponed.
The overall purpose of this notice is to present the rationale and salient facts EPA used in
making the above outlined decisions.
State Authorization: This is a non-HSWA rule and will be included in RCRA Cluster I.
Only final authorization is available. The modification deadline is July 1, 1992 (or July 1,
1993 if a State statutory change is necessary). The State Revision application must
include a program description, an AG Statement addendum, and addendum to the MOA (if
appropriate), Revision Checklist 90, and associated State regulations.
Sam Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 90 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
9. Administrative Stay for F032. F034 and F035 Listings
Date: June 13, 1991 Reference: 56 FR 27332-27336
Effective: June 5, 1991
Summary: This notice administratively stays the listing of F032, F034 and F035 in process
areas at wood preserving plants. The primary effect of this stay is to conditionally extend
the effective date for the drip pad management standards to February 6, 1992 for
upgrading existing drip pads and to May 6, 1992 for installing new drip pads. Also
administratively stayed are: 1) certain management standards for drip pads; 2) the
inclusion of past users of chlorophenolic formulation in the listing description for certain
F032 wastes; and 3) the scope of wastewaters that do not come into contact with
preservative.
States cannot extend the stays of the F032 listing beyond the dates given in this rule,
since these are HSWA compliance dates. Any State extensions beyond these dates are
invalid. For F034 and F035 listings, States may adopt reasonable stays based on dates of
State adoption.
DTEXT11 -3/06/92 (Printed 6/15/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
State Authorization: EPA considers that both the F032 listing and the new Subpart W drip
pad standards (when applied to the management of F032 wastes) are based on HSWA
authority. This administrative stay defers EPA's implementation and enforcement of the
HSWA-based requirements. On the other hand, the listings of F034 and F035, and the
Subpart W drip pad standards that govern the management of these wastes, are
considered to be based on pre-HSWA authority. For unauthorized States, the effect of this
stay will also be to defer the EPA's implementation and enforcement of the F034 and F035
provisions. In authorized States, however, the non-HSWA requirements will not be
applicable until the State modifies its program and obtains approval for the revisions from
EPA.
Because this administrative stay makes existing regulations less stringent, States are not
required to adopt these changes and, as such, Revision Checklist 91 is considered
optional. However, the Agency strongly encourages States to adopt the deferred effective
dates. For States choosing to do so, the modification deadline is July 1, 1992 (or July 1,
1993 if a State statutory change is necessary). The State revision application must include
a revised program description, an AG Statement addendum, an addendum to the MOA (if
appropriate), Revision Checklist 91, and associated State regulations.
SAM Update: Updates to Tables G-1 and G-2 of Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney
General's Statement of Appendix E and the Checklist Linkage Table of Appendix H are
necessary to reflect the addition of this checklist. These revisions are addressed in
Section B of this SPA. A copy of Revision Checklist 91 and its associated FR notice may
be found in Attachment A.
B. REVISIONS TO SAM
The addition of nine new checklists necessitated revisions to Tables G-1 and G-2 of
Appendix G, the Model Revision Attorney General's Statement in Appendix D, and the
Checklist Linkage Table in Appendix H. These revised tables and model are included in
Attachment B and should replace the relevant parts in the SAM Manual. Specific revisions
are detailed below.
The revised Tables G-1 and G-2 (pp.4-29) should replace pages 4 through 27 of
SAM, Appendix G.
The Revised Attorney General's Statement (pp. 9-53) should replace pages 9
through 50 of SAM, Appendix E. New entries were added at I A(20), (21)&(22); I
R, S & T; II B; XV N; XVI X; and XX C. The following entries were revised I
A(12)&(17); I J(2); XV L; and XXI F & G.
The Revised Checklist Linkage Table (pp. 3-7) should replace pages 3 through 6 of
SAM, Appendix H.
The technical amendments made to the Third Thirds Rule at 56 FR 3864 (January 31,
1991; Revision Checklist 83) necessitated the updating of the Consolidated Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) checklist. This revised Checklist is also included in Attachment B and
includes changes to the LDR regulations through June 30, 1991.
DTEXT11 - 3/06/92 (Print** 6/15/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541 00-17
ATTACHMENT A
New Revision Checklists and
Corresponding Federal Register Articles
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments
56 FR 3864-3928'
January 31, 1991
RCRA Cluster I
Note: On June 1, 1990, EPA published regulations promulgating prohibitions on land disposal of
the Third Third scheduled hazardous wastes (see Revision Checklist 78; 55 FR 22520). The final
rule addressed by this present checklist corrects errors and clarifies the language in the preamble
and regulations of the June 1, 1990 final rule. States adopting the Revision Checklist 78
provisions are strongly encouraged to adopt these technical amendments simultaneously,
particularly due to the many revisions to 268.41, 268.42, 268.43 and the Part 268 appendices.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
£Q.OIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
add parenthetical
phrase regarding
characteristic wastes,
no longer exhibiting
a characteristic, that
still may be subject
to 268 requirements
261.3(d)m
SUBPART C - CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERAL
insert "used"
after "This
number must be"
261.20(b)
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
2 revise description
of F039
261 .31 (a)
January 31, 1991 - Page 1 of 15
CL83.11 • 12/23/91
(Primed H/5/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 262 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION
replace "subpart D of
this part" with
"subpart D of 40 CFR
Part 261"
262.1 1(c)
SUBPART C - PRE-TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
ACCUMULATION TIME
replace "and" between
"section" and "the
requirements" with ";";
add "the requirements
of 40 CFR
268.7(a)(4r
262.34(d)(4)
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART A - GENERAL
DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE IN THIS PART
replace "paragraph
(g)(6)" with
"paragraph (f)"
insert "wastewaters
are" after "F005"
at beginning of
paraaraph
remove "(as
generated) that" after
"wastewaters"; add
", as generated." at
end of paragraph
268.2(d)
268.2(W1)
268.2(W2)
January 31, 1991 - Page 2 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
[Printed: 11/5/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
replace "Inorganic
Solid Debris are" with
"Inorganic Solid
Debris means"; insert
"contaminated with
D004-D011 hazardous
wastes" after "solids";
insert "; and" after
"sieve"; remove the
comma and insert
"; and, are" after
stabilization
replace periods at the
end of each sub-
paragraph with
semicolons
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.2(a)
268.2(d)(1M7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE ANALYSIS AND RECORDKEEPING
replace "or section
268.43 of the part"
with "of this part, if a
generator's waste is
listed in 40 CFR
Part 261, Subpart D";
delete "developed";
replace "Appendix I of
this part" with "Part
261, Appendix II"; add
sentence regarding
268 Appendix IX test-
ing or knowledge of
waste to determine if
waste exhibiting one
or more characteristics
is restricted from land
disposal
268.7(a)
January 31, 1991 - Page 3 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
|Print«d: 11/5/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
replace "may" with
"must either be
included, or"; revise
the information that
must be included on
the notification to
include the applicable
wastewater or non-
wastewater category
and waste code sub-
division; change
"treatment standards
appear" to "applicable
treatment standard
appears"
replace "may" with
"must either be
included, or"; revise
the information that
must be included on
the notification to
include the applicable
wastewater or non-
wastewater category
and waste code sub-
division; change
"treatment standards
appear" to "applicable
treatment standard
appears"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(1)(ii)
268.7(a)(2)(i)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
January 31, 1991 - Page 4 of 15
CL83.11 - 127H791
|Pnnt«d 11/5/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
replace "may" with
"must either be
included, or"; revise
the information that
must be included on
the notification to
include the applicable
wastewater or non-
wastewater category
and waste code sub-
division; change
"treatment standards
appear" to "applicable
treatment standard
appears"
redesignate
268.7{a)(6)
as (a)(7); add new
paragraph (a)(6) re-
garding conditions
under which a
generator, managing a
restricted waste ex-
cluded from the
definition of hazardous
or solid waste, must
place a one-time
notice containing
specified information
in the facility's file
redesignate old
268.7(a)(6) as
268.7(a)(7); add a
sentence stating that
the paragraph applies
even when charac-
teristic is removed
prior to disposal or
waste is excluded
or exempted
redesignate old
268.7(a)(7) as
268.8(a)(8)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(3)(ii)
268.7(a)(6)
268.7(a)(7)
268.7(a)(8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EdUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
January 31, 1991 - Page 5 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
(Printed 11/5/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA-,
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
redesignate old
268.7(a)(8) as
268.7(a)(9)
redesignate old
268.7(a)(9) as
268.7(a)(10)
replace "may" with
"must either be
included, or"; revise
the information that
must be included on
the notification to
include the applicable
wastewater or non-
wastewater category
and waste code sub-
division; change
"treatment standards
appear" to "applicable
treatment standard
aoDears"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(9)
268.7(a)(10)
268.7(b)(4)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
January 31, 1991 - Page 6 of 15
CL83.11 • 12/23/91
[Printed 11/5/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EOTJIVT
ALENT
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
SPECIAL RULES REGARDING WASTES THAT EXHIBIT A CHARACTERISTIC
replace "each waste
code" with "each EPA
Hazardous Waste
Number (waste
code)"; replace "carry
a waste code
designation" with
"carry the waste
code"; replace ", and
also" with ". In
addition, the waste
will carry"; replace
"waste code
designations" with "of
the waste codes";
replace "the relevant
characteristic." with "a
characteristic,"; add
exception clause re-
garding the case when
the treatment standard
for the waste code in
261 , Subpart D is
used in lieu of that for
261 , Suboart C
delete from the notifi-
cation requirements
the "treatability
group(s)" and add
requirements for the
applicable wastewater
or non-wastewater
category and waste
code sub-divisions
268.9(a)
268.9(d)(1)(ii)
January 31, 1991 - Page 7 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
[Printed: 11/5/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- I MORE I BROADER
ALENT STRINGENT IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - FIRST THIRD WASTES
remove Hazardous
Waste Nos. K048,
K049, K050, K051,
K052, and K061
(containing 15% zinc
or greater); retain only
K071 and revise
grammar of paragraph
to reflect a single
waste
268.33(b)
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - THIRD THIRD WASTES
add in alphanumeric
order: "F002
(1 ,1 ,2-trichloroethane),
F005 (benzene), F005
(2-ethoxy ethanol),
F005 (2-nitro-
propane)"; "F025";
"K015 (nonwaste-
waters)"; ", reactive
nonwastewaters)" after
"K046 (wastewaters";
"and (high zinc sub-
category > 15% zinc)"
after "K061 (waste-
waters)"; ", calcium
sulfate nonwaste-
waters)" after "K069
(wastewaters"; and
"P026"; delete:
"(wastewaters)" after
"K083"; "(waste-
waters)" after "P018";
"P109"; and "(waste-
waters)" after "U120"
268.35(a)
January 31, 1991 - Page 8 of 15
CL83.11 -
[Printed 11/5/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
delete "(nonwaste-
waters)" after "P087";
delete "and"
after "U151
(nonwastewaters)";
change "inorganic
solids debris" to
"inorganic solid
debris"; change
"268.2(a)(7)" to
"268.2(a)"
add "268.10, 268.11,
and" before "268.12";
add language pertain-
ing to soil or debris
contaminated with
mixed radioactive/
hazardous wastes
delete "or" before
"vitrification"; insert
"acid leaching
followed by chemical
precipitation, or
thermal recovery of
metals," after
"vitrification"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(c)
268.35(d)
268.35(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ECU IV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
January 31, 1991 - Page 9 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
[Printed: 11/5/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
"Appendix I of this
part" is replaced by
"Appendix II of Part
261 " in the first
sentence; "These
wastes" replaces the
repetition of the waste
code numbers;
"Appendix I of this
part or the test
method in appendix II
of part 261" is
replaced by "40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix II,
or the test method in
Appendix IX of this
part" in the second
sentence; "value
shown in Table CCW"
is replaced with "con-
centrations shown in
Table CCWE"
268.40(a)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
Table CCWE is re-
vised to read as
shown at
56 FR 3880-3884,
January 31, 1991;
also see explanation
of revisions at
56 FR 3868-3869
268.41 (a)/
Table CCWE
January 31, 1991 - Page 10 of 15
CL83.11 • 12723/91
(Printed 11/5/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541,00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"KiUlV^"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGIES
add "," after "264,
subpart O";
change "part 268,
subpart C" to
"part 268,
subpart D,";
insert "a" before
"specific HOC."
add new paragraph
(a)(3); mixture of
wastewater (discharge
of which is subject to
Clean Water Act) and
de minimis losses of
materials that meet
the criteria of D001
ignitable liquids with
greater than 10% TOG
is subject to Table 1
DEACT treatment
standard; de minimis
defined
1 revise Table 1 as
shown at
56 FR 3884-3885;
also see explanation
of changes at
56 FR 3869
1 revise Table 2 as
shown at
56 FR 3885-3891;
also see explanation
of changes
at 56 FR 3869
1 revise Table 3 as
shown at
56 FR 3891-3892;
also see explanation
of changes
at 56 FR 3869
268.42(a)(2)
268.42(a)(3)
268.42(aVTable 1
268.42(a)/Table 2
268.42(a)/Table 3
January 31, 1991 - Page 11 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
(Prmtod 11/5/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA.il
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
revise Table CCW as
shown at
56 FR 3892-391 1 ;
also see explanation
of changes
at 56 FR 3869-3870
insert "by a footnote
in Table CCW" before
"in this section"
insert "standards"
after "treatment";
insert comma after
"Part 264, subpart O";
delete "40 CFR"
before "part 265"
revise paragraph to
refer to the treatment
or disposal facility
revise last sentence
so that "detection
limits" for the
"regulated" organic
constituents
are achieved
268.43(a)/Table CCW
268.43(c)
268.43(0(1)
268.43(0(2)
268.43(0(3)
APPENDIX IV TO PART 268
ORGANOMETALLIC LAB PACKS
revise Appendix IV as
shown at 56 FR 3912;
also see explanation
of changes at
56 FR 3870
Aooendix IV
January 31, 1991 - Page 12 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
[Printed: 11/5/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG IS:
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX V TO PART 268
ORGANIC LAB PACKS
revise Appendix V as
shown at 56 FR 3912;
also see explanation
of changes at
56 FR 3870
Appendix V
APPENDIX VII TO PART 268
TABLE 1. - EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (NON-SOIL AND DEBRIS)
REGULATED IN THE LDRs - COMPREHENSIVE
1 revise Appendix VII to
reflect two tables
rather than one table;
Table 1 is shown at
56 FR 3912-3919;
also see explanation
of changes at
56 FR 3870
Appendix VII/Table 1
TABLE 2. - SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVE DATES OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS FOR
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DEBRIS (CSD)
1 revise Appendix VII to
reflect two tables
rather than one table;
Table 2 is shown at
56 FJR 3919-3920;
also see explanation
of changes at
56 FR 3870
Appendix VI I/Table 2
January 31, 1991 - Page 13 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
[Printed 3/18/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA^J.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 268
NATIONAL CAPACITY LDR VARIANCES FOR UIC WASTES
1 revise Appendix VIII
as shown at
56 FR 3920; also see
explanation of
changes at
56 FR 3870
Appendix VIII
APPENDIX IX TO PART 268
EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (EP) TOXICITY TEST METHOD AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
TEST (SW-846. METHOD 1310A)
1 add new appendix
which describes an
interim method to
determine whether a
waste exhibits the
characteristic of EP
Toxicity as shown at
56 FR 3920-3927;
also see discussion
at 56 FR 3870-3871
Appendix IX
PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMIT
PERMIT MODIFICATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE
add a footnote symbol
to the Class 1
designation at B.1.b.
270.42/Appendix I
Note that the volume number on this Federal Register notice is incorrect. It should be 56
rather than 55; 55 was the volume corresponding to 1990.
January 31, 1991 - Page 14 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/25791
[Printed 11/5/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 83: Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
The Federal Register (56 FR 3877) contains a typographical error in the revised description of
F039. The reference to "F023" in the parenthetical phrase was inadvertently left out. States
should not remove "F023" when revising their F039 description.
The Federal Register (56 FR 3877) incorrectly changes the period at the end of 268.2(g)(8) to
a semicolon. States are advised to retain the period because 268.2(g)(8) is the last
subparagraph in a series of eight pertaining to various inorganic or metal materials.
January 31, 1991 - Page 15 of 15
CL83.11 - 12/23/91
(Printed: 11/5/92)
-------
Thursday
January 31, 1991
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 148, et al.
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes; Final Rule
-------
3864
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 21 / Thursday. January 31, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part* 148,261,268, and 270
[FRL-3866-4]
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendment.
SUMMARY: On June 1.1990. EPA
published regulations promulgating
congressionally-mandated prohibitions
on land disposal of certain hazardous
wastes. This notice corrects errors and
clarifies the language in the preamble
and regulations of the June 1.1990 final
rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on
January 31.1991.
ADDRESSES: The RCRA docket is open
'from 9:30 to 3:30. Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays, and
is located at the following address: EPA
RCRA Docket (OS-305). Room M-2427.
401 M Street. SW.. Washington. DC
20460. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials
by calling (202) 475-9327. Refer to
Docket number F-90-L13A-FFFFF when
making appointments to review any
background documentation for this
nilemaking. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages of material from
any one regulatory docket at no cost;
additional copies cost $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll-
free) or (202) 382-3000 In the
Washington. DC metropolitan area. For
technical information contact Rhonda
Crait;. Office of Solid Waste (OS-320W).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street. SW.. Washington. DC
20460. (r03) 308-8462.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
I. Reasons And Basis for Today's Amendment
II. Summary of Amendments to the Third
Thiril Final Rule
A. Section 14d.lO
B. Section 153.18
C. Sec non 261.3
0. Section 21.1.20
E. Section 261.31
F. Section 262.10
C. Section 262.11
H. Section 262.34
I. Section 268.2
). Section 268.7
K. Section 268.9
L Section 268.10
M. Section 268.12
N. Section 268.33
0. Section 268.35
P. Section 268.40
Q. Section 268.41
R. Section 268.42
S. Section 268.43
T. Part 268. Appendices IV end V
U. Part 268, Appendices VII and VIII
V. Part 268. New Appendix IX
W. Section 270.42
III. Clarification of Certain Aspects of the
Third Third Final Rule
A. Status of Wastes Listed Solely Because
They Exhibit a Characteristic.
B. Applicability of Land Disposal
Restrictions to Characteristic Used Oil
C. Clarification of i 268.42|a)(2) as it
Applies to Wastes Being Burned For
Energy Recovery.
0. Clarification of the Inorganic Debris
Classification.
E. Applicability of Criteria for Inorganic
Debris to Flue Slag.
F. Applicability of Soil and Debris Capacity
Variance.
G. Identification of Wastes as Either Listed
or Characteristic.
H. Classification of Wastes on { 268.7
Notifications.
I. Treatment Standards For Newly Listed
P002 and FOOS Constituents.
|. Applicability of trm National Capacity
Variance For Radioactive Mixed Wattes
to Mixed Radioactive/0002 Wastes.
K. Applicability of Treatment Standards to
D001 High TOC Wastes That Have
Undergone Phase Separation.
L Clarification of MACRO Treatment
Standard in 5 268 42, Table 3.
M Applicability of Mercury Wastewatcr
Treatment Standards.
N. The Dilution Prohibition.
IV. Rationale for Immediate Effective Date
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
I. Reasons and Basis for Today's
Amendment
The Agency has received comments
from the regulated community and State
agencies requesting clarification on
certain aspects of the fane 1.1990 Third
Third final rule (55 FR 22520). Today's
rule responds to these concerns.
Several typographical errors were
identified in the preamble: however, the
Agency did not correct them in this
notice. The vast majority of errors
identified in the preamble were not
substantial and. thus, required no
corrections since the context clearly
provided the meaning of the misspelled
word. The Agency decided not to
provide corrections to the preamble
because it is long, its organization is
complex, and describing where the error
was. what the correction should be. and
why the correction was necessary
would be cumbersome and would be
difficult to understand. In fact, the
Agency believes that such corrections
would actually be of very limited: value
to the reader.
Q, Summary of Amendments to the
Third Third Final Rule
Several amendments have been macffll
to the regulations in response to
questions about the Third Third final
rule and to correct inadvertent
omissions. An explanation is provided
below for each of the amendments made
in today's rule.
A. Section 148.10. Treatment
standards were established for certain
newly listed constituents (i.e.. benzene.
1.1.2-trichloroethane. 2-ethoxyethanol,
and 2-nitropropane) in the F002 and FOOS
spent solvent wastes in the Third Third
final rule. However, the Agency failed to
include the prohibition effective date for
these wastes when they are injected
underground in hazardous waste
injection wells. The Agency intended
that such wastes be prohibited as of
August 8.1990 (off-site injection) or
November 8.1990 (on-site injection) (see
55 FR 22G48 for a discussion of
combustion of liquids). This inadvertent
omission is being corrected in today's
rule. Effective dates are established
today for prohibitions on injection of
these wastes in both off-site/commercial
and on-site hazardous waste injection
facilities that are consistent with the
effective dates promulgated in the Third
Third final rule.
B. Section 148.16. Two waste codefli
U087 and U139. were inadvertently
included in the Third Third final rule.
Treatment standards and prohibition
effective dates were established for
U087 in the Second Third final rule (see
54 FR 26647 and 8 148.16). Iron dextran.
U139. was dropped from the hazardous
waste listings in 1988 (53 FR 43381).
These wastes were included In § 148.16
in the Third Third final rule by mistake:
therefore, these two waste codes have
been deleted from this section in today's
rule.
C. Section 281.3. In the Third Third
final rule. EPA discussed at length that
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes could permissibly be established
below the characteristic level so long as
the wastes were prohibited from land
disposal—that is. (in most cases)
provided they exhibited a hazardous
waste characteristic at the point of
generation. (See e.g., 55 FR 2C651-22653:
see also § 268.43 establishing treatment
standards below characteristic levels for
certain characteristic wastes.) Since the
rule was promulgated, several persons
have asked if 5 263.1(b) of the
regulations—which states that wastes
which are excluded or exempted hat
regulation under part 261 are not »••
to part 268—is inconsistent with
regulation below characteristic levels.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3865
Section 268.1 (b) is consistent with
EPA'e regulatory approach. This is
because although S 281.3 (c)(l) and
(d)(l) indicate that wastes no longer
exhibiting characteristics are not
hazardous wastes, those provisions
need not be read to create an outright
exclusion or exemption. This distinction
is subtle, however, and EPA has decided
to place a clarifying cross reference in
§ 261.3(d) indicating that characteristic
wastes no longer exhibiting a
characteristic may nevertheless still be
subject to the provisions of part 288.
D. Section 261.20. A typographical
error in paragraph (b) has been
corrected by inserting the word "used"
after the word "be" in line 8.
E. Section 261.31. On page 22619 of the
preamble, it is clear that F039. multi-
source leachate. is defined as leachate
that is derived from the treatment
storage, or disposal of more than one
listed hazardous waste (see also 54 PR
8264. February 27.1989). The Third Third
regulatory language, however, failed to
specify that multi-source leachate is
only that leachate that is derived from
more than one listed waste. Therefore.
the listing description of F039 in S 261.31
is amended in today's rule to reflect this
definition.
A question has also arisen ss to
whether more than one newly listed
waste, for which treatment standards
have not yet been promulgated, may
constitute F039. As the basis for the F039
listing included in appendix VII of part
281 clarifies, the Agency did not intend
the F039 listing to include listed wastes
without promulgated treatment
standards. (In addition, it is clear from
the background document that EPA only
examined leachates composed of wastes
that currently are restricted from land
disposal in developing the treatment
standards for F039 leachate.) Therefore.
the listing description of F039 in { 261.31
is amended in today's rule to specify
that only listed wastes that are also
restricted are included in F039.
In addition, in order to determine
whether one has F039. it is necessary to
first determine that the waste meets the
definition of leachate. Once it is
established that the waste is leachate. it
is necessary to determine whether it is
derived from one or more listed
hazardous wastes in order to be
considered F039. Confusion has arisen
regarding the definition of leachate
found at 40 CFR 260.10 as it applies to
F039. multi-source leachate. The
definition found in S 260.10 states that
leachate is "any liquid, including any
suspended components in the liquid.
that has percolated through or drained
from hazardous waste." The confusion
primarily concerns the phrase "*
or
drained from since, if applied
generally to all liquids that drained from
hazardous wastes, wastewaters such as
filtrate would be included in the
definition of leachate. The Agency did
not intend that such wastewaters be
included in the definition of leachate: in
order to determine if a waste is F039.
only the liquids that have percolated
through land disposed wastes ("land
disposal" having the meaning of RCRA
section 3004(k)) are considered to be
leachate. not liquid treatment residues.
Language has been added to the
description of F039 in 8 261.31 to clarify
this point.
F. Section 262.10. Today's notice
corrects an oversight in Note 2 of 40 CFR
262.10. This note is corrected to include
part 268 in the standards and
requirements that apply to generators
who treat store, or dispose of hazardous
waste on-site.
C. Section 262.11. An inadvertent
error is being corrected in S 262.11. A
reference was made to waste listed in
"subpart D of this part", which refers, of
course, to part 282. Wastes are actually
listed as hazardous in subpart D of part
261. The regulatory language is being
changed to make the correct reference to
part 261.
H. Section 262.34. On page 22870 of
the preamble, the Agency specified that
generators treating prohibited wastes in
§ 262.34 tanks and containers must
prepare a plan justifying the frequency
of testing their treatment residues to
ascertain compliance with the treatment
standards. The reason this requirement
was imposed was to close a regulatory
gap: these tanks and containers were
not subject to a waste analysis plan
requirement and. thus, there was no
regulatory vehicle for determining the
testing frequency in such 'circumstances.
In contrast, under the requirements of
§ 268.7(b). treatment facilities treating
prohibited waste must test their
treatment residues according to a
frequency determined in their waste
analysis plan.
The Agency inadvertently omitted a
discussion of how these new
requirements apply to small quantity
generators of greater than 100 kilograms
but less than 1000 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a calendar month
that treat in S 262.34 tanks and
containers. It was the Agency's
intention that such small quantity
generators be included under the new
procedures since the procedures are
being instituted to close a regulatory
gap. and since the same regulatory gap
exists for smail quantity generators as
for large quantity generators. In not
distinguishing between types of
generators. EPA believes that the rule
expressed the Agency's intent that all
regulated generators (i.e.. those
generating greater than 100 kg/mo, or
greater than 1 kg/mo, acute hazardous
waste) must comply with the new waste
analysis requirements when so treating
their restricted wastes. Today's rule
further clarifies that small quantity
generators (100-1.000 kg/mo.) treating in
§ 262.34 tanks and containers must
follow the same \ 268.7(a)(4) waste
analysis procedures as large quantity
generators. However, conditionally
exempt small quantity generators as
defined in 40 CFR 261.5. remain exempt
from these and other part 288
requirements.
I. Section 268.2. Typographical errors
are corrected in the definition of
nonwastewaters, F001. F002. F003. F004.
F005 wastewaters, and K011. K013, KOI4
wastewaters.
The definition of inorganic solid
debris in 40 CFR 288.2(g) is corrected by
clarifying that in order to meet the
definition of inorganic solid debris, the
debris can be contaminated with only
the hazardous wastes specified as 0004-
D011. This was clearly stated in the
preamble on pages 22555-22556; the
regulatory language has merely been
changed to reflect the preamble
language.
I. Section 268.7. It was explained on
preamble page 22660. under the heading
Newly Identified TC Wastes, that
wastes exhibiting the toxicity
characteristic by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) but not the Extraction Procedure
(EP) are newly identified wastes and.
therefore, are not subject to the land
disposal restrictions at this time.
(Notr The actual language of the preamble
says that these wastes "are not presently
prohibited This was an incorrect use
of the term "prohibited." These wastes are
not presently restricted; therefore, they are
not subject to any of the requirements of the
land disposal restrictions, including waste
analysis and recordkeeping.)
Questions have arisen regarding the
applicability of the EP for purposes of
the land disposal restrictions once the
TC rule becomes final (September 25.
1990 for large quantity generators.
March 29.1991 for small quantity
generators) (35 FR 11798. March 29.
1990). Today s technical amendment
addresses this issue.
There are two points under the land
disposal restrictions when either the EP
or the TCLP must be used: (1) When
determining whether a generator has a
restricted waste (waste
characterization), and (2) when
determining whether a treated waste
complies with the concentration-based
-------
3866 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Tharsday. January 31. 1931 / Rules and Regulations
traatraent standards (measuring
compliance). The confusion seems to
stem from waste characterization rather
than from measuring compliance.
Under the requirements of the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule, on
September 25.1990 (or March 29.1991)
the TCLP must be used initially to
determine whether a waste is
hazardous. II a waste, as generated,
does not exrubit the amended toxioty
characteristic (as measured by the
TCLP), it is not subject to the land
disposal restrictions nor to any other
subtitle C regulation (assuming the
waste is not listed acd does not exhibit
any other hazardous waste
characteristic). This is the case even if
the waste would have been identified as
hazardous by the old Extraction
Procedure. On the other hand, if tae
vaste does exhibit the Toxicity
Characteristic, then the next step is to
determine if the Third Third prohibition
applies to it. That prohibition applies to
wastes that are hazardous and that
exhibit EP toxicity at the point of
generation. In other words, after the
effective date of the TC rule, a waste
must first exhibit the Toxicity
Characteristic and. if it also exhibits EP
ioxicity, it is subject to the Third Third
final rule. Section 2S8.7fa) has been
changed in today's rule to clarify this
point.
Additionally, since treatment
standards were promulgated only for the
EP toxic metals (D004-D011) and EP
toxic pesticides (D012-D017), only these
toxic characteristic constituents are
presently subject to the land disposal
restrictions: the additional 25 organic
! oxic constituents that were added in
ihe March 29.1990 final rjie are
considered newly identified wastes not
yet subject to the land disposal
restrictions (unless they are regulated
constituents in listed hazardous wastes).
The second point, that of measuring
compliance with treatment standards
and when the EP cr TCLP is to be used.
is also addressed on preamble page
22860. under the heading Use of TCLP v.
FP Analytical Methods for Compliance.
See section 11.0 below discussing
changes being made to § 2C8.40 to
correct the regulatory language
pertaining to use of the EP or the TCLP
for measuring compliance.
In addition, on preamble page 22868,
the Agency explained that it is
satisfactory to reference the applicable
regulatory provisions on notification*
for all restricted wastes except spent
solvents (FOOl-FOOS). multi-source
leachate (F039). and the California list
wastes, for which the treatment
standards themselves (and not such a
reference) must appear on the
notification. (This is because a
regulatory cross-reference would be
ambiguous for these three types of
waste:.) The intent of this provision is
that either the applicable treatment
standards must appear on the
notification: or the reference to the
applicable regulatory provision where
the treatment standards are found. Some
persons, however, have found the
regulatory language in { 288.7(a)(i}(ii).
(2)(i)(B). (3)(ii). and (b)(4](ii) ambiguous,
leading to the question of whether any
treatment standard at all must appear
en the notification. This regulatory
language is being changed in today's
rale to clarify that for spent solvents,
multi-source leachate, and California list
wastes, the applicable treatment
standards must appear on the
notification: for all restricted wastes
other than spent solvents, multi-source
leachate. and California list wastes.
either the applicable treatment
s'andard. or the reference to the
applicable treatment standard, must
appear on the notification.
Also on page 22888. the Agency set
cut what information should be included
on the notification when applicable
treatment standards were referenced. It
was specified that, among other things.
the waste's subcategory and treatability
group must be identified. Questions
have arisen about the difference
between "treatability group" and
"subcategory." The Agency intended for
purposes of the notification that
"treatability group" refer to the
classification of the waste as either a
wastewater or a nonwastewater as
defined in i 26&2(d) and (f). and that
"subcategory" refer to the subdivisions
made within a treatability group based
on additional waste-specific criteria
(such as DQ03 reacOve cyanides).
In past rulemakings and in other parts
of the Third Third preamble, however.
r.o such distinction is made between the
terms "treatabihty group" and
" jubcategory"; rather, these terms are
used intercnangeably. This has resulted
in confusion as to what is required on
:he notification when treatment
standards are referenced. The Agency is
clarifying this issue in today's rule by
changing the language of § 288.7(a)(l)(ii).
(a)(2)(i)(B). (a)(3)(ii). and (b)(4)(ii) to
describe exactly what must be included
on the notification, and omitting the
t jrms "treatability group" and
subcategory." Therefore, when
treatment standards are referenced on
the notification, the following
information should be included: The
subdivisions made within a waste code
based on waste-specific criteria (such as
D003 reactive cyanides), whether the
waste is a wastewater or a
nonwastewater. and the CFR secnonfs)
and paragraph(a) where the applicable
treatment standard appears. \
On preamble page 22662. the Agency
explained that the tracking requirements
of $ 288.7 apply to restricted hazardous
wastes, even when the hazardous
characteristic is removed prior to
disposal, or when the waste is excluded
from the definition of hazardous or solid
waste under § 281.2-9 281.6 subsequent
to the point of generation. Under this
requirement, al) generators of restricted
hazardous wastes most have, at
minimum, a one-time record
(notification) in the facility files that
indicates the generation of a restricted
hazardous waste and its disposition.
While this requirement was clearty
stated in the preamble, it was not
included in the regulatory language
because it was believed that such
information should already exist in the
facility files to justify the absence of
Subtitle C regulation. It has come to the
attention of the Agency that some
generators may not have been aware
that such information should be pteced
in their files. To clarify, therefore, that a
one-time notification must be placed in
the facility's files, this requirement has
been edded to the regulatory language
in today's notice. (This specific
regulatory requirement will be appliq^
prospectively.)
Questions have also arisen regarding
the applicability of this requirement to
wastes subject to a 5 281.2-S 281.8
exclusion, expressing concern that this
requirement would impose
recordkeeping requirements on
nonhazardous wastes. The Agency
maintains that such would not be the
result of this requirement; only restricted
hazardous wastes will be impacted. The
key to understanding this requirement is
to look at the point that the exclusion
attaches to the waste. In the example
and discussion provided on page 22862,
it is clear that the § 261.4{a)(l) exclusion
does not attach to the waste until it
passes through the sewer system to a
POTW. Since the land disposal
restrictions apply of Lhe point of
generation, and the } 261.4(a)(l)
exclusion attaches to the waste at a
point subsequent to the point of
generation, the waste is a restricted
waste. A notice should be made of the
generation of this restricted waste and
ihe fact that it was discharged to a
POTW. Additionally, even though the
example given in the preamble
discussed a characteristic waste, the
same would be true for a listed wasl
under the same circumstances. Fo|
reason, this tracking requirement I
been added to i 288-7. which spphes to
> 1Mb
ras^
m
-------
Federal Ragiater / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regniatiom 3867
both listed and characteristic wastes.
rather than to { 288.9. which applies
only to characteristic wastes.
K. Section 268.9. Paragraph (a) is
being revised in today's rule to clarify
that the waste identification
requirements of paragraph (a) are
consistent with paragraph (b) of that
section. Paragraph (a) specifies that for
purposes of pan 268, a waste will carry
a waste code for any applicable listing,
and also one or more waste codes when
the waste exhibits a relevant
characteristic. This seems, to conflict
with the requirements of paragraph (b)
where it is stated that the treatment
standard for the listed waste will
operate in lieu of the characteristic
treatment standard, provided that the
treatment standard for the listed waste
includes a treatment standard for the
constituent that causes the waste to
exhibit the characteristic. Questions
have arisen about which waste codes
should be included on notifications in a
situation where the treatment standard
for the listed waste operates in lieu of
the characteristic treatment standard.
The Agency's intent was that when
the listed waste treatment standard
operated in lieu of the characteristic
treatment standard, the listed waste
code would be included on the
notification in lieu of the characteristic
waste code (see 55 FR 22659). Paragraph
(a) of S 268.9 is therefore being amended
in today's final rule to more clearly
reflect the Agency's intent. Preamble
section m. of today's rule discusses in
detail how to identify a waste as either
listed or characteristic on notifications.
A change is also being made in
5 268.9(d)(l)(ii) to more clearly identify
the information to be included on the
notification for waste* that have been
rendered oonhazardout through the
removal of the characteristic. A question
has arisen as to what is meant by the
term "treatability group" (see the
discussion above regarding changes
being made to I 26&7(a)(l)(ii).
(a)(2)(f)(B). (a)(3Hii). and (b)(4)(ii) to
clarify information to be included on
notifications pursuant to f 2fl&7). Thii
term is being omitted from
§ 2B8.9(d)(l)(ii). and is replaced by
clarifying language that specifies that
the following information should be
included: The subdivisions made within
a waste code based on waste-specific
criteria (such as 0003 reactive
cyanides), whether the waste is a
wastewater or a noawaatewater. and
the CFR section(s) and paragnph(s)
where the applicable treatment standard
appears.
L Section 268.10. On page 22594 of the
Third Third preamble, the Agency stated
that the wastes listed a» K048. K049.
K050, K051. and K052 were being
rescheduled from the First Third to the
Third Third. The Agency neglected to
remove these waste codes from i 268.10:
this oversight is being corrected in
today's rule by removing these wastes.
M. Section 268.12. As explained in
section L above, the wastes listed as
K048. K049. K050. K051. and K052 were
rescheduled from the First Third to the
Third Third, and thus, they had a new
prohibition effective date (May 8,1990).
The Agency neglected, however, to
•include this rescheduling in the
regulatory language. Therefore, today's
notice corrects that bookkeeping
oversight by including these waste
codes in i 268.12.
N. Section 268.33. Paragraph (b) set
out the prohibition effective date for the
wastes listed as K048. K049. K050. K051.
and K052. K061 high zinc category, and
K071 (no change is being made in
today's rule to the K071 prohibition
effective date). As explained in section
ILL above. K048. K049. K050. KOS1. and
K052 were rescheduled from the First
Third to the Third Third, and thus, they
had a new prohibition effective date
(May 8.1990).
(Note: Thi Agency granted theM wattes a
six-month national capacity variance In th«
Third Third final rula that extend* the
effective data for that* waatM from May 8.
1990 until November 8.1900. The prohibition
effective data for theie waite codes U found
at i 268.35(0).)
The Agency neglected, however, to
remove the effective date that was set
out in the First Third final rule (53 FR
31217) for K048, K049. K050. KOS1. and
KOS2. Today's notice, therefore, corrects
this oversight by removing these waste
codes from i 288J3(b).
Additionally, on preamble page 22590.
the Agency stated that it was
appropriate to extend the interim K061
treatment standard (the treatment
standard for low zinc K061 with less
than 15% zinc) as an alternative to high
temperature recovery for one additional
year. The Agency failed in the Third
Third final rule, however, to omit the
prohibition effective date for KOQt high
zinc category from i 268.33; this
oversight is corrected in today's rule.
(Section 268£5(a) is also corrected in
today's rule to clarify that effective
August 8.1990. K061 wastes containing
15% or greater zinc are prohibited from
land disposal pursuant to the treatment
standards specified in I 26841
applicable to K061 wastes that contain
less than 15% zinc. See section 1LO.
below.)
O. Section 266U& Certain
typographical errors were identified in
the prohibition language of 1288.35 (a)
and (c). Also, a few of the specified
treatability groups (e.g., wastewater.
nonwaatewater) were inaccurate and
did not correspond with the preamble.
In some cases, the inaccuracy of the
treatability groups was due to the fact
that treatment standards for either the
wastewater or nonwastewater form of
certain wastes were promulgated in
previous rulemakings but. they were
inadvertently included in the language
at { 268.35. These errors are corrected in
today's notice.
In addition, the prohibition effective
date for the interim treatment standard
for the K081 high zinc category was
discussed in the preamble, but was
inadvertently omitted from the
regulatory language. On preamble page
22599. the Agency stated that it was
appropriate to extend the interim K061
treatment standard (the treatment
standard for low zinc K061 with less
than 15% zinc) as an alternative to high
temperature recovery for one additional
year. Section 268.35(a) and the entry for
K061 in S 268.41. Table CCWE. are
corrected in today's rule to clarify that
effective August 8.1990. and continuing
until August 7.1991. K061 wastes
containing 15% or greater zinc are
prohibited from land disposal pursuant
to the treatment standards specified in
} 288.41 applicable to K061 wastes that
contain leas than 15% zinc.
The language of § 288.35(d) is also
being changed to clarify that radioactive
waste mixed with any scheduled
hazardous waste is subject to a two-
year national capacity variance. This
capacity variance was in effect for
mixed radioactive/scheduled wastes
prior to today's notice because all First
Third and Second Third mixed
radioactive wastes were rescheduled to
the Third Third in previous rulemakings.
Today's correction merely clarifies that
Third Third mixed radioactive wastes
include those that were originally in the
First and Second Third of the schedule.
Note, however, that mixtures containing
spent solvent wastes, listed dioxin
wastes, or California list wastes are not
subject to such capacity variances.
An additional clarification is being
made to i 288J5(d). On preamble page
22650. it was stated that a national
capacity variance was granted to soil
and debris contaminated with mixed
radioactive wastes. This particular
subset of radioactive mixed/hazardous
wastes was not set out in the regulatory
language of i 28&3S(d) because this
subset was subject to the broader
national capacity variance granted to all
mixed radioactive/scheduled hazardous
wastes. A question baa ariaea, however.
about the applicability of this national
-------
3868 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
capacity variance to soil and debris. In
response to this question and to avoid
any future confusion, language has been
added to S 268.35(d) specifying that the
two year national capacity variance also
applies to soil and debris contaminated
with mixed radioactive/scheduled
hazardous wastes (i.e., wastes listed in
§ $ 268.10. 268.11. 268.12).
The language of { 268.35(e) is being
modified in today's rule to add two
additional technologies (acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation, and
thermal recovery of metals) to the two
year national capacity variance for soil
and debris contaminated with wastes
that have treatment standards based on
these technologies. While it was not
directly addressed in the preamble that
a two-year national capacity extension
should be granted for soil and debris
contaminated with wastes for which
these technologies are BOAT, it was
explained that the Agency believes
there is inadequate capacity for the
treatment atony wastes by these
technologies (see 55 FR 22635). Process
wastes for which BOAT was determined
to be either of these technologies were
granted a national capacity variance. By
extension, it is only logical (and the
result EPA intended) that these
technologies be added to the
technologies qualifying for a soil and
debris national capacity variance.
P. Section 268.40. The language of
$ 268.40 is being amended to clarify that
either the TCLP or the EP may be used
when measuring compliance with the
treatment standards for certain arsenic-
and lead-containing hazardous wastes.
On preamble page 22660, under the
heading Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical
Methods for Compliance, it was
explained that most treatment standards
for characteristic wastes were set based
on data generated from use of the TCLP;
thus, compliance with such standards
must be measured using the TCLP.
There were two exceptions, however, in
the Third Third final rule: treatment
standards for characteristic lead
nonwastewater (D008). and for certain
arsenic-containing nonwastewaters
(DOM. K031. K084. K101. K102, P010.
P011. P01Z P036, POM, and U136). For
these wastes, the Agency specified that
if a waste does not achieve the
nonwastewater treatment standard
based on analysis of a TCLP extract but
does achieve the standard based on
analysis of an EP extract the waste is in
compliance with the treatment standard.
This action was taken because the data
used to develop the treatment standards
for these wastes were based on EP
toxiciry leachate data.
The regulatory language in i 288.40(a)
of the Third Third final rule said that
either the test method in appendix I of
this part (268), or the test method in
appendix II of part 261. could be used to
measure compliance with the lead and
arsenic nonwastewater treatment
standards. (Until promulgation of the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC] final rule
(55 FR 11798) on March 29,1990.
appendix I of part 268 described the
TCLP. and appendix II of part 261
described the EP.) In the TC final rule,
however, the TCLP was removed from
part 268, appendix I. Part 261. appendix
II was also amended to include the
procedures for the TCLP. not the EP. The
Third Third regulatory language referred
to the appendices as they existed before
promulgation of the TC final rule.
Therefore, the regulatory language in the
Third Third final rule was incorrect.
This language is amended in today's
rule to clarify that either the procedure
found in part 261, appendix II (TCLP). or
the EP that is being added in today'ti
rule to part 268 (Appendix IX), may be
used for measuring compliance with the
treatment standards for the specified
arsenic and lead nonwastewaters.
Q. Section 288.41. A small number of
typographical errors are corrected in
Table CCWE. Changes are being made
to the format of the table as weU. In
particular, the treatment standards for
D-. F-. and K-coded wastes and the
treatment standards for P- and U-coded
wastes have been unified so they appear
in one table. All footnotes have beim
moved to the end of the table. Also, all
superscripted symbols that were used to
designate footnotes have been changed
to superscripted numbers, to comply
with the style requirements of the
United States Government Printing
Office.
Also in Table CCWE. EPA
promulgated a treatment standard of
0.021 mg/1 (based on analysis of a TCLP
leachate) for lead in nonwastewater
forms of F024. Several commenters have
since pointed out difficulties in
achieving this standard, due primarily to
their inability to achieve this level of
detection. The Agency examined the
data it used to develop this treatment
standard and found a discrepancy in the
data. This discrepancy, in the Agency's
view, appears to substantiate
commenters' claims. The promulgated
treatment standard for lead thus
appears to be unachievable based on
detection limits. As a result, the Agency
is amending the treatment standard for
lead in F024 nonwastewaters to a
reserved status, until such time that the
Agency can propose and promulgate a
revised treatment standard. The Agency
has taken this action for several
reasons: (1) The performance date
utilized to establish the standard
contain discrepancies in detection
limits: (2) sufficient data have been
submitted to raise questions about the
achievability of the standard: (3)
compliance with the existing standard
appears to be unachievable: (4) facilities
generating the wastes are already
treating the wastes with the
technologies identified by the Agency as
BOAT and thus lead is being treated; (5)
the treatment standards for other metals
are being achieved: (6) while the
treatment standard for lead is not being
achieved, no lead is being detected in
the TCLP leachate; (7) the length of time
needed to establish a national
treatability variance for these wastes
would put all generators out of
compliance even though they are using
technologies considered to be BOAT;
and, (8) additional treatment would not
be expected to achieve compliance with
the promulgated treatment standard of
0.021 mg/1.
The Agency is also amending Table
CCWE to indicate that the treatment
standard for high zinc K061 wastes is
the existing interim treatment standard
based on the performance of
stabilization technology that EPA
promulgated as part of the First Th|
rule and extended for one addition^^*
year as part of the Third Third final rule.
The Agency is adopting this position in
partial response to the Court's mandate
in American Petroleum Institute v. EPA.
906 F.2d. 729 (D.C. Cir. 1990). In that
case, the Court held that due to a
misapprehension of the scope of its
jurisdiction over hazardous wastes
being recycled, the Agency had failed to
establish a treatment standard for the
slag residue resulting from processing
high zinc K061 dusts by high
temperature metal recovery. 908 F.2d at
742. The Court remanded the case to the
Agency to determine whether to
establish a treatment standard in light of
the Court's clarification of the
potentially broader scope of jurisdiction
over recycling activities. Id.
EPA is of the view that unless and
until it acts to promulgate a new
treatment standard for high zinc K081
waste, those wastes can be land
disposed if they meet the interim
numerical standards based on the
performance of stabilization technology.
An alternative reading would be that the
Court invalidated the treatment
standard for high zinc K061 and left no
treatment standard in its place.
triggering the mandatory prohib
RCRA section 3004(g)(6)(C). T
does not interpret the opinion in this
-------
Fedarat RegbUr / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3869
way. It would prevent land disposal of
wastes treated by BOAT (see 55 FR
22598-22599. June 1.1990: and 53 FR
31221. August 17.1988. indicating that
nigh temperature metal recovery is
BOAT for high zinc K061). EPA is
convinced that the Court did not intend
to bar treatment residues from the best
treatment for high zinc K061 from land
disposal. Thus, the Agency is
interpreting the opinion to mean that so
long as the slag residues meet a
treatment standard, they are not
prohibited from land disposal. The only
treatment standard for high zinc K061 at
the present time is the interim standard
based on performance of stabilization
that the Agency left in place as part of
the Third Third rule. Consequently, at
the present time, if high zinc K061 is
treated by high temperature metal
recovery and meets these interim
numerical treatment standards, it is not
prohibited from land disposal. The
Agency notes further that since this
interim standard lapses on August 7.
1991. the Agency will have to take some
action before that date to avoid the
absolute prohibition of the statutory
hard hammer in RCRA section
3004(gK8)(q.
The Agency notes further that it is not
addressing any other issue raised by the
API opinion in this notice. The Agency
is continuing to study the opinion and its
implications, and hopes to address these
issues in the relatively near future.
R. Section 208.42. Two typographical
errors were corrected in paragraph (a)(2)
in today's rule. A small number of
typographical errors are also corrected
in Table 2. In addition, all superscripted
symbols that were used to designate
footnotes have been changed to
superscripted numbers, to comply with
the style requirements of the United
States Government Printing Office.
A clarification is also being made in
§ 268.42(a) by adding new paragraph (3).
This clarification is necessary because
the Agency inadvertently omitted the
inclusion of an alternate treatment
standard for de minima leaks to
wastewater treatment systems subject
to Clean Water Act controls of certain
in-process materials that only becomes
wastes when they are "discarded" (as
that term is used in { 281.33). The
circumstances involved roughly parallel
those described in the exemption to the
mixture rule established in
§ 261 -3(a)(2)(iv)(D) for de minim is losses
of discarded commercial chemical
products listed in | 281.33.
The potential problem arises for those
characteristic wastes for which the
Agency established a discrete method of
treatment as the treatment standard—-
the example identified to the Agency
being high TOC ignitable wastes for
which some type of combustion is the
prescribed method of treatment. De
minimis leaks of chemical products (that
are not P or U wastes listed in 5 281.33)
may display a characteristic of
hazardous waste. In most cases, these
leaks are collected in the facility's
wastewater treatment system. If the
leaking product displays a characteristic
of corrosivity. reactivity, or low TOC
tgn:lability, the treatment standard
established in $ 283.42 is DEACT
(deactivation), under which treatment
standard dilution of the waste in the
wastewater treatment system, or other
wastewater treatment is permissible'in
order to remove the applicable
characteristic. If. however, the leaking
product displays the characteristic of
ignitability and falls into the high TOC
(greater than 10% TOC) subcategory. the
treatment standard established in
§ 268.42 is incineration or fuel
substitution, and wastewater treatment
to meet the treatment standard is
impermissible. This means that the
mixture of wastewater and high TOC
ignitable liquid waste product would be
subject to the incineration or fuel
substitution treatment standard.
The Agency did not intend to apply
this treatment standard to de minimis
leaks of high TOC ignitable product
mixtures when the treatment standard
for high TOC ignitables was established.
EPA established the high TOC ignitable
waste subcategory because these
wastes were amenable to combustion
technologies, and ordinarily could be
segregated from other wastes in order to
be combusted (see 46 FR 58588.
November 17,1981). In addition, there is
an economic incentive to avoid losses of
these material* because they are still in
the product stream. Id. The Agency did
' not intend, in the Third Third rule, that
such losses must be captured and
destroyed by combustion. Rather.
provided such losses are de minimis and
involve only materials that are not yet
wastes up until the moment of
inadvertent loss, deactivation is an
appropriate treatment standard, as it is
for other ignitable wastes.
The Agency is defining de minimis in
much the same manner as that used in
$ 261.3. except that today's definition
does not include discharges from safety
showers and rinsing and cleaning of
personal safety equipment nor does U
include rinsate from empty containers or
from containers that are rendered empty
by that rinsing (ie.. the third rinse in
triple rinsing). These activities, the
Agency believes, would not (and
certainly, should not) involve high TOC
ignitable wastes. Segregation, of rinsate
also is possible. In. addition, the Agency
notes that to be considered de minimis,
any losses of high TOC materials would
have to be from "normal material
handling operations", and thus, would
not include constant leaks or large-scale
spills. The amendment to the treatment
standard adopted today is thus limited
to small losses of high TOC product (or
other material still in the manufacturing
pipeline at the time of the de minimis
loss) that are, for practical purposes.
infeasible to capture for combustion at
their point of generation. Finally, the
leak must be to a wastewater system
subject to regulation under the Clean
Water Act as provided in the existing
regulation dealing with de minimis
losses of commercial chemical products
in 5 261.3. This condition ordinarily
assures that some treatment of the
waste will occur (see 46 FR 58586.
November 17.1981).
Wastewater treatment standards for
two wastes, P015 and P087, were
inadvertently omitted from Table 2 in
the Third Third final rule. On preamble
page 22817 it is clearly stated that the
treatment standards for all forms of
P015 and P087 is metal recovery
(RMETL) or thermal recovery (RTHRM).
These wastewater treatment standards
are added to Table 2 in today's rule.
An inadvertent error is corrected in
Table 3. The treatment standard for
D009—Hydraulic oil contaminated with
mercury radioactive materials was
specified as INC1N (incineration). The
treatment standard should have been
IMERC (incineration of wastes
containing organics and mercury in units
operated in accordance with the
technical operating requirements of 40
CFR part 284. subpart O. and 40 CFR.
part 265. subpart O. with residues
complying with the corresponding
treatment standard). This treatment
standard is being corrected in today's
rule.
S. Section 268.43. Several
typographical errors are corrected in
Table CCW. Changes are being made to
the format of the table as well. In
particular, the treatment standards for
0-, F-. and K-coded wastes and the
treatment standards for P- and U-coded
wastes have been unified so they appear
in one table. All footnotes have been
moved to the end of the table. Also, all
superscripted symbols and numbers that
were used to designate footnotes have
been changed to superscripted numbers
only, to comply with the style
requirements of the United States
Government Printing Office.
Additionally, a substantive correction
is being made in footnote 3 to clarify
inconsistencies between the preamble
and the regulatory language. On page
-------
3870 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 19tH / Ruiea and Regulations
22S78 of the preamble, the Agency
discussed new specifications on the
sample size and distillation time
required for cyanide analyses for the
land disposal restrictions. The preamble
discussed these changes in terms of the
SW-648 test method 9012. and specified
that the sample size must be 10 grams.
The footnote on page 22710 in Table
CCW refers to method 9010 and
specifies a range of sample sizes from
0.5 to 10 grams. These inconsistencies
were unintended and have caused
confusion: the preamble discussion
correctly stated EPA's position.
Therefore, footnote 3 following Table
CCW is being changed in today's notice
to specify that either Method 9010 or
9012 must be used to analyze cyanide.
the sample size is 10 grams (not a
range), and the distillation time is one
hour and fifteen minutes.
Additionally, a correction has been
made in { 268.43(c) to clarify that only
the organic constituents indicated in
Table CCW with a footnote (1) qualify
for the new procedures for certifying
compliance with a treatment standard
when a treater claims to have analytic
detection problems or that are discussed
on preamble pages 22541-22542. Slight
changes are also being made to clarify
that the procedures apply only to
treaters and disposers (this is implicit in
the discussion at 55 FR 22541 (3)), and to
clarify that the good-faith analytic effort
may be demonstrated by achieving a
detection limit that does not exceed the
treatment standard by an order of
magnitude.
T. Part 268. Appendices IV and V. On
page 22629 of the preamble, the Agency
specified that for wastes placed in lab
packs and included in Part 268
Appendix IV—Organometallic Lab
Packs, an alternate treatment standard
must be met: incineration as a required
method, followed by treatment to meet
the applicable EP toxic metals (D004-
D006. and D010-D011). While appendix
IV includes wastes containing other
metals, the Agency believes that
requiring compliance with the treatment
standards for EP toxic metals will
reasonably assure treatment of other
metals, particularly when these wastes
are stabilized.
The Agency also promulgated an
alternate treatment of incineration as a
required method for wastes contained in
lab packs and included in Appendix V—
Organic Lab Packs. There is no specific
requirement to stabilize the residues
from the incineration of these wastes.
The Agency inadvertently included
several metal-bearing wastes in the
appendix V. The purpose of establishing
two separate appendices was to
distinguish the wastes that are organo-
metallics from those that are just
organic. The inclusion of these metals in
appendix V contradicts the basis for the
establishment of two lab pack
categories. Therefore, the following
metal-bearing wastes (or wastes with
treatment standards for metals) are
omitted from appendix V in today's rule:
F024. K001. K015, K021. K022, K031.
K046, K048. K049. K050, K051. K052,
K083. K084. K086, K087. KlOl, K102,
K115. P006. P013. P015. P036. P038. P085.
P073. P074, P087. P092. P096. P099. P103.
P104. P110, P113, P114. P115, P119. P120.
P122. U051. U205, and U214.
Today's rule also corrects
inconsistencies in both appendices for
P-coded wastes containing cyanides.
Data from the incineration of wastes
containing cyanides indicate destruction
of cyanide to detection limits (as
measured in ash). Appendix IV included
four cyanide wastes containing metals
(F013. P074, P099. and P104) and two
cyanide wastes without metals (P063
and P098). A mistake was made.
however, in that several cyanide wastes
(both with and without metals) were not
included in the appendices. Cyanide in
any of these wastes can be destroyed by
incineration. Today's rule corrects these
inconsistencies by adding two cyanide
wastes with metals (P029 and Pi21) to
appendix IV and four cyanide wastes
without metals (P021, P030. P033. and
P106) to both appendix IV and V.
The preamble also stated on page
22629 that mercury-bearing wastes are
prohibited from disposal in appendix IV
lab packs. In fact, all inorganic mercury
wastes are prohibited from inclusion in
an appendix IV lab pack (including
D009. U151. K071 and K106), However.
certain organo-mercury wastes (P065
and P092) were included in appendix IV.
This was due to the fact that the
promulgated treatment standards for
P065 and P092 (when these wastes are
not placed in lab packs) requires
incineration as a pretreatment prior to
recovery of mercury from the ash.
provided the ash exceeds 260 mg/kg of
total mercury. The Agency believes that
these two wastes are generated very
infrequently, are not expected to
constitute a significant portion of any
lab pack, and the organo-mercury
compounds for which P065 and P092
were listed will no longer exist after
passing through an incineration unit.
Stabilization is not expected to provide
significant treatment of the inorganic
mercury that would result from
incineration of these wastes.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the ash
from incineration of the lab pack will
exceed 280 mg/kg (thus ruling out
recovery of mercury). For these reasons.
the Agency is not withdrawing P065 and
P092 from appendix IV at this time. I
Furthermore, the Agency
inadvertently omitted P048 and Pill
(both of which are organic compounds)
from Appendix IV—Organometallic Lab
Packs. These wastes codes were
included in Appendix V—Organic Lab
Packs; therefore, these wastes should
also be included in appendix IV. In a
similar manner, U152 (another organic)
was included in appendix IV, but not in
appendix V. Also, listed wastes F022
and F025 (both organic wastes) were
inadvertently omitted from both
appendices and F039 (which is regulated
for both metals and organics) was
mistakenly omitted from appendix IV.
Today's notice corrects these omissions.
The Agency also included several
waste codes in both appendices that are
currently not regulated under the land
disposal restrictions because they are
wastes that were listed after November,
1984. These waste codes were included
in information supplied by the regulated
community during the comment period,
and the Agency inadvertently included
them in the appendices. The following
wastes are, therefore, omitted from both
Appendix IV and V in today's rule:
K054, K064. K065. Kill. K112. K117.
K118, K123. K124. K125. K126. K136. ,
U328. U353, and U359. Similarly. P02S
and U139 were inadvertently included m
both Appendix IV and V; these wastes
are no longer regulated under Part 261 of
RCRA. These waste codes are removed
from the appendices in today's rule.
Finally, today's notice corrects all
typographical errors in appendices IV
and V (e.g.. U032. U138, U137. U144.
U145. U148. U154. U214. U215. U216. and
U217 were listed in Appendix IV more •
than once).
U. Part 268. Appendices VII and VIII.
Appendix VII and appendix VIII are
intended to be comprehensive lists of
effective dates, arranged according to
hazardous waste code, for all of the
treatment standards promulgated under
the land disposal restrictions. These
appendices are included in part 288 for
the convenience of the regulated
community in determining effective
dates for the entire universe of
hazardous wastes. Several mistakes and
omissions were identified in the
acpendices as they appeared in the
Third Third final rule (55 FR 22715-
22719). These mistakes and omissions
have been corrected in today's notice.
V. Part 268. New Appendix IX. It was
explained in section II.]. that the EJ
the generator's knowledge, must 1
to determine whether a character^
waste is restricted under the land
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3871
disposal restrictions. The methodology
for performing the EP is being provided
in Appendix IX for the convenience of
the reader.
W. Section 270.42. The entry in
appendix I to 5 270.42 is corrected by
adding a footnote symbol to the Class 1
designation that was inadvertently
omitted in the Third Third final rule.
This correction clarifies that the permit
changes associated with F039 (multi-
source leachate) sampling or analysis
methods is a Class 1 permit modification
with prior approval.
IH Clarification of Certain Aspects of
the Third Third Final Rule
Several questions have arisen as a
result of the Third Third final rule that
require clarification in today's rule.
These issues do not require regulatory
amendments.
A. Status of Wastes Listed Solely
Because They Exhibit a Characteristic.
An issue requiring clarification is what
requirements under the land disposal
restrictions apply to wastes that were
listed in part 261. subpart D. solely due
to the presence of a characteristic (such
as ignitability or reactivity), now that
treatment standards have been
promulgated for characteristic wastes.
An example of such a waste is F003.
which is listed because of the
characteristic of ignitability, and for
which treatment standards were
promulated on November 7.1986 (51 FR
40572). Under existing rules, if the
hazardous characteristic is removed
from such a listed waste and the
treatment standard for the listed waste
is met it is no longer considered a
hazardous waste, and therefore, need
not be disposed in a subtitle C facility.
The question has been asked of where
to send the 5 268.7 notification and
certification following treatment and the
removal of the characteristic for these
listed wastes. The needed clarification
stems from the fact that characteristic
wastes that have been treated to remove
the hazardous characteristic may also
be sent to subtitle 0 facilities as
nonhazardous wastes. The
recordkeeping requirements for
characteristic wastes state that in such a
case, the required notifications and
certifications should be sent to the EPA
Regional office or authorized State
agency rather than to the subtitle 0
landfill (see § 268.9(4)). The Agency is
today clarifying that the 8 268.7
notifications and certifications for
wastes listed solely for a characteristic.
that are treated to meet the treatment
standard and for which the
characteristic has been removed, and
that are lawfully disposed in a subtitle D
landfill should be handled following the
procedures of { 288£(d).
Another related question is how the
dilution prohibition should apply to such
a listed waste. The issue stems from the
fact that the dilution prohibition was
modified in the Third Third final rule to
address special issues related to
characteristic wastes (see discussion on
pages 22664-22667 and { 268.3(b)). Since
these listed wastes are somewhat
analogous to characteristic wastes,
some have asked if the S 268.3(b)
dilution prohibition for characteristic
wastes applies to these listed wastes.
The answer is no. The Agency is hen
clarifying that wastes that are listed
under part 261. subpart D, solely for the
presence of a characteristic, are subject
to the dilution prohibition for listed
wastes as stated in \ 268.3(a).
B. Applicability of Land Disposal
Restrictions to Characteristic Used Oil.
Questions have arisen regarding the
applicability of the land disposal
restrictions to used oil displaying a
characteristic of hazardous waste. Used
oil that is recycled in a manner other
than being burned for energy recovery is
exempt from RCRA under 40 CFR
281.8(a)(3)(iii) even if the used oil
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste. Thus, characteristic used oils
that are recycled in this way an exempt
from the part 268 treatment standards.
This exemption should have little
practical impact because most used oil
exhibiting a characteristic Is already
banned from road oiling or use as a dust
suppressant the two principle types of
used oil recycling involving land
disposal (RCRA section 3004(1) and
§286.23).
The land disposal restrictions do
apply, however, to characteristic used
oils that are burned for energy recovery
in boilers and industrial furnaces if that
used oil contains greater than 1000 ppm
total halogens. Under 40 CFR 266.40(c).
such oils are presumed to have been
mixed with the listed spent solvents in
§ 261.31 and are therefore presumed to
be hazardous waste under the "mixture
rule" of | 261.3. Unless this presumption
can be rebutted successfully, these
halogen-containing used oils are subject
to the part 288 treatment standards for
halcgenated solvents in addition to the
special standards for hazardous waste
fuel in part 266, subpart D.
Additionally, characteristic used oil
that is disposed rather than recycled is
subject to part 268. Such used oil thus
must be treated to meet the applicable
characteristic treatment standard prior
to land disposal (unless exempt as a
small quantity generator or as
household waste).
C. Clarification of § 2B8.42(a)(2) as it
Applies to Wastes Being Burned for
Energy Recovery. The Agency removed
industrial boilers and furnaces from the
treatment standard for nonliquid
California list halogenated organic
compounds (HOC*) in the Third Third
final rule (see preamble page 22875 and
! 268.42(a)(2)), after receiving virtually
no comment on its proposal to do so.
The treatment standard, therefore, for
nonliquid hazardous wastes containing
California list HOC* and still subject to
the California list treatment standard is
expressed as a specified method of
treatment: incineration. There appears
to be very few wastes to which this
standard would apply. EPA has
consistently made clear that the
California list prohibitions would
gradually be superseded by the
establishment of treatment standards for
specific waste codes through the First
Second, and Third Third rulemakings
(see 52 FR 25773. July 8, 1987; 52 FR
29993. August 12.1987: 54 FR 48499.
November 22.1989; 55 FR 22875. June 1.
1990).
The Agency republished i 268.42(a)(2)
in the Third Third final rule, and
inadvertently left out the article "a"
from the second sentence (55 FR 22693).
The sentence is corrected today to read:
"The** treatment standards do not tpply
whtra the watte is subject to a part 288.
tubpart C treatment standard for a specific
HOC (such is • hazardous wait* chlorinated
solvent for which a treatment standard is
established under I 2M.41(a))."
Perhaps because of this typographical
error, there has apparently been some
confusion in the regulated community
with respect to { 268.42(a)(2). Some
parties may have believed—by focusing
on the first sentence—that all wastes
containing 1000 ppm or greater HOCs
are precluded from being burned for
energy recovery in boilers or furnaces.
This is incorrect.
Aa the second sentence of
S 268.42(a)(2) makes clear (especially as
corrected), the incineration requirement
does not apply to any waste that is now
subject to a treatment standard for a
specific HOC As EPA has stated on
numerous occasions, because there are
now treatment standards for all HOCs.
"there are virtually no wastes" to which
the Subpart O requirement applies (54
FR 48499. November 22.1989). (The
California list standard would continue
to apply, however, during the period of a
national capacity variance for a more
specific treatment standard (55 FR
22874).
0. Clarification of the Inorganic
Debris Classification. Since
promulgation of the final rule. EPA has
-------
3872 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1M1 / Rules and Regulations
been asked whether material that
separates from inorganic solid debris is
still considered to be inorganic debris.
For example, if dust separates from slag
v.hile the slag is being transported, can
the dust still be considered to be
inorganic solid debris, or must it be
segregated and managed separately.
EPA intended that the determination
cf whether a waste is inorganic solid
debris should be made at the point of
generation of the material. If any of the
r.oofriable waste material does not
completely pass through a 9-5 mm sieve.
then the entire quantity of waste
material qualifies as inorganic solid
debris. In addition, if the waste material
i j friable (i.e.. easily crumbled) but some
cf the pieces (after crumbling) will not
pass through a 9.5 nun sieve, then the
entire quantity of waste material is
considered to be inorganic solid debris.
CPA has discussed this issue at greater
length in a letter from Sylvia Lowrance
tc GJ\. Vogt which letter is part of the
record for this correction notice and is
available from EPA's RCRA docket.
Additionally, wastes appearing to
meet the definition of inorganic solids
debris under § 26&2(g)(8) (metal cans.
containers, drums, or tanks) and (g)(7)
(metal nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps, valves.
appliances or industrial equipment)
often contain organic parts that are
difficult to separate. This occurs
particularly in cases such as: (1)
Industrial process equipment being
dismantled: (2) industrial valves
rcmprised of composites of organic and
inorganic materials: and (3) appliances
c ontmoons multiple connected parts.
Capacity for sizing and separation is
also lacking for this type of inorganic
solid debris, the key factor in EPA's
determination to grant this type of waste
a national capacity variance (55 FR
22850). Thus, die variance for inorganic
solid debris will apply to these
inseparable mixtures except in
situations where, during the dismantling.
the nonhazardoua organic materials or a
significant portion oi the organic
materials are manually separable or
s"parable by simple mechanical means.
Only the inorganic solid debris that are
separated from the nonhazardous
crganics are subject to the national
capacity variance.
E. Applicability of Criteria for
Inorganic Debris to Flue Slag. A
question has arisen about whether
container glass flue slag generated by
the glass manufacturing and packaging
industry qualifies as inorganic solid
debris. Since this material was once
molten and is inorganic, it qualifies as
inorganic solid debris because it is •
s!ag. provided it also complies with all
cf the remaining criteria in S 26&2(g) as
amended in today's rule. (See previous
section of today's preamble on inorganic
solid debris.)
F. Applicability of Soil and Debris
Capacity Variance. A frequent question
is whether the soil and debris capacity
variance only applies to wastes that
have a treatment standard expressed as
a required method of treatment As a
point of clarification, the capacity
variance for soil and debris applies to
soil and debris contaminated with any
waste for which the treatment standard.
whether expressed as a required method
of treatment or as a numerical
performance standard, was based on
incineration, mercury retorting,
vitrification, acid leaching followed by
chemical precipitation, or thermal
recovery of metals (see 55 FR 22049).
G. Identification of Wastes as Either
Listed or Characteristic. A question has
arisen about a perceived inconsistency
between amended 40 CFR 262.11. and
emended 40 CFR part 261. The Agency
is here clarifying that there is no actual
inconsistency between these parts of the
regulation. Amended { 282,11 states two
circumstances in which the
determination of hazardous
characteristic must be made: (1) For
purposes of compliance with 40 CFR
pan 268 (since no further conditions are
specified, the determination must be
made for all solid wastes regardless of
whether or not they are listed hazardous
wastes): or. (2) if the waste is not a
Usted hazardous waste (this includes
wastes that are not subject to the land
r.isposal restrictions, to the
determination must be made only for
solid wastes that are not also listed
v/astes).
H. Classification of Wastes on § 263.7
Notifications. Requests have been made
for an explanation of how to classify
wastes as either characteristic wastes or
listed wastes (when the waste is
considered both characteristic and
listed) for purposes of notifications
required under 40 CFR 268.7. The
preamble explained that the most
specific treatment standard must be met
when a listed waste is also a
characteristic waste (55 FR 22859).
When a listed waste is also a
characteristic waste, the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number (waste code)
for the most specific treatment standard
should be included on the notification. A
variation of this principle also exists. If
the most specific treatment standard is
subject to a national capacity variance
or a case-by-case extension and thus is
not yet in effect then the treatment
standard for the most specific waste
code that is in effect must be met (see 55
FR 22880). This waste code should be
included on the notification.
Scenario l. If both the treatment
standard for a listed waste and the
treatment standard for a characteristic
waste are in effect for common
constituents, then the treatment
standard for the listed waste applies
because it is more specific (§ 268.9(b)). If
the listed waste includes treatment
standards for the same constituents that
give the waste its characteristic (e.g.. the
overlap between the metal standards in
F006 and the EP toxic metals), the waste
code(s) for the characteristic(s) need not
be included on the notification (see
example 1 below). If. however, the
treatment standard for the listed waste
does not specifically address the
characteristic, the waste code for both
the listed waste and the characteristic
waste should be included on the
notification (see example 2 below).
Example 1. Listed waste F008 contains
the EP toxic metal constituents cadmium
(0006), chromium (D007), and lead
(D008). Since the treatment standard for
F006 is more specific and is currently in
effect, the metal constituents are subject
lo the F006 treatment standard rather
than the EP toxic treatment standards
for those constituents. The question has
been asked whether only the F008 wajjg
code should be included on the
generator's biennial report (assuming
the waste is not both TC and EP toxic
because of the presence of other
constituents), notification, and manifest.
or should F006. DOOd. D007. and 0008 bz
included? Only the FOOO waste code
should be included on the biennial
report because it is more specific. Only
the F008 waste code should be included
on the notification, for the same reason.
Only the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) descnption is
required on the manifest (see Form
H 700-22 item 11): there is no Federal
requirement to include the waste code.
If the State requires the inclusion of
waste codes, the F008 code should be
used.
Example 2. Spent pickle liquor. K062.
is an example of a listed waste that has
a treatment standard currently in effect.
This waste is listed for the
characteristics of corrosivity as well as
for toxicity and. thus, would also be
identified as a D002 waste. The question
arises whether it is necessary to put
both the K082 and the D002 waste codes
on the notification. Both the K082 and
D002 waste codes should be included on
the notification because the K082
treatment standard does not specij
address the characteristic of cor
Scenario 2. If the treatment stand
for the listed waste is subject to an
-------
Federal Register'/ Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3373
extension of the effective date (through
e national capacity variance or case-by-
case extension), and the treatment
standard fcr lite characteristic waste is
in effect, then LK.e treatment standard for
the characteristic waste applies because
is is the treatment standard that is
curr:-nt!y in effect.
Example. Ar. example is the listed
waste K.048. which contains chromium
i.DOOr; and lead :D008). KC48 is S'-bjsct
:o a six-rr.Dnth rational capacity
var.ar.cf: cor.secusnily, the treatment
standard is not in effect until November
8.ISC'). The treatment standards for EP
toxic chromium and lead became
effecti•,.<• on Au«n.-st 8.1950 (due to a
nations! .•?paciry variance granted to ail
Third Third wastes).
Dunrg the period from May 8 1990
until August 8.1J90. the waste was
subject to the tnree-month national
capacity variance. K048 was
rescheduled (as was K049. K050. XOS1.
and K052) from the First Third to the
Third Third, and as already mentioned.
a three-month national capacity
variance of the May 8.1990 statutory
effective date was granted that
extended the effective date to August 8.
1390. The notification for K048 during
t.*.e three-mom.1) capacity variance
should have included the K043 waste
code and the date upon which the waste
was subject to this listed xvaste
prohibition. November 8. 1990. The
notification also should have included
the D007 and D003 waste codes and the
date upon which the waste was -subject
to these characteristic waste
prohibitions. August 8,1090.
During the period from August 8.1300
until November 9.1990. the waste is
subject to the treatment standard for E?
toxic chromium and leaJ. since the
effective date for these wastes hcs
passed (the KC48 treatment standard is
not yet in effect). The notification should
include the K04-S waste code and the
date upon which the waste is subject to
this prohibition jNovember 8.1990). as
well as the D007 and D008 waste codes.
The waste must be treated to meet the
D007 and D008 treatment standards
prior to land disposal. See API v. EPA.
906 F.2d 723. 735-36 (D.C. Cir. 1390).
When the effective date for KD48 has
passed (November 8,1S90). the waste
will be governed by the listed waste
code and must meet the treatment
standard for K048. since this treatment
standard is more specific for the EP
constituents. The 0007 and DOCS waste
codes may be omitted from the
notification at that time.
Scenario 3. When a waste is listed
only for toxicity and displays a
characteristic at the point of generation
that is not addressed as a constituent of
concern in the treatment standard, the
ratification must include both the listed
waste code and the characteristic waste
code. The treatment standards for both
the Listed waste and the characteristic
waste must be met (55 FR 22639 and
An example of such a scenario would
be that of the listed waste KC61 [listed
for toxicity only) that also contains
greater ihan 5.0 rng/kg of arsenic (D004).
Arsenic ic not a constituent of concern
•n KOfl. In this case, the DOM waste
code should be included on tha
notification along with the K081 waste
code and the arsenic treatment
ctundard as well as the K061 treatment
standard must be met prior to land
cisposa'.
Scenario 4. EPA also prohibits the
iind disposal of characteristic wastes
when the characteristic is identified at
the point oi disposal (55 FR 22659 and
§ 268.9(c)). If. after treatment a
hazardous waste displays a
characteristic for the first time, the
i hsractenstic coda should be added to
•.he notification (and to the facility
records). The waste must be treated
rqain in order to meet the characteristic
treatment standard prior to land
Disposal.
1. TreciiT.en! Stcr.d-ards For ,\'ewiy
Listed FOC2 end FCfOS Constituents. The
question has arisen of whether the
technology standards for F002 and F005
are triggered by the presence of 2-
nitropropanc and 2-ethoxvethanol. or
whether the waste has to be listed for
those components. The first step in
lifltermining what treatment standard
.ioplies is proper v.-qste identification, if
f» waste is identified E3 F002 and/or as
F005. then the applicable treatment
s'andard fcr that waste must be met
prior to land disposal. Treatment
standards for 2-mtropropane and 2-
elhorye'.hanol aoply to only wastes
lisod as F005 with those constituents.
|. Applicability of the National
Capacity Variance For Radioactive
!>tixzd Wcs:a to .Mixed Radioactive/
DOG2 Wastes. The Agency discussed in
detail on preamble page 22674 the issue
of applying the California list
prohibitions to Third Third wastes that
are granted a national capacity
variance. The Agency is here
reemphasiz.r.g that the two-year
rational capacity variance granted to
mixed radioactive/scheduled wastes
(see 40 CFR 2S8.35(d)} does not apply to
mixed radioactive/0002 wastes meeting
the definition of a California list
corrosive waste in § 238-32(a)(1). The
California list requirements apply to this
mixed radioactive waste.
K. Appliccbil:iy of Treatment
S!cncarc't to D001 Hi'sh TOC IVcstes
That Have Undergone Phase
Srpasation. The treatment standard for
the high TOC subcategory of D001
wastes is a required method of
treatment incineration or fuel
substitution. It has been brought to the
attention of the Agency that this waste
may be pretreated and thus separated
into solid and liquid phases. In some
cases, the solid phase of this waste does
not exhibit the characteristic of
ignitability. The question has been
asked as to what treatment standards
and recordkeeping procedures apply to
the solid portion of this 0001 waste.
As discussed in the preamble at pages
22544. the noncharacteriatic solid phase
r.f this waste would no longer be
regulated under the hazardous waste
regulations, but be subject instead to the
solid waste regulations. Tlia Agency
considers pretreatment processes that
separate phases of a waste to be
acceptable provided that the remaining
material that exhibits the characteristic
is treated by the required technology.
Since the notification requirements
attach to hazardous waste at the point
of generation, this is the properpoint to
evaluate whether such notification is
necessary for the solid waste portion of
the waste. The § 238.7 notification
requirements would not attach to the
solid portion of this waste because, at
the point of generation of this category
of waste, it does not display the
characteristic of ignitability, and is thus
nonhazardous. (As explained on
preamble page 22544. each new
treatability group is a new point of
generation for characteristic wastes.)
The treatment residue from the use of
the required technology rr.ay be sent to a
nonhazardous landfill (provided it
display? no characteristic of hazardous
waste). The generator notification that
accompanied the waste to pretreatrr.cnt.
however, must follow the hazardous
liquid portion of this high TOC D001
waste to the hazardous waste treatment
facility.
L Clarification of MACRO TrecL-.ter.t
Standard in § 2CS.42. Table 3. The
treatment standard for radioactive lead
(DOQ3) solids is a required method of
treatment: Macroencapsulalion
(MACRO). A question has come up
ebou; the applicability of this treatment
standard to mixed hazardous wastes
inside containers made of elemental
lead. The Agency's intent when
developing this treatment standard was
that the mixed hazardous waste inside
the container should be removed and
treated to meet applicable treatment
standards. Only the radioactive
elemental lead container (and not
necessarily its contents) is subject to the
-------
3874 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
treatment standard specified as
MACRO.
M. Applicability of Mercury
Wastewater Treatment Standards.
Clarification of how to apply treatment
standards to wastes containing mercury
in its elemental form is necessary, and is
here included in today's rule.
Concentrated elemental mercury is an
inorganic liquid that Is relatively
insoluble in water. Significantly
quantities of elemental mercury can be
suspended in a mixture with aqueous
wastes, however, such that the
elemental mercury would not be
considered a suspended "solid".
Because of this, aqueous wastes with
suspension* of elemental mercury, and
waste elemental mercury itself, seem to
qualify as wastewaters under the
definitions in 5 26&2(f) because they
contain less than 1% total organic
carbon and less than 1% total suspended
solids.
In the Third Third final rule. EPA
established recovery (Le.. roasting or
retorting) as BOAT for nonwastewater
forms of mercury wastes that contain
greater than 260 mg/kg of mercury. The
primary purpose of these processes is
the recovery of mercury in its elemental
form. It is often difficult to distinguish
between the mercury present in wastes
in its elemental form versus in its
soluble ionic form. The Agency,
therefore, is clarifying that any wastes
that contain greater than 260 mg/kg of
total mercury, but that otherwise appear
to meet the definition of wastewaters,
are, in fact classified as
nonwastewaters that must be recovered.
This is consistent with the fact that the
. 260 mg/kg level far exceeds the
solubility of elemental mercury in water.
Aqueous suspensions of elemental
mercury that contain this much mercury
should be treated by simple physical
separation technologies such as
filtration, decantation. and
centhfugation. with subsequent
recovery of the elemental mercury.
Any wastes containing less than 260
mg/kg total mercury and that otherwise
meet the definition of wastewaters ii|
9 26&2(f) are considered to be mercfl
wastewaters and as such, require
wastewater treatment to the applicable
mercury wastewater levels. The
residues from these treatment processes
would need to be evaluated for
applicability of the wastewater or
nonwastewater standards for mercury.
It is likely that some residues will
contain sufficient total suspended
"solids" to be clearly classified as
nonwastewaters.
N. The Dilution Prohibition. The
Agency has received a number of
questions regarding different aspects of
the dilution prohibition. In response, a
chart has been developed that should
help those in the regulated community to
understand when this prohibition could
apply. It is being included in today's rule
as a convenience to the reader.
-------
DILUTION
Listed Waste
Characteristic
Waste
Is waste or a
treatment residue with
the same treat ability
group, going (or land disposal?
Tovic
Is waste going
too Class I
UIC well?
Dilution is
not prohibited
\
Deactivatlon Is
specified
technology and
dilution is not
prohibited
Is waste going
toCWA
treatment system?
Dilution is
not prohibited;
however, waste must
be below characteristic
when injected
S1
»
fS
o
a>
p
to
3
i
D.
03
a-.
:a
x
3
CO
•Toxic only includes.
D001 (high TCX NWW). DOO3
(cyonides and sulfides). DOM-17
Is technology
specified?
Note: Dilution prohibition does not apply
to wastes with national capacity extenslo
or to wastes going to no migration unit's
Treatment standard Is expressed
as o concentration level and
dilution is not prohibited
I
S
Dilution Is prohibited
-------
3876 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Rationale for Immediate Effective
Date
Today's notice does not create any
new regulatory requirements: rather, it
restates and clarifies existing
requirements by correcting a number of
errors in the June 1.1990 final rule (55
FR 22520). For these reasons. EPA finds
that good cause exists under section
3010(b)(3) of RCRA. 42 U.S.C. 9903(b)(3),
to provide for an immediate effective
date. In additioa there already was full
opportunity to comment on all of these
issues during the rulemaking so that
further comment is unnecessary. For the
same reasons, EPA finds that there is
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to
promulgate today's corrections in final
form and that there is good cause under
5 U.S.C 533(d)(3) to waive the
requirement that regulations be
published at least 30 days before they
become effective. Finally, EPA notes
that although it is not withdrawing any
existing regulatory language, all of
today's revisions operate prospectively.
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and. therefore, subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. Due to the nature of this
regulation (technical amendment), it is
not "major": therefore, no Regulatory
Impact Analysis is required.
list of Subjects in Parts 148.281.282.
268, and 270
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Designated facility,
Environmental protection. Hazardous
materials. Hazardous materials
transporting. Hazardous waste.
Intergovernmental relations. Labeling..
Manifests. Packaging and containers.
Recycling. Reportable quantities.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Waste treatment and
disposal Water pollution control. Water
supply.
Dated: November 27,1990.
Mary A. Cade,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40. chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3004. Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act 42 U.S.C
6901 et *eq.
2. Section 148.10 Is amended by
redesignating paragraph (c) as (e), and
adding new paragraphs (c) and (d). and
Tables A and B to the end of the section
to read as follows:
9 148.10 Waste specific prohibition*—
solvent waste*.
• • « • •
(c) Effective August 8. 1990, all spent
F002 and F005 wastes containing solvent
constituents listed in Table B of this
section are prohibited from underground
injection at off-site injection facilities.
(d) Effective November 8, 1990. the
wastes specified in paragraph (c) of this
section are prohibited from underground
injection at on-site injection facilities.
(e) • ' *
Tible A
Acetone
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Crasols and creiylic acid
Cyclohexanone
1.2-di chlorobenzene
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Uobutanol
Methanol
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride (from the pharmaceutical
industry)
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethylene
Toulene
1.1.1-Trichloroe thane
li2-Trichloro-l.2J-trifluoroe thane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Xylene
Table B
Benzene
2-Ethoxyethanol
2-Nitropropane
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
3. In 8 148.16 paragraph (c) is revised
to read as follows:
, ru//.
m
9148.18 Waste
ific preMbMona
(c) Effective August 6, 1990. the
wastes identified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number F039
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers K002. K003. K005
(wastewaters), K006. K007
(wastewaters). K028, K032. K033. K034.
and KlOO (wastewaters); the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.33 as P008, P009,
P017, P022. P023, P024. P028. P031. P033.
P034. P038, P042, P045. P046. P047, P051.
P056, P084. P065. P073. P075. P078. P077.
P078. P088. P093. P095. P098, P101.1
P116. P118, P119. U001. U004. U006.I
U017. U024. U027, U030. U033. U0347
U038, U039. U042. U045. U048. U052.
U055. U056. U068. U071. U072. U075.
U076. U079. U081. U082. U084. U085,
U09a U091. U096. U112. U113. U117.
U118, U120. Uin. UI23. U125. U126,
U132. U136, U141. U145, U148, U152.
U153, U156, U160, U186, U167. U181.
U182. U183. U184. U188. U187. U191.
U194. U197, U201. U202. U204. U207.
U222. U225. U234, U236, U240. U243,
U248. and U247; and the wastes
identified in 40 CFR 261.21. 261.23 or
261.24 as hazardous based on a
characteristic alone, designated as D001.
D004. D005. D006. D008, D009
(wastewaters), D010. D011. D012. DOT3,
D014. D015, D016. D017. and newly listed
waste F025 are prohibited from
underground injection at off-site
injection facilities.
PART 261—IDENTIF1CATION.AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6012(i). 0821.
6B2Z. and 6838.
Subpart C—Ctiaractsrtsttes of
Hazardous Wast*
2. Section 261.3 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(l) to read as
follows:
9 281.3 Definition of hazardous waste.
• • • • t
(d)* * '
(1) In the case of any solid waste, it
does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste
identified in Subpart C. (However,
wastes that exhibit a characteristic at
the point of generation may still be
subject to the requirements of Part 268.
even if they no longer exhibit a
characteristic at the point of land
disposal.)
• * * * •
3. Section 261.20. paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
9281.20 General.
• * • • •
(b) A hazardous waste which is
identified by a characteristic in this
Subpart is assigned every EPA
Hazardous Waste Number that is
applicable as set forth in this Subpart
This number must be used in CQaalavin
with the notification requiremej
section 3010 of the Act and all
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3877
applicable recordkeeping and reporting 4. Section 261.31(a), the table is § 2*1-31 Hanrtk
requirements under Parts 282 through amended by revising the entry for F039 «P«cHte sourc**.
265.268, and 270 of this chapter. to read as follows: (a)' • •
Industry and EPA
hazardoua wasta
NO.
Hazardous wa*to
Hoard
cod*
F039 __ leachata fliquds that hav« parcolated through land disposed wastes) resulting from tha disposal of more than one restricted w*sia (T)
classified u nf>«rrv>i« unoer Subpart D ol this Part (Leachata reeuWng from th« disposal of one or mora of th« following EPA
Htzsrtoua Waste* and no othar Hazardou* Waste* ratama Ha EPA Hazardoua Waata Numbers): F020. F021, F022. F026, F027.
and/or F02S.)
PART 262—STANDARDS APPUCABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 262
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6906,0012.6022.6923,
6924. 6925. and 6937.
2. Note 2 in { 262.10 is revised to read
as follows:
§262.10 PurpOM, scop*, and •ppUcaMNty.
• • • • •
Note 2: A generator who treats, ttoret. or
ditpoiea of hazardous waste on-lite mutt
comply with the applicable standard* and
permit requirements aet forth in 40 CFR part*
264. 269. 266, 268. *Jld 270.
3. Section 262.11 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 262,11 HtTfrxhr"* WMM determination.
• • « • •
(c) For purposes of compliance with 40
CFR part 268. or if the waste is not listed
in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261, the
generator must then determine whether
the waste is identified in subpart C of 40
CFR part 281 by either
• • • • *
4. Section 262.34 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:
§26134 Accumulation Umax
* * * • *
(d) * * '
(4) The generator complies with the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and
(a)(3) of this section, the requirements of
subpart C of part 265, the requirements
of40CFR268.7(a)(4);and
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 8905, 6912(a), 6921. and
6924.
2. Section 268.2 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d). (f)(l). (f)(2), and
(g) to read as follows:
(a)(10); by revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text (a)(l)(ii). (a)(2)(i)(B).
(a)(3)(ii), (a)(7), (b)(4)(ii). and the section
heading*, and by adding paragraph (a)(6)
to read as follows:
{268.2 Daflnttiona appkfcaWa In this part J2M.7 Waata analysis and racordkaaplno.
(d) Nonwastewaters are wastes that
do not meet the criteria for wastewaters
in paragraph (f) of this section.
• • • • •
tn* • •
(1) POOL F002. F003. F004. FOOS.
wastewaters are solvent-water mixtures
that contain less than 1% by weight TOG
or less than 1% by weight total FOOl,
F002. F003, F004. FOOS solvent
constituents listed In { 268.41. Table
CCYVE.
(2) K01J. K013. K014 wastewaten
contain less than 5% by weight TOG and
leas than 1% by weight TSS. as
generated.
• • • • *
(g) Inorganic Solid Debris means
nonfriable inorganic solids
contaminated with D004-D011
hazardous wastes that are incapable of
passing through a 9.5 mm standard
sieve: and that require cutting, or
crushing and grinding in mechanical
sizing equipment prior to stabilization:
and. are limited to the following
inorganic or metal materials:
(1) Metal slags (either dross or scoria);
(2) Classified slag;
(3) Class;
(4) Concrete (excluding cementitious
or pozzolanic stabilized hazardous
wastes);
(5) Masonry and refractory bricks;
(6) Metal cans, containers, drums, or
tanks;
(7) Metal nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps,
valves, appliances, or industrial
equipment: _
(8) Scrap metal as defined in 40 CFR
3. Section 268.7 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) through
(a)(9) as paragraphs (a)(7) through
(a) Except as specified in ( 268.32 of
this part if a generator's waste is listed
in 40 CFR part 261. subpart D. the
generator must test his waste, or test an
extract using the test method described
in part 261. appendix IL or use
knowledge of the waste, to determine if
the waste is restricted from land
disposal under this part Except as
specified In 8 268.32 of this part if a
generator's waste exhibits one or more
of the characteristics set out at 40 CFR
part 261, subpart C, the generator must
test an extract using the test method
described in appendix DC of this part or
use knowledge of the waste, to
determine if the waste is restricted from
land disposal under this Part
(!)•'•
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039.
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes must either be
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable
wastewater (as defined in ( 26(U(f)) or
r.onwastewater (as defined in i 268.2(d))
category, the applicable subdivisions
made within a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (such as D003
reactive cyanides), and the CFR
section(s) and paragraph^) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in S 268.42. the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of 8 268.42 (e.g.. INCIN. WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
• • • • •
(2) * ' *
W * ' '
-------
3878 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rule» and Regulations
(B] The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005. F039.
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
5 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes must either be
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable
wastewater (as defined in S 268.2(0) or
nonwastewater (as defined in S 268.2(d))
category, the applicable subdivisions
made within a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (such as D003
reactive cyanides), and the CFR
seetionfs} and paragraphs) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in § 268.42. the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of 5 288.42 (e.g.. INCIN. WETOX1 also
must be listed on the notification.
« « • • •
(3) ' • *
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards foe wastes F001-F005. F039.
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
S 288J2 or RCRA section 3004(d].
Treatment standards for ail other
restricted wastes must either be
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable
wastewater (as defined in S 288.2(0) or
nonwastewater (as defined in S 268.2(d))
category, the applicable subdivisions
made within a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (such aa D003
reactive cyanides), and the CFR
section(s) and paragraph(s) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in | 288.42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of S 288.42 (e.g., IKON, WCTOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
• • • » •
(6) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste that ta
excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste or exempt
from Subtitle C regulation, under 40 CFR
261.2-281.8 subsequent to the point of
generation, he must place a one-time
notice staring such generation.
subsequent exclusion from the definition
of hazardous or solid waste or
exemption from Subtitle C regulation.
and the disposition of the waste, in the
facility's file.
(7) Generators must retain on-site a
copy of all notices, certifications,
demonstrations, waste analysis data.
and other documentation produced
pursuant to this section for at least five
years from the date that the waste that
is the subject of such documentation
was last sent to on-site or off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal. The five
year record retention period is
automatically extended during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator. The
requirements of this paragraph apply to
solid wastes even when the hazardous
characteristic is removed prior to
disposal, or when the waste is excluded
from the definition of hazardous or solid
waste under 40 CFR 281.2-261.8. or
exempted from Subtitle C regulation.
subsequent to the point of generation.
• •>»*.»
(b)' ' '
(4) • ' '
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005. F039.
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 288.32 or RCRA section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes must either be
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable
wastewater (as defined in i 28&2(f)) or
nonwastewater (as defined in 128&2(d))
category, the applicable subdivisions
made within a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (such as 0003
reactive cyanides), and the CFR
section(s) and paragraph(s) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where the applicable treatment
standards art expressed as specified
technologies in S 268.42. the applicable ;
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of | 288.42 (e-g, INCIN. WETOX) also
must be included on the notification.
• • • • •
4. Section 268.9 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(l)(ii) to
read as follows:
$26*4 Special rates regarding wests*
that eiMbH a characteristic.
(a) The Initial generator of a solid
waste must determine each EPA
Hazardous Waste Number (waste code)
applicable to the waste in order to
determine the applicable treatment
standards under subpart D cf this part.
For purposes of part 288, the waste will
carry the waste code for any applicable
listing under 40 CFR part 281. subpart 0.
In addition, the waste will carry one or
more of the waste codes under 40 CFR
part 281. subpart C, where the waste
exhibits a characteristic, except in the
case when the treatment standard for
the waste code listed in 40 CFR part 281.
subpart 0 operates in lieu of the
standard for the waste code under 40
CFR part 281. subpart C. aa specified In
paragraph (b) of this section.
• • • • •
(d)' ' '
(I)'**
(ii) A description of the waste as
initially generated, including the
applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers), the applicable wastewatei
(as defined in $ 288.2(0) or
nonwastewater (as defined in 5 268.2(d))
category, and the subdivisions made
within a waste code based on waste-
specific criteria (such as D003 reactive
.cyanides).
i
§2*4.10 [Amended]
S. Section 288.10 is amended by
removing the entries for the following
hazardous wastes: K048. K049, K050.
K051. and K052.
8. Section 268.12(a) is amended by
adding the following hazardous wastes
in alphanumeric order
§ 26*. 12 Identification of wastes to b«
evataated by May t, 1990.
(a) • • •
SH1.32 Wi
KD48—Dissolved sir flotation (OAF) flo4l
from the petroleum refining industry
K049—Slop oil emulsion solids from the
petroleum refining industry.
KOSO—Heat exchanger Dandle cleaning
•ludg* from ths psaoleua rt&aing industry.
KOSi—API sspsimtot sludas from th*
petroleum refining industry.
KOU—Tank bottoms (leaded) (root to
petroleum refining Industry.
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
DUpoaal
7. Section 268.33 Is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
92M.33 Watts sp<
First ThM wastes.
• 91
(b) Effective August 8.1990. the waste
specified In 40 CFR 281.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. K071 is
prohibited from land disposal
• • • • •
8. Section 268.35 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e)
to read aa follows:
S2MJS Waste specific preNbraons-
Thlrd Third i
(a) Effective August 8.1990. the
following wastes specified hi 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers F002 (1.1.2-trichIoroethane).
FOOS (benzene), F005 (2-ethoxy ethanol)
F005 (2-nitropropaneC F006
(wastewaters), F019. F02S. and F039
(wastewaters): the wastes specif
40 CFR 26142 as EPA
Numbers K002; K003; K004
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3879
(wastewaters): K005 (wastewaten);
K006; K008 (wastewaters); K011
(wastewaters); K013 (wastewaten);
K014 (wastewaters); K015
(nonwastewaters): K017; K021
(wastewaters); K022 (wastewaters);
K025 (wastewaters); K026; K029
(wastewaters): K031 (wastewaten);
K032; K033: K034: K035; K041; K042;
K048 (wastewaters. reactive
nonwastewaters); K048 (wastewaters);
K049 (wastewaten); K050
(wastewaten); K051 (wastewaten);
KOS2 (wastewaten): K060
(wastewaters); K061 (wastewaten) and
(high zinc subcategory > 15% zinc);
K069 (wastewaten, calcium sulfate
nonwastewaten); K073, K083: K084
(wastewaten): K085; K09S
(wastewaten); K096 (wastewaten);
K097; K098; KlOO (wastewaten); K101
(wastewaten); K102 (wastewaten);
K105; and K106 (waatewaten); the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33(e) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numben P001:
P002; P003: P004; POOS; P006: P007; P008;
P009; P010 (wastewaten); P011
(wastewaten); P012 (wastewaten);
P014: P01S; P016: P017; P018: P020: P022;
P023; P024; P028: P027; P028; P031: P033;
P034; P036 (wastewaten); P037: P038
(wastewaten); P042; P045; P046: P047:
P04& P049: P050: P051: P054; P05& P057;
P058: P059; P060; POM: P065
(wastewaten); P066; P067; P068: P06fc
P070: P072: P073; P075: P076: P077; P078;
P081: P082: P084: P088: P092
(wastewaten); P093; P095: P096; P101:
P102: P103: P105; P10& P110: P112: P113;
P114: P115; P116; P11B; Pllft P120: P122:
and P123; and the wastes specified in 40
CFR 261.33(f) as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numben U001: U002: U003: U004; UOOS;
U006; U007: UOOS: U009; U010; U011:
U012: U014; U015: U016: U017; U018;
U019; U020: U021: U022: U023: U024;
U025: U026: U027; U029: U030; U031:
U032: U033: U034: U035; U03& U037;
U038: U039: U041: U042: U043; U044:
U045; U046: U047; U04& U049: UOSft
U051: U052; U053; U055: U056; U057;
U059: U060: U061: U082; U063; U064:
U066; U067; U068: U070: U071; U072:
U073; U074; U075; U076: U077; U078:
U079: U080; U081: U082: U083; U084:
U085: U086: U089: U090: U091; U092:
U093: U094: U095: U00& U097; U098;
U099: U101: U103: U105; UlOfc UlOfc
UlOft U110: Ulll; U112: U113: U114;
U115; U116: U117; U118; Ullfc U12&
U121; U122; U123: U124; U125: U12B:
U127; U128; U12ft U130; U131; U132:
U133; U134; U135: U136 (wastewaten);
U137; U13& U140: U141: U142: U143;
U144; U145; U148; U147; U14& U149;
U150. U151 (wastewaten); U152; U153:
U154; U155; U156; U157; U15& U159:
U160; U181; U162; U163: U184; U165:
U168: U167; U16& UlBft U170: U171:
U172; U173; U174; U176; U177; U178;
U179; U180-, U181; U182; U183; U184;
U185; U188; U187; U188; Ul8ft U191:
U192; U193; U194; U196: U197; U200;
U201: U202: U203; U204; U20S; U206;
U207; U208; U209; U210; U211; U213;
U214; U216; U218; U217; U218; U219;
U220; U222: U22S: U228: U227; U228;
U234; U238: U237; U238; U239; U240;
U243; U244: U246; U247; U248; U249; and
the following wastes identified as
hazardous based on a characteristic
alone: 0001; 0002.0003.0004
(wastewaten). DOOS, D006; 0007; D006
(except for lead materials stored before
secondary smelting), DOOO
(wastewaten). 0010.0011.0012.0013,
0014.0015. 0016. and 0017 are
prohibited from land disposal.
• • , • t •
(c) Effective May 8.1992. the following
waste specified in 40 CFR 281.31 aa EPA
Hazardous Waste Numben F039
(nonwastewaten); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numben K031 (nonwastewaten);
K084 (nonwastewaten); KlOl
(nonwastewaten); K102
(nonwastewaten); K106
(nonwastewaten); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(e) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers P010 (nonwastewaten);
P011 (nonwastewaten); P012
(nonwastewaten): P036
(nonwastewaten); P038
(nonwastewaten); P085
(nonwastewaten): P087; and P092
(nonwastewaten); the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 281.33(f) as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numben U136
(nonwastewaten); and UlSl
(nonwastewaten); the following wastes
identified as hazardous based on a
characteristic alone: 0004
(nonwastewaten); 0008 (lead materials
stored before secondary smelting); and
0009 (nonwastewaten); inorganic solid
debris as defined in 40 CFR 26&2(g)
(which also applies to chromium
refractory bricks carrying the EPA
Hazardous Waste Numben K048-K062);
and RCRA hazardous wastes that
contain naturally occurring radioactive
materials are prohibited from land
disposal.
(d) Effective May 8,1992. hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.10, 268.11.
and 268.12 that are mixed radioactive/
hazardous wastes, and soil or debris
contaminated with hazardous wastes
listed in 40 CFR 268.10. 268.11. and
268.12 that are mixed radioactive/
hazardous wastes, are prohibited from
land disposal.
(e) Effective May 8,1992, the wastes
specified In this section having a
treatment standard in Subpart 0 of this
Part based on incineration, mercury
retorting, vitrification, acid leaching
followed by chemical precipitation, or
thermal recovery of metals, and which
are contaminated soil or debris, are
prohibited from land disposal
Subpart O—Treatment Standard*
9. Section 268.40 ia amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read .as
follows:
{ 26a.40 AppMcab4Mty of treatment
standard*.
(a) A restricted waste identified in
{ 288.41 may be land disposed only if an
extract of the waste or of the treatment
residue of the waste developed using the
test method in Appendix U of part 261
does not exceed the value shown in
Table CCWE of { 268.41 for any
hazardous constituent listed in Table
CCWE for that waste, with the following
exceptions: 0004. 0008. K031. K084.
KlOl. K10Z P010. P011. P012. P036, P038,
and U136. These wastes may be land
disposed only if an extract of the waste
or of the treatment residue of the waste
developed using either the test method
in 40 CFR pan 261. appendix Q. or the
test method in appendix IX of this part
does not exceed the concentrations
shown in Table CCWE of t 268.41 for
any hazardous constituent listed in
Table CCWE for that waste.
• * • * *
10. Table CCWE in i 268.41(a) is
revised to read as follows:
J26C.41 Treat*
(a) '
ntrattona hi waate extract
• •
-------
3880 Fedutat Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
268.41 TABLE CCWE.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS w WASTE EXTRACT
wast* coo*
chamcal n»m«
5«aatao
Rtguiated hazardous comtucnt
W<
CAS No. tor
regulated
hazvooue i Concentration I
conntMnt | img/l)
266.43.
: Crwott (and cmyMe aexA..
' CyctoMunon*
56-23-6
10640-7
CMOfK
ethyl Ketone _
i Methyl MjoOut^ ftetone'..
i Nitrobenzene
' Fyx»ne.
j Te»»cnioroethyl«ne
i Toluene _.
I
P006..
NA...
TablvCCWtn
i 286.43.
F007 _ j NA..
F008..
HA.
F009
F011
1.1.2-TncfHoro.
TncNoro«t»yHn»-
Trichkxo«uorom««nan«
Xyl»n«
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
laad
Nk*«
1
106-84-1
95-60-1
141-76-6
100-41-4
60-29-7
78-63-1
67-66-1
75-»-2
76-93-3
106-10-1
96-05-3
110-66-1
127-16-4
108-46-3
71-55-6
76-13-1
79-01-6
75-69-4
TtbttCCWm
266.43.
TabtoCCWin
266.43.
TafetoCCWht
F012 - i NA_
I
I
F019 j NA
TabMCCWin
26843.
TabtoCCWIn
26843
.. j TabM CCW m
I 266.43.
; Chromwm (ToUO
': LMd
', NK*«
| Silvar
I Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
1
| Slver
1 Chromium (Total)..
I
7440-43-9
7440-t7-32
7439-«2-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-17-32
7439-«2-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
744O-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
744O-02-O
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-42-0
7440-22-4
7440-47-32
I 0.05
| 0.15
..I 2.62
0.125
0.65
0.05
0.05
O.OS
S.O
0.25
0.20
O.OS
O.OS
0.66
1.12
0.079
1.12
1.05
1.05
0.062
0.05
..j 0.05
I NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
INA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I NA
|NA
I NA
INA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i
(mg/l)
NOUM
D004
D005
NA. ...
MA
\
0006 ,|NA.
D007 j NA
D008 _._
D009(Uow
Mercury
Subc»tegory—
lets then 260
mg/kg
Mercuryj.
0010.... ..
001 1
F001-F005
spent solvent*.
MA. _.._
MA
NA.
MA
MA. _
Table CCW in
288.43.
TaWeCCWin
288-43.
Table CCW m
268.43.
Table CCW in
286.43.
Table CCW in
266.43.
Table 2 n
268.42 and
Tab* CCW in
266.43.
Table CCW in
268.43.
Table CCW m
266.43.
Table 2 «
266.42 and
Table CCW in
Arsenic—,- -...-_... — .
Bunum
Cadmium
Chromur
LMd..
Mereucy.
S«l«rnum
Silver
AcMon*.
*vftaM Hw
.
n (Total)
___• —
to.rt*MlJ
Cartxy disultid* _._„
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7438-92-1
7439-97-6
7762-49-8
7440-22-4
67-64-1
71-36-3
75-15-0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05
5.0
1.05
i !
! 5 Q 1
i 1
I100 !
! 1-° !
i i
I 5.0 i
i" !
law f
i i
I r
I i
!" |
I I
I" |
io.59 '
! 5.0 I
i 4JM
C>
QJt
0.05
0.75
0.75
0.123
0.78
0.053
0.75
5.0
0.73
0.96
0.75
0.33
0.12S
033
006
0.41
096
i 0.091
I 0.96
I 015
' 0.066
'• 5.2
i 0.51
10.32
I 0.072
t 0.066
I 5.2
0.51
032
0072
0.066
5.2
0.5'
0.32
0.072
00)66
|5.2
051
0.32
0.072
! 0.066
I 5.2
> 0.51
1 0.32
0072
1 "368
0.51
10.32
0.072
5.2
-------
Fedora! Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. Jarroary 31, 1991 / Rales and Regulations 3881
268.41 TABU CCWE.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT— Continued
"-- |:SSS.
FC20-F023 and i NA . ..
F026-F028 ;
corvainr.g
-•stas :
F'2« ".'*.
I
F3C3 NA _ -
KCOl ' N'A ... .
K002 NA
1
K003 . rVA... j
rNA
,
KC05 ' NA
K008 ' NA
(anhydrous).
KC06 l^tydratei).,.; NA
K?07 NA
. ?08 . NA
K915 NA
t "21 NA. . ..j
rO~2 , tIA
'.028.. -. ... NA..
n.C31 . NA
i
K046 NA .
K048 ... NA
K049 NA
KCEO .. NA
KC5' ' *;A
K352. , NA
i
K361 (Low Z.nc NA
Subcategory — \
les* than 1SS i
Total Zinc).
SMalM
NA
Tab* CCW m
26943.
Tat* CCW m
26843
Tab* CCW in
268.43.
Tab* CCW m
26843.
Tab* CCW In
26843.
Tcb* CCW m
26843.
Tab* CCW m
268.43.
Tab* CCW m
26843.
Tab* CCW in
268.43.
Tat* CCW in
2684.1
Tab* CCW m
268.43.
Tab* CCW in
268.43.
Tab* CCW m
268.43.
Tab* CCW m
268.43.
Tab* CCW in
268.43.
Tab* CCW m
268.43.
Tab* CCA in
268.43.
Tab* CCW in
268.43.
Tab* CCW in
268.43.
Tab* CCW m
268.43.
Tab* CCW in
268.43.
Tab* CCW m
268.43.
Tab* CCW in
268.43.
Regulated MBKOTIII* comttuenl
HxCOO-All t-axach!oro-d>berno-p-
OrOiena.
HxCOf-All Henacliloro-dibvnzorur-
ana.
PeCDO-AII Pentachtoro-oifcerco p-
ci.oiins.
PaCOF-AII PenUchloro-diberwoftjr-
ans.
TCOO-AJi Tetrachtoro-diberao-p-
dnxina.
TCOF-AU T4ibanzoturans..
2,4 6-Trichloroprtenol «.
2,3 4 6-TetracMoroprwnol
Chromium (Total) - _
Nick*
Antimony - _.
Chromium (Toto?) ...
Lead . . •-
Mercury .. - -
N)Ck«| _._.. _ J
SfltoftKjm
SHver
Lead
Chromtum Totafl
' eeri
Chromum (Tout) _
Chromium (Toval) .
Leed
Chromium (Total) „._
Leed , .
Lttrj
Chromium (Totaf) „
Chromium (Total)
Lead - _.
Chromium (ToUl)
Leed - _ _ ...
Chromium (Total)
Nickel ....
AnttmonY
ClMomum (Total) ..
Nickel
Ctvomum (ToUl)
Lead
Nickel
Leed
Chromium (Total)
Chromium (Total) .... ...
Chromium (Total)
Nickel . - _ ..
Chromium (Total). - .
Nickel
Chromium (Total),..
Nick* ..
Cadmrum _
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
CAS No. lor
regulated
hMZVOOUS
constituent
9S-SS-4
88-08-2
58-90-2
87-86-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
T 440- 36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
74.40-47-32
7439-92-1
7438-97-8
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
744O-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
74^0-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
744O-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-36-0
7440-47-32
744O-02-0
744O-47-32
7439-92-1
744O-O2-O
7C40-38-2
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7440-02-O
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-<7-32
7440-02-O
7440-17-32
7440-02-0
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
Wastewtters Norrcrastewateni
ConeenMtion
(mg/l)
<1 PPO
<1 PPb
<' PPO
<1 PPO
11 »•>
-------
3882 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
288.41 TABLE CCWE.—CONSTTTJENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT—Continued
waste cooa
ZinO-
Eff active unt*
August 7tn
1991).
KC*?
K069(Calcwm
Surlata
Subcategory).
KO71
KOA3
K084
K086
KQ97
K100
K101
K102
K106 (Low
Mercury
Subcategory—
less man 260
mg/kg
Mercury-
residues Irom
RMERQ.
Kt06* *n
037 ) Q . 6 /
0.066
5.2
0.51
5.6
5.6
0.020
0.025
0.32
i
; 5.6
1 5.6
1
56
52
56
1
56
: 020
i
i
('
('
: (
i (
i
I (
(
1
t
-------
Fednal Refjater / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regnlattons
3883
268.41 TABLE CCWE.-CONST»TUEKT COKCEKTPATIONS IN WASTE &craACT-Comirved
P065(Low
Mercury
Less tfi&r. ifcO
mg/kg
Mercury—
.ncmerator
rewoues (aid
ant not
rewduea from
RMEflOJ.
F373...- -.
P074 |
P092ILOW
Mercury
Subceteg
LaMinen260
mg/kg
Mareury
RMERQ.
P092 (Low
Mercury
mg/kg
Marcury—
RMERQ).
FO99
Regutatad hazsrtous contt&oni
Mercury
fjt.T*i*ia.
' Tabla 2 in
! 268.42 and
| Tabla CCW in i
268.43. i
NtekM earbonyt....! Table CCW in
268.43.
Nick* CY**»—I T«b(* CCW in
| 268.43.
Pbenyt rrercury j "able 2 In
i
Nickel....
Nickel....
Uarory..
TatrteCCWin
268.43.
Phenyl mercury iTaM«2in
aceuM. • 268.42 and
268.43.
Mercury..
7440-02-0
7440-02-0
7439-87-6
NA
NA
NA
7439-97-« I NA
0.32
1.32
1.20
j Table CCW m
cyinrte. ; 268.43.
Setonoure* ' TzWa CC.V in
U1S1 (Lw.
M«rcurv
Subcawgory—
Lea* man 260
RMERC).
U1S1 (LOW
M«cuy
SoUcatcoorv—
L«wiMn2M
mg/kg
M«rcuy-m*t
ir* not
fKduM frern
RMEPC
U204....... _ — —
Silver cyamd* , Table CCW in
i 268.43.
TatraMIr.'l l*ma_[ T»tta CCW in
| 268.43.
Thallium salarrta^ Table CCW in
268.43.
CaJoum I Table CCW in
cnramat*. j 268.43.
Daoaoja._..__! Table CCW in
I 268.43.
Cacodybc aod™H Table CCW in
I 268.43.
Lend acaial* 1 Taw* CCW in
26a43.
Lead pnotpruit*-. Tabk* CCW n
| 288.43.
Lead aubac*1»ta..i TanW CCW in
' 2*8.43.
TaMaCCWm
I
Silver.
Selenium
S*er
Chfomum (Total)
TaU*2in
268.42.
Araanc..
LeM....
Lead
Marcury
7440-22-4
7782-49-2
7440-22-«
7439-OZ-t
7782-49-«
7440-47-32
7430-02-1
7440-30-2
7439-82-1
7439-«2-1
7430-80-1
7430-07-8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' Mareury.
..I Tatue CCW m
i 268.43 and
Table 2 in
268.42.
I
Salaraum
TabMCCWm
26143.
Mercury.
743>-97-«
NA
0.02S
0.072
5.7
0.077
asi
S.7
ao»4
asi
so
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.20
SaMnum
T782-49-2 INA
I')
0.025
5.7
-------
3884 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rulea and Regulations
268.41 TABLE CCVVE.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT—Continued
Waste code
U205._
Commercial
chemcal name
Selenium sutfide-.
See also
Table CCW in
266.43.
Regulated hazardous constituent
Selenium .__._. ... _.«
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituent
7782-49-2
WastewsM
Concentration
(mg/n
NA
n I Nonwastewatsrs
"»- ! Con^ton ! *•**
! 5.7 j
! i
1 These treatment standards have t>een based on EP Leacnate anaiysa but tills does not preclude trie use of TCLP analyse.
1 These waste codes are not subcategonzed into wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.
11. In { 268.42 paragraph (a)(2). Table
1. Table 2. and Table 3 in paragraph (a)
are revised, and paragraph (a)(3) is
added preceding Tables 1-3 to read as
follows:
§ 2U.42 Treatment standard* expressed
aa specified tecftnotogles.
(a) ' * *
(2) Nonliquid hazardous wastes
containing halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs) in total
concentration greater than or equal to
LOGO mg/kg and liquid HOC-containing
wastes that are prohibited under
5 268.32(e)(l) of this part must be
incinerated in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 254. subpart
O. or 40 CFR part 285. subpart O. These
treatment standards do not apply where
the waste is subject to a part 268.
subpart D. treatment standard for a
specific HOC (such as a hazardous
waste chlorinated solvent for which a
treatment standard is established under
§ 288.41(8)).
(3) A mixture consisting of
wastewater. the discharge of which is
subject to regulation under either
section 402 or section 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act. and de minimis losses
of materials from manufacturing
operations in which these materials are
used as raw materials or are produced
as products in the manufacturing
process, and that meet the criteria of the
0001 ignitable liquids containing greater
than 10% total organic constituents
(TOC) subcategory, is subject to the
DEACT treatment standard described in
Table 1 of this section. For purposes of
this paragraph, ds minimis losses
include those from normal material
handling operations (e.g.. spills from the
unloading or transfer of materials from
bins or other containers, leaks from
pipes, valves or other devices used to
transfer materials); minor leaks from
process equipment, storage tanks, or
containers: leaks from well-mainiained
pump packings and seals: sample
purgings: and relief device discharges.
TABLE 1.—TECHNOLOGY CODES AND DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS
Technology
code
Description of technology-based standards
ADGAS:
AMLGM:
S!ODG:
CARBN:
CHOXD:
CHRECr.
DEACT:
FSUB&
HLVIT:
IMERC:
INCIN:
LLEXT:
MACRO:
Ventmg of compressed gases mto an absorbing or reacting media (I.e.. solid or Nquxft—ventng can be accomplished through physical releaii utilizing
vatves/pvmg; physical penetration of the contamer, and/or penetration through detonation.
Amalgamation ot kqukt elemental mercury contaminated with nKSoactlve materials utilong inorganic reagents such as copper, one. racket, gold, and
sulfur mat result m a nontioud. semvsoHd amalgam and thereby reducing potential emsaons of elemental mercury vapors to me a*.
Biodegradsdon of orgaraes or non-metallic inorganics (i.e.. daoradatHe morgaracs that contain me elements of phosphorus, rutrogen. and sulfur) m units
operated under either aerobic or anaerobe conditions such that a surrogate compound or Indicator parameter has been substantiaty reduced «
concentration n the residuals (eg,. Total Organic Carbon can often be used as an indicator parameter tor the biodegradanon ot many organic
constituents mat cannot be directly analyzed m wastewater lemluea)
Carbon adsorption (granulated or powdered) of non-metaSIc morgaraca. organe-metattica. and/or organe constituents, operated such that a surrogate
compound or mdwator parameter has not undergone breakthrough (e.g.. Total Orgarac Carbon can often be used as an indicator peiameter tor the
adsorption of many organe constituents mat cannot be directly analyzed m wastewater resvjuee). Breakmrough occurs when me carbon has
become saturated with the constituent (or Indicator parameter) and substantial change m adsorption rate associated with mat coneotuent occurs.
Chemical or electrolytic oxidation utrirzmq the following oxidation reagents (or waste reagents) or conmisuuns of reagents: (1) Hypocntonta (eg.
btaach): (2) chtormr (3) chtonne doxxJe: (4) ozone or UV (ultraviolet light) assisted ozone: (S) peroxides; (6) personates: (7) perchkntes: (8)
permangantee; and/or (9) other oikkuig reagents of equivalent efficiency, performed m units operated such mat a surrogate compound or mdcator
parameter has been substantially reduced m concentiauuii m the residuals (e.g.. Total Organic Carbon can often be used as an mdwator parameter
• for me oxidation of many organic coneMuents that cannot be directly analyzed m wastewster residues). Chemical oxidation specrAcatty Includes what
is commonty referred to as alkakne entoonaoon.
Chemical reduction utilizing me toNowmg reducing reagents (or waste reagents) or combmattona of reagenta: (1) Sulfur dtacca: (2) sodum. potassium.
or alkali setts or suffitas. btsutMee. metabaumee. and polyethylene gtycots (e-o,. NaPEG and KPEG): (3) sodum hvdroeumde: (4) ferrous salts: and/
or (5) other reducing reagents of equivalent efficiency, performed m unra operated such mat a surrogate compound or indicator oeraiiieiei has been
substarrdasy reduced m eoncentrsoon m me residuals (eg. Total Orgarac Halogens can often be used as an indicator parameter for me reduction of
many halogenated organe constituents that cannot be direcoy analyzed in wastewster residues). Chemical reduction is commonly used for the
reduction ot hexavatont chromium a me tnvatent state.
Deactrvedon to remove the hazardous characteristics of a waste due to is ignrtabatty. corrosrvtty. and/or reactivity.
Fuel substitution m units operated m accordance with applicable tecnncal operating requremems.
Vrtnflcaoon of hkjh level mixed radwactrve wastes in unra
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
limrieraiion of wastes containing organca and mercury in units operated m accordance with me technical
subpart 0 and part 265 subpart 0. AH wastewater and nonwastawatar residues derived from am process must men comply with me
compkance with all appkcabta radioactive protection requirements under control of me
•song reourements of 40 CFR part 264
treatment standards per waste code with consideration of any
m units operated tn accordance with me technca! operating requremems
(e.g.. High or Low Mercury Subcategonea).
of 40 CFR part 264 subpart 0 and part 265 subpart
incmeraDon m units operated m accordance with me tecnncal operatmg requremems of 40 CFR part 264 subpart 0 and part 265 subpart 0.
Uoud-Hquld extraction (often referred to as solvent extraction) of orgaraes from kqud wastes mo an mvrsectte solvent tor wrseh me hazardous
constrtuents have a greater solvent affinity, resulting m an extract h:gh m orgaraes mat must undergo either momeraaon. reuse as a fuel, or other
recoveryreuse and a raffinate (extracted liquid waste) proportionately low m orgamcs that must undergo further treatment as spaoAed m me
SteVXteWd.
Macroencspeuaflon with surface coatmg materials such aa polymeric organcs (e.g. reams and plastics) or with s jacket of inert morganc ..
substantially reduce sortsce exposure to ppteraal^sschmg meco. Macroeneapsuiation specrficairy does not maude any matanal mat
*w*.«wv VA^WWIV w I^WIWIUBI IWWHI^
clsssmad as a tank or container acconkng to 40 CFR 260.10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3885
TABLE 1.—TECHNOLOGY COOES AND DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGYn the residuals (e.g., Total Organic Carbon can often be used a* an ndwator parameter for the oadaOon of many organic conatnuents that cannot
be directly analyzed m wastewater re*NJabto Liquids t>aMd on
26l.21(a)(l>— Low TOC Ingna-
tsle Liquids Subcateoory— Loss
man 10% total organic canon.
!gnftabM LIJUOS based on
2«1.21ta!(1)— High TOC Inqita-
We Liquda Subcategory—
Greater tr.an or eoual to 10%
total organic cvbon.
Ignrude compressed jtttt
'based on 261. 21 (a)(3).
Ignrtabki raactrvas based on
26i.2Ka)(2).
Onkzers baaed on 26l.2KaH4).._.
p&e MA f|w
hazsrooua
COAAlUXMOlB
r^A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WaHewater*
DEACT
MA _...
NA.,....,u,..., ....;._
NA
MA , ....
DEACT,.,,,.
Nonwsstewaier*
NA
DEACT.
FSUBS: RORGS; or INCIN.
DEACT1
DEACT.
DEACT.
-------
3886 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.42 TABLE 2.— TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE— Continued
Waste
code
0002
0002
0002
0003
0003
0003
0003
0006
0006
0009
0009
0012
0013
0014
0015
0016
0017
F005
F005
F024
K025
K026
K027
K039
K044
K045
K047
K069
Sea also
NA
NA
NA. .. _ -
NA
NA
NA
SA
NA
TabM CCWE In 268.41
and TabM CCW m
268.43.
TabM CCWE m 268.41
and TabM CCW in
268.43.
TabM CCW M 268.43...
TabM CCW In 268 43 -
TabM CCW In 268.43
TabM CCW in 268.43
TabM CCW *i 268 43
TabM CCW in 268.43
TabM CCWE In 268.41
and TabM CCW In
268.43.
TabM CCWE In 268.41
and TabM CCW In
268.43.
TabM CCWE in 268.41
and TabM CCW In
266.43.
NA -
NA
NA -
NA
NA
TabM CCWE m 268.41
and TabM CCW m
268.43.
Waste descnptiona and/or
Acid subcatagory based on
261.22(aK1).
Alkaline subcatagory based on
26i.22taMiV
Other corrosives based on
26122
-------
Federal Register / Voi. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3887
268.42 TABLE 2.— TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE— Continued
Watt*
code
K106
K113
K114
K115
K116
P001
P002
P003
P006
P006
P007
POOS
P009
P014
P015
P016
P017
P018
P022
P023
P026
P027
P028
P031
P033
P034
P040
P041
P042
P043
P044
P04S
P048
0047
P049
See also
Table CCWE in 268.41
and Table CCW in
268.43.
NA _
NA
NA
NA _..
NA _. . _ H
NA _. J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ._ „. „
NA „
NA
Table CCW m 268.43 . .
NA
NA
NA
NA ,...., ., --
NA —
"A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Watte descriptions and/or
treatment scbcategory
Wastewatar treatment sludge
from me mercury ceH proceaa
in chlorine production: (High
than or equal to 260 mg/kg
total mercury).
Condensed liquid light ends from
me punticanon of uXuenedia-
rrane n me production of tot-
ueoeoiamme via hydrogenaoon
of dKvtrotoiuene.
Vtanela from the purification of
toruenediamine in the produc-
tion of toluenedtamme via hy-
drogenetion of dimti otoluene.
Heevy ends from the purification
of toluenediamlne m me pro-
duction of toluenediamine jO»
nydrogenanon of dinrtrotoluami.
Organic condensate from die sot-
vent recovery coturirn m the
production of tomeKe dtito-
tohjeneottmme.
Wartann ( > 0.3%) J
t •Acetyl-2-miourea
Ally) alcohol
5 Amrmetnyl J Woiarotol
Ammonium pterate
Thiopnenol (Benzene thioO —
B«(cNorometnyi)ether
Bromoacetone
Brudne _
1 (0 CMOfOpfxnyf) tfttourM
Benzyl chlonde
Cyanogen
CvwMMn ctiinrirta _„,
O.O-Wethyl O-pynmnvt phos-
DietnvUHwtfophenyl phoaphate.. -
Epinephnn* _.
Diisooropyl fluorophotphaM
(DFP).
T1UQtfiu,u
4.6-OWtro-o-cread aalta .
2.4£ithobiuret -
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
constituents
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81-81-2
£91-08-2
107-02-8
107-18-6
20859-73-8
2763-98-4
504-24-4
131-74-8
108-98-6
7440-41-7
542-88-1
598-31-2
357-67-3
75-15-0
107-20-0
5344-82-1
542-76-7
100 44-7
460-19-6
506-77-4
131-89-6
297-97-2
311-45-6
51-43-*
55-91-4
80-51-5
39196-16-t
122-09-8
634-62-1
641-63-7
Technology cod*
Westevreters
NA ...,-
CARBN; or INCIN _.._.
CAHBN; or INON
CARBN- or INCIN .
CARBN; or INON
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INON.
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
CHOXD: CHRED: or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or (NOR
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INON.
CHOXD: CHRED, CARBN:
BtOOQ; or INON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INON.
RMETU or RTHRM __ . . (
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
HA .......... „ ...„ ... ...
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXD) t) CARBN:
or INCIN.
CHOXD; WETOX or INON
CHOXD' WETOX or INON
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INON.
CARQN- or INQN
CARBN; or tNCHll
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
orlNON.
CARBN; or INCIN
CARBN; Of INrtN
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INQN.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INQN.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INQN.
Nonw-t^-r.
RMERC.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS: or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INON.
FSUBS: or INON.
FSUBS; or WON.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INON.
FSUBS; or INON
CHOXD; CHRED; or INQN.
INQN.
INON.
FSUBS: CHOXD: CHRED; or
INCIN.
INQN.
RMETU or RTHRM.
INQN.
rNCIN.
MQN.
INQN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INQN.
CHOXD; WETOX; or WON.
CHOXD; WETOX; or INQN.
INQN.
FSUBS; or INON.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INON.
FSUBS: or INON.
FSUBS or INQN,
INQN.
INQN.
INCIN.
INON.
-------
3888 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.42 TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE Cooe—Continued
Wtstv
cod*
POM
pose
POS7
P05S
P082
P064
P065
P065
POM
P087
POM
P089
P070
P072
P075
P076
P078
poet
P082
POM
poes
P087
POM
»092
>092
"093
'095
>OM
>102
'105
'108
>100
•112
>113
115
116
118
119
SMUM
NA
T«bl« CCW in 2M.43
NA ... ._
NA ... •...
NA
NA
Ttbto CCWE In 268.41
•ndTttotoCCWM
268.43.
Tafato CCWE h> 268.41
•nd TiM* CCW in
268.43.
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA.
NA
NA .__ .
MA , _
NA „
H*
Ttoto CCW in 266.43
NA
NA
"A , -, - .,,-
NA
Tabto CCWE m 26M1
•nd T«bt« CCW m
2M.43.
Tab* CCWE in 2W.41
•nd Tab* CCW in
268.43.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA J
Tab* CCW in 2M.43
Tab* CCW in 266.43
NA
NA
Tab* CCW in 266.49
Wattt OMcnpaeni end/or
traatmwn aubeatagory
AzMina . - • --, .
Ruonna — . ..
FHjoroacgtarfHda . . ..... ....
RuoroacMC tod. sodium MR
Haxa»tnytt«trw>oo«pnat8 —
Itocyamc aod. athyl astar
Marcury fulrninatat (High Marcury
Subcaiagory yatiar m«n or
aqua* to 260 mg/kg tow Mar-
cury torn monarator raav
duM or ra*duaa tram RMERQ.
Marcury tuMnM* (Al Noo-
wMtMvutM 9vA w odt in-
onwnor rMNiuM or an not
rxiduM trom RMERC. rtgwo-
KM rt iUreuy OontM).
Mvthonryl ...._ _..____.
2-M«tnyluindin*
tfffrfl fif,^*if^
M«H»H>CID«U««
AMrytl
1 -Napntnyt-2-thlaunM
f^^MhfM ^fM ^MffA
•JlAlMt «^H^B,
Mm^yi^ai
EndotfttM .r
Ph«iy< mercury tnttlic (High
than or •qutf to 260 mg/kg
tor mtMUM or r*»duM from
RMEBQ.
P^fxy "«*^\ry tcttat*- (Al otm-
wiiHoiMo) tftat «r» not mon-
•mor rMkjuw tnd «ra not
mrtm Irom RlwlERC: r*gm>-
*MB Of MwflbOf COIItMlQ.
N ftxnyniMum)
PtV^H^H^
"rAflni-^ rnurt* .
Strvcnnm* «nd MM
T«nn*omMri4n*
i^iHrrond*
ThUtum (1) tuHM* .
•Tx*TTtTMrvrbnjd6
Thnenlorom»ln»n«tMol
Ammonum vw«d*». _.
CAS No. tor
niqut«t>d
nmfdouv
wnMiiuMtu
151-56-4
7782-41-4
640-19-7
62-74^
757-56-4
624-63-0
626-66-*
626-46-1
16782-77-8
75-55-6
60-34-4
75-66-*
116-06-3
iyt •• t
LW UIP •
•54-11-5
10102-43-9
10102-*4-0
55-63-0
62-7S-4
4540-40-0
152-19-9
20816-12-0
145-73-3
62-36-4
62-36-*
t03-6S-6
75-U-5
7603-51-2
107-19-7
2M28-22-6
1 57-24-«
3660-24-6
500-14-8
1314-32-6
7446-16-4
70-10-6
75-70-7
7609-65-6
WMtvratar*
(WETOX or CHOXD) (b CARBK
orlNON.
NA
(WETOX or CHOXO) Ib CARBN:
orfNQN.
(WETOX or CHOXD) tt) CAR8N:
Of IrlClN,
CARBN: or INC3N
(WETOX or CHOXD) Ib CARBN;
or INCIN.
NA._ .. . ._.
NA _.. .. _
(WETOX or CHOXD) Ib CARBN:
orlNCM.
(WETOX or CHOXD)
-------
F«dml bgister / Vol SS. No. a / Thursday, famary 31. 1981 / Rmtes and Regulation*
266.42 TABU 2.—TECHNOUOQV-BASEO STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE Cooe—Continued
Wtftf
cod*
P122
0001
U006
0007
0&10
0011
0014
0015
0017
0020
0021
ttnyt
0026
O033
0034
0035
111)341
t)O11
0042
1 rTLAA
O049
UOSS
U056
UOS7
UOSS
UOS9
U062
U064
U073
U074
IIMM
J069
U090
U091
SM tlio
NA .._....__._-_
NA
T_M_ rrw in MW ji
MA
MA ..__
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA -
NA
MA.
NA ,.„.,.. „._., .....
T_t__COM k»9M4S
Tibte CCW In 266.43
NA
NA
MA
TabM CCW In 2A*_O . .
NA
NA , ._
NA ...
NA . _ , ...
NA .. _
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA
Zinc Pho-ph-* (> 10%)
fugtfnr**
B-M.u>H-i Ittmm*.
C_rt»o^ fluont* u
CW-
/•v |'*q*" • "innj
— _ _.
I^JLTW-.™,-,,.-.
3.3'-OicMorob«nzidin* .
t^l.4**^****.
DthydroMfto**
CA-5-Hxtof
>Mi-Miir-i--i
COmMotntS
1314-62-t
1314-64-7
75-07-0
75-05-6
79-06-1
79-10-7
50-07-7
61-82-5
492-60-«
115-02-6.
225-51-4
98-67-3
96-09-9
92-67-5
96-07-7
494-03-1
353-50-4.
75-87-8
305-03-3
510-15-8
106-69-8
110-75-8
107-30-2
4170-30-3
96-82-4
110-62-7
106-94-1
20630-61-3
2303-16-4
169-55*0
91-94-1
1476-11-6
1464*53-6
1615—80-1
ITdJL.iSI'l.J
56-53-1
T«eh«o-x
Wt-toJJUir.
MA.
CHOXO: CHREO: or INON
(WETOX or CHOX-% to CARBN;
or INCIN.
/u/crrvy •* fytfitt^ _v r^AQRM-
or INCIN.
(WETOK or CHOXO) to CARBN;
orlNON.
(WETOK or CHOXC% to CARBN;
OrlNON.
(WETOX or CHOMJ) to CARBN;
or INQN.
(WETOX or CHOXDl to CARBN;
or INQN.
(WETOX or. CHQtaat to CARBN;
or INON.
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBN;
orlNON.
(WEIOX at CHOm to CARBN;
orlNON.
(WEIOX or CHOKDI to CARBR
or INON.
(WCIOX or CHOKOt to CARBR.
ormON.
(WEIOX « CHOKDI to CARBN;
or mem.
CHQXft. CHMED: CARBK
Biooa or mem.
(WETOX «r CHOKDI to CARBK
ormON.
(WETOX or CHOXDl to CARBK
orlNON.
(WEIOX 01 CHOXDl to CARBN;
orlNCIN.
(WETOX at CHOXDl to CARBK
or INCIN.
MA
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBK
(WETQX or CHOKO) to QMRBK
orlNCIN.
orlNON.
(WETQX O( CHOND) to CARBK
or. INCIN.
(WETOX or. CHOtt* to CARBK
orlNON.
(WETQX or CHOWt to CARBK
orlNON.
MA
(WETOX or CHQXOI to cai-jN;
orlNON.
(WETOX or CHQXD) to CARBK
or mem.
(WETOX or CHOXDl to CARBN
• armON.
(WETOX Ot CHOXDl to CARBK
odNON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) ft) CARBK
Of INCIN.
WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBK
orlNON,
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBK
or matt
CHOXO- CHBED- CARBK
B-OOGkorlMCM.
CARBN; or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBK
oclNCm.
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBK
aclNON.
oclNCUL.
ffcod.
rton«uu_-u«.
STABL
CHOXD: CHREO; or INON.
**0**- T=SoCiS' or IVC.I
INQN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or. INON.
INQN.
INON.
INCIN.
INON.
INON.
U4QN,
INON.
FSUBS; CHOXOi "CHREO: or
mem.
INCIN.
INQN.
INCIN.
INQN.
INON.
INCIN.''
INQN.
FSUBSi or INQM.
FSUBS. * WON,
FSUBS; or- WON.
FSUBS; or (NON.
eciiac. n IMCIM
INON.
INON.
F5UBS; or mCM.
INON.
INON.
INON.
FSUBS' or INON
FSUBS; CHOXD- CHRED- or
INQN.
FSUBS; or INON.
FSUB& or INQN.
FSUBS: or INON.
-------
3890 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.42 TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
waste
cod*
U092
U093
U094
IIQQK
U096
U098
U098
U103
U109
U110
U113
U114
U115
U116
U119
U123
U124
U125
U126
U132
U133
U134
U13S
U143
U147
U148
U149
IMSO
J1S1
LI1S3
J154
J1S6
J160
J163
J164
J166
J167
J16*
See also
MA
Table CCW in 288.43.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA _
NA
NA
NA
NA..
MA
NA .._
NA
NA . . _.._ .
NA
NA
NA _
NA. ... _. ..
Table CCW in 266.43
NA „
NA. „
NA
NA _
NA _.._
NA ,-,
Table CCWE in 266.41
and Table CCW in
268.43.
NA
TJnJW«,C£U?>24»*-^
•**•• „.„...„-,,
NA . _. -_
NA _.
NA ._
NA
NA
NA
Table CCW M 268.43 ._
Waste description* end/or
treatment suocategory
Dirnethylaniifte — . ~ - —
p-Om«mylamnoazoMnz6n«
7,12-Oimethyl benz(a)amnracene ...
AA-Oimttrryt benzyl hydroperox-
KM.
1,2-Oirnethylhydrazine _.._
Dimethyl sultsta
1.2.Diphenylhydrazme _
DfenvMtMTMW
Ethyl acrylata.__ „
Ethylene Uia UitliiuLaiUaiiiiL tod.
Ethyl*"* onrtt, ,,.. .......
EOiylene tMoure* ....
Ethyl methane sultanate
Forme acid—.... ___..__._.....
Furan
Furfural
GtyodakMfcyd*
H0McnlofopnonNapnthoqUnone
1 -Napnthytarfine
2-NmprrmryeJT.ne
CAS No. for
regulated
hazardous
coiiiuiueiiis
124-40-3
621-90-9
57-97-6
119-93-7
80-15-9
54O-73-«
77-78-1
122-66-7
142-64-7
140-68-5
111-54-6
75-21-8
96-45-7
62-50-0
64-18-6
110-00-0
98-01-1
765-34-4
70-30-4
302-01-2
7664-39-3
7783-06-4
303-34-4
inn-n ji
123-33-1
109-77-3
146-82-3
7439-97-4
74-93-1
67-56-1
79-22-1
1338-23-4
70-25-7
56-O4-2
130-15-4
1 14_19-7
91-69-4
Technoto
Wactawatani
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN:
oriNON.
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN-
or INCIN.
CHOXO; CHREO. CARBN;
BIOOG; or INCIN.
or INCIN.
BIOOG: or INCIN.
CHOXD: CHREO; CARBN;
BIOOG: or INCIN.
CHOXD: CHRED; CARBN;
BIODG; or INCIN.
CHOXO: CHRED: CARBN;
BIOOG; or INCIN.
njuerrw /v CMOXHl fti f^APRN'
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBN;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN-
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBN;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
(wtiux or unuxui ID V^HBPT.
oriNON.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN:
ortNCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
CHOXO1 CHREO; CARBN-
BIOOG; or INCIN,
NA
CHOXD; CHRED; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN-
or INCIN.
AA/Prny r* cstrvtm 4t« (^ARRM-
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) Ib CARBN-
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
NA _.,__ .
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN:
or INCIN.
' -4»4Mdife ATA
W IUWT^T / rflr
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;
or INCIN.
CHOXD: CHRED: CARBN;
BIOOG; or INCJN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CAR8N;
or INCIN.
(VfcETOX M f%mvnt ftl flARflM-
or INCIN.
(WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN-
or INCIN.
or INCIN.
NA
gyeoda
Nonwastewatera
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS: or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS: CHOXO: CHREO: or
INCIN.
FSUBS: CHOXO; CHREO: or
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXO- CHREO; or
INCIN.
FSUBS; CHOXD; CHREO: or
INCIN.
FSUBS- CHOXO- CHREO- or
INCIN.
INT3M
FSUBS; or INCIN.
INCIN.
CHOXO- or INON.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS- or INON
FSUBS; or INCIN.
FSUBS: or INCIN.
INON
FSUBS- CHOXO; CHREO: Of
INON.
AOGAS fb NEUTR; or NEUTR
CHOXD; CHRED: or INC1N.
INON.
INON
INON.
INON
HMCHC.
INCIN.
FSUBS- et INCIN
INON.
FSUBS; CHOXD; CHREO: O
INQN.
INC1M
tNf IM
FSUBS' Of INCIN.
INON.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 53. No. 21 /Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rales and Regulations 3881
268.42 TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
WMta
cod*
U171
U173
U178
U177
U178
U182
U164
U166
U1«9
U191
U193
U194
U197
U200
U20T
U202
U208-
U213
U214
U21S
U216
U217
U218
U219
U221
U222
U223
U234
U236
U237
U238
U240
U244
U246
U240
U249
SMtMO
NA
NA— — ~ -
NA
NA
NA - - ,- ,-„-
HA
NA .. .. .. .. .....
ft*
NA
NA
>JA
NA .. . ..
H. ' ' J
NA
NA
MA
NA.
Tab* CCW in 268.43
TabM CCW in 268.43
TaMa CCW in 268.43
Tab* CCW ft 268.43
NA
•
NA
NA
NA _. i
NA
Wasta dMcnptnn* and/or
2 Nitropf 00*°* •• ••-"--- •••'
N-NitrotOH)MV4tMnolVTMrai
N-Ni1ro»o-N-«tl»ylur«a _.
N-Nnroso-w-flwmyiu'w..
N-Nitroso-N-motttyiuratnana
Ptrtldanyd* —
1 3-P»niai»an«
PlKJSUlKJnjs sulfida - -
2-Pieohna -.J
1 3-Propana suttooa
itPiBO(»iniiiii
p-Banawumona
Pnrprt
Raaoronol ... - -
Saccnann afrtwM ,., ,,
StrapioiaiOQrt
Tananydrolurin1 «... — _ — .,..,
Thalta*n (I) ae»lal* .
Thalfcum (i) cartonata .
Thallium (1) chtonda
ThaMwfli W «*•«•
Thioacatafnrit . ' • "-
ThtOUfM --- ---,„ -_.,,,
Tolu«n«d«min*
»-TolwdM» Mydncntond*
NA _ . _
.
NA _
NA
NA
NA _
Ml
NA . ,..._,, ,.,
MA _ ...
Trypan BhjO ~.- -.-
Urac* muswrt
Ettiyl cwtMfMM. _ —
2.4-OicNoropnwMfvtcMc (ttttt
indMMn).
ThifMH ,i i —
Cyknogtn brofnot .... . .
Wartann (3% or M$a).
Zinc PhMOtwla (<110%).
CAS No. for
rcgulatad '
hazartfoua
consuttMnta
i
7»-»6-«
1116-54-7
759-T3-9
684-93-5
615-53-2
123-63-7
76-OT-T
504-60-9
nr«-to-9
10»-06-«
1120-71-4
107-10-8
106-51-4
S9-SS-6
IOt-46-3
1 81-07-2
jaa*« «A 4
10t-9»-»
S83-6»-«
6533-73-9
7791-12-0
10102-*S-«
62-55-5
62-56-6
2537t~»5-a
634-21-6
26471 -62.-S
98-35-4
72-57-1
64-75-1
51-79-6
'94-75-7
137-26-«
508-68-3
8T-81-2
1314-ft4-7
'Tachnotogycod*
CAR8N(
orlNON.
(WETOX or CHOKO) •> CARBN;
ortNON.
NA
NA ,. , -».r „-- - - - -
MA ... _.--_--
MA-.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
orMCM.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or (NO*.
CAR8N: or INON
; (WETOX or OtOXtH to CAHBN;
orlNQN.
CAR8H or tNON ,; ....
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
orlNCW.
(WETOX 01 CHOXD) fb CARBN,
oilNCtN.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
orlNON.
(WETOX 01 CHOXO) fb CARBN:
or INON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
orlNON.
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN:
or WON.
CHOXD; WETOX; or INON
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb GARB*
orlNON.
CHOXD: CHRED: or INON . -
Nonwastawatars
INON.
INON.
INC1N.
INCIN.
INCIN.
FSW8S; or INCIN.
INCIN.
FSUBS; or INCIN.
CMOXO: CURED; Of INON:
INCIN.
INOM.
INCIN.
FSUBS: or INCIN.
INCIN,
FSU9& or INON. -
INQN.
INON.
FSUBSt or INON.
RTHRM; or STAflC
RTHRM: or STABL.
RTHRM: or STABL.
RTHRM: or STABL.
INON.
INON.
FSUBS; or INON.
INON.
FSUBS; or MOM.
INON.
INON.
INCIN.
INON.
INON.
INON.
CHOXD; WETOX: or INON.
FSUBS; or INQN.
CHOXO: CHREO: or INON.
1 CAS NumMr gn«n for parent compound onty.
> Thitwao tod* anata « oaaaoustorn*ar»» no« eataqonzad aa-wntawawr or nonwastavmiar form*:
MotK NA maana Not AppkcaM*.
268.42 TABLE 3.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS MIXED WASTE
Watta
coda
0002
Q004
•»oan«n»ddunnBttaraproc«a«ioo»>ual«x»aaitt-ataQnrv. .- . .,
CAS NO.
NA
TacNtttogy coda
Waaiawawra waau£««f»
MA .. J MLVIT.
NA. JNA._ IHLVTT.
-------
3892 Federal Register / Vol 55, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.42 TABLE 3.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC RADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS MIXED WASTE—Continued
Watte
COM
0005
0008
0007
0008
0009
0009
0009
0010
0011
U1S1
Wasm jMcnption* and/or treatment category
Radtoectrve high level waitei generated during the iDfocesunfj of fuel roda aubcaiAgory ..,......,
Radioactive high level wamaa generated during trie rnttfoceaemg of fuel rods subcategofy
Radioactive lugh level want* generated during the reprocessing of fuel roda subcategory — __..._..
Radioactive lead soNde aubcategory (Note* tfteee lead aoMa Include, but are not Smrted to. aH forma of
lead shielding, and other elemental lorma of lead. These lead sotida do not Include treatment residuals
such aa hydroxide eludgea, other wastewatar treatment residuals, or nonerator ashea that can undergo
conventional poztoianc stabHoation, nor do they ndude organolead matenaia that can be incinerated
and stabilized aa ash.).
Elemental mercury contarrMnatad with ratftvfaiiPff matenaia ._««»..........«»...«.........«...... ...............
Hydraukc at comamnatad with mercury; radioactive matenaia aubcategory
Radioactive high level waatea generated during the raproeeaaing of fuel roda aubcategory
Redioacova high level waatea generated during the reproceaamg of fuel roda aubcategory
Radioactive high level waatea generated during the reproceaamg of fuel roda aubcategory
Mercury Elemental mercury contaminated with radioactive matenaia , „,,,,, ,
CAS No.
NA
NA
NA....;:...: ....
7439-92-1
7439-97-6...
7439-97-8....
NA
MA
NA
7439-97-4 ....
Techno*
Wastewatera
NA .....
NA
NA
NA
NA.. _
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA .
igycode
Noiv
waatewatera
HLVIT
HLVTT
HLVIT.
MACRO
AMLGM.
IMERC.
HLVIT.
HLvrr.
HLVFT.
AMLGM.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.
12. In S 268.43, Table CCW in
paragraph (a), and paragraph (c) are
revised to read as follows:
(a) * • •
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
926L43 Treatment standards cxprMMd
xtcstfrtrations).
Waste code
0003 (Reactive
Cyandaa Sub-
category baaed
on
261.23(a)(5)).
0004
Ooos _
0008
0007
0008
0009
0010...
0011
0012
0013
0014
0015
0018
0017
F001-F005 spent
sorventa.
FOC1-F005 spent
sorventa
(Pharmaceutical
Induetry-
wastewatar
Subcategory).
F008
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA _
NA
NA _
NA
NA
NA....
NA.
MA
NA
NA
NA ___..
Seeatao
MA
Table CCWE In
288.41.
Table CCWE In
268.41.
Table CCWE In
288.41.
Table CCWE In
288.41.
Table CCWE In
288.41.
Table CCWE In
288.41.
Table CCWE m
288.41.
Table CCWE in
268.41.
Table 2 in 268.42 ..
Table 2 tn 288.42..
Table 2 in 268.42
Table 2 in 268.42 ..
Table 2 in 268.42 -
Table 2 In 266.42
Table CCWE fa
288.41 and
Table 2 In
268.42.
NA
Table CCWE in
288.41.
Regulated
hazardous
oonatituant
Cyantdee (Total)
Cyanide*
(Amenable).
A/aerac « .
Barium
Cadmum. ._..._._...
Chromium (Total)
i ff4
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Endrin
lindane
Metftovycfitor
Toxaphene.....
2,4^
2.4 S-TP (Sirvex)
1.U-
TricrHoroethane.
Bercene
Methyiene
chionde.
Cyaradee (Total)....
Cyamdee
(Amenable).
Cadmum —
Cnromum
i fff
Nlrftel
CAS number
coneiiiueni
57-12-6
67-12-6
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7439-97-*
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
720-20-8
58-89-9
T^ At f
8001-35-1
94.75.7
93-78-5
71-55-6
71-43-2
75-09-2
57-12-5
57-12-6
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
Waet*
coneenBatwn
(mg/l)
(41
0.86
6.0
100
1.0
5.0
5.0
020
1.0
50
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
0.030
0.070
0.44
1.2
0.66
1.6
0.32
0040
O44
•rater*
Notea
—
Nonwaa)
(mg/kg)
590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.13
0.086
1 3
100
79
7.6
3.7
NA
S90
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
^a^ektaMW
anVWOTV
NMM
in
c
c
(i
(i
M
c
o
,
,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
.^893
Wast* COde
FX7
pooa _
F009
F010 ...
F011
F012
F019
F024
F025 (Ught Ends
Subcatagory).
Commercial
chemical name
NA
NA.
NA
NA
NA
NA —
NA
NA
NA.— .._ ..
Seeaiao
Table CCWE In
238.41.
Table CCWE in
..68.41.
Tab* CCWE in
268.41.
NA
Table CCWE In
268.41.
Table CC.VE in
268.41.
Table CCWE In
268.41.
Table CCWE In
2S8.41 and
Table 2m
268.42 (Not*:
F024 organic
ttsndards fnust
be treated via
mdwiaoon
(INCIN)I.
NA
Regulated
hazardoua
constituent
CyaradM (Total)
Cyande*
(Amenable).
Chromium (Total)...
Lead
Nickel
Cyaradae (Total)—
Cyanidea
(Amenable).
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Cyaradee (Total).—
Cyanidea
(Amenable).
Chromium
Lead
Nickel ._ _ —
Cyanidea (Total) —
Cyaradea
(Amenable).
Cyaredes (Total).*
Cyanidea
(Amenable).
Chromium (Total)...
Lead
Nickel
Cyanidea (Total) -
Cyaradea
(Amenable).
Chromium (Total)-
Lead
NfCMI .
Cyaradea (Total)—.
Cyaradea
(Amenable!.
Chromium (Total)
Z-CNoro-1.3-
butadiene.
3-Chloropropeo*....
1.1-
Ocnloroetnana.
1.2-
Dichtoroethane.
1.2-
Oichkyopr^
pane.
cw-1.3-
Dicf.torOv-0-
pene.
Iran*- 1.3-
Ochloropro-
pene.
Bi»<2-emy(h.rty(>-
pmfiiat*.
Chrorraum (TotaO...
Nickei
Chloroform ..._ _.
1.2-
CxMoroetnane.
1.1-
Ochloroeiny-
Mne.
MetnyMne
cnlonde.
Carbon
teiracnionda.
1.1.2-
Tnchioroethane.
Trlchloroemytene ..
Vinyl chloride
CAS number
htuarooue
constHuent
57-12-5
57-1 2-«
7440-47-32
7439-02-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-02-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-1 2-S
7440-47-32
7439-42-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-47-32
126-99-a
107-05-
75-24-3
10V-06-2
ra-87-5
10061-01-6
10061-02-6
117--81-7
67-72-1
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
67--S6-3
107-08-2
75-35-4
75-9-2
56-23-5
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-01-4
Waatewatera
Conc0ntTeUx)n
(mg/O
1.9
0.1
032
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
032
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.9
0.1
0.32
0.04
0.44
1.2
O.M
0.32
0.28
0.28
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
3.014
0.036
0.038
0.36
0.47
0.046
0.21
0.02S
0.089
O.OS7
0-054
O.OS4
027
Note*
-
••—-——-••—— —
- —
(')
(')
C)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(•)
(')
(•)
(')
(•)
(*)
(•)
C)
-*-.
Cooc4.ntr.rton
(mg/kg)
590
30
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
1.5
NA
110
9.1
NA
NA
NA
110
9.1
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
0.28
0.28
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
1.6
1.8
NA
NA
6.2
62
62
31
62
62
5.6
33
Notes
— — " —
" — -** -
C)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
O
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
-------
3894 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Roles and Reyulattoaa
268.43 TABU CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
WBSt& 000*9
F02S (Soem
nttan or Aid*
and Descants
Subcategory).
F039
1
1
1
1
t
t
COfTKTtCfOAl
cT.cancat name
NA
NA
.
i
i
: i Rtoutere*
See also ! "tzamoiM
: constituent
NA .
i
i
i
Table COVE in
26841
i
i
!
i Chloroform
; MemyMrw
cnionde.
• Carton,
tetractilono*.
: 1,1.2-
| TrcWoioetrjra.
. TrichtoroeOTyiona...
Vinyt cnlonCe
HexacMorotMn-
zane.
Heiacnioralxita-
diene.
He*acfioroetnane ..
i Acetone...—
Aceraoninaiene
Acenaonttiene
Acetonit-ile
-Acaiocfienona
2-
Acelylarnno-
tMoren*
Acrottm
Acrvtonrtrtfe
Aldnn
4-Ammooioheny« ...
Arwiine. ..^«B.._^__..
Amnracerje* •
Aranwte. — ^_
ArocXw 1016... .
ArocJor- 1221
Arocior 1232
AroetOM242
Aroelor 124«_
Arocior 12S4-._
Aroder 1260
alpna-BMC
beta-BHC
dena-8HC..
gamme-BMC —
Beruen*
Benz(a)anmracen«
Benio(b>-
lluorentnene.
Benzo(k>-
lluorar.inere
Benzol g ruV-
perytene.
Benzolalpyrene
Bromodicriloro-
metmne.
Briw* w'v/i n^
(Tnofomo?netrw
ane).
Bromonwinane
(memyt
browdel.
**romop»46
0.089
0.057
0.05<
0.054
057
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.28
aosg
0.059
O.t7
0.010
0.059
O29
054
0.021
0.13
0.81
0.060
0.36
0.013
0.014
0.013
0.017
0.013
0.014
0.014
000014
000014
0.023
00017
0.14
0.06*
O.OS5
0068
00055
0.061
0.35
063
0.11
0055
5.6
0.017
0066
0057
0014
0.0033
0.46
0.057
0.10
0.057
0057
0.27
rVotes
I1)
l!)
('•}
(')
(*)
(3)
f1)
(2)
(')
I1)
(«)
(')
(')
I1)
(')
ta)
(=)
t2)
(J)
(3)
t2)
(•)
(')
I2)
(')
(2)
t2)
«*)
(')
t»)
l'»
(s)
(2)
(2)
I1)
(')
(:)
(•}
I1)
l'l
(=)
i2)
i1)
('}
I2)
C)
i1)
t")
ts)
t2)
<2)
<•)
(')
i2)
(•>
Coneerttwion Mot——
Irng/ka) : Note*
65
31
6.2
6.2
5.6
33
37
28
30
160
34
40
NA
9.7
140
NA
84
0.966
NA
14
40
NA
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
18
18
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
38
82
3.4
3.4
1 5
82
15
15
15
15
26
79
2.5
56
NA
0.13
16
5.7
NA
NA
15
60
(')
t')
(')
(')
(')
(')
o
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
»')
(')
I1)
(')
(')
e)
I1)
(')
(')
(')
i
H)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
t')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
t')
(')
C>
(')
(')
I1'1
1 (')
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3895
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
WaMecoda
I „ ,
I cofTNReroai
cnaff»cal name
"
See also
Regulated
hazardous
constituent
bis(2-
Chioroetnoxy)
methane.
bis<2-Chloroethyl)
ether.
Chloroform —
b4S<2-
Chloronopro-
pyi) ether.
p-Chloro-m-creeol ..
Chkxomethane
(Mathyl
chtonda).
2-
Chtoronaphtha-
L^M*
WW.
2-Chlorophenol —
3-
Chtoropropy-
lena.
Chrvsena
o-Crwot -- - -
Craaol (m- and p-
isomenl.
Cydohexanone —
1.2-O«xom>3-
cntoropropana.
1.2-
Dibromoethane
(Ethyfene
dAromde).
Dferomometnane ...
2.4-
Oicnkjfopoeooi^
acetic
«od(2. 4-OV
04J-OOO
pjj'-OOO
04>'-OOE
ptf-OOE
04) -DOT
P.P--ODT
DibenztaJi)
anthracene.
Dibanzo
C)
C)
C)
C
C
C
(I
C
(>
C
-------
3896 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Wttt«code
i
Commocul
cfwnctt n*nM
1
SMtfSO
R«gutotatf
hauroom
const7tu«r>t
tra"s-l.3-
OicMoropro-
p«no.
Owttiy* pr.malate....
2.4-OimrJiyl
phenol
phttwut*.
1.4-
Oinrtrcbenzena.
4.6-Din*o-o-
CfVStM.
2.4-Omitropneno(....
2.4-Cinnrotaaiana...
2.6-Dinitroto«.
Cich«nvUm.ne..
1.2-OtpMnyl
hydrazirw.
Cpnenyl
nuioMmn*.
1. 4-Oioxane
Oisuttoton
cndosul<*n I . ...
ErxJosirtUn II ._
ErxkMuttan
SUltlM.
Endnn
Ethyl cyvida
Ethyl •«•
Ettiyt
rr«macrylat«.
EtfiyMn* oad* -
Ftmpliur
Fluorww
Ftuofomctikxo-
Haptaetiiof
p«n«.
!"d«oo1
I1)
I')
(*)
I1)
(i)
(')
(2)
(•)
(*)
Jt\
ilk
(*)
Nonwttti
18
0 13
23
14
28
28
2.3
160
160
140
£8
28
14
MA
MA
MA
170
82
0066
0.13
0.13
0 13
0.13
33
360
6.0
160
28
160
MA
15
40
33
OOC6
0066
37
26
0001
28
28
8.2
65
170
0.066
2.6
0.13
64
NA
t.5
0.18
nraMn
N
D
i1)
r)
Ml
^'
C]
-------
Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulation* 3897
268.43 TABLE CCW.-CONSTTTUEHT CONCENTRATIONS IN WAsres-Continued
1
GoiftnMfCili
!
|
I
!
i
1
!
SM«I*O
| Ragutattd
nuMdou*
constituent
3-
u*mytctiourmv
r«n*.
ba-42-
cnkxocnim*).
Mcmyton*
Cfltond*.
M«myt«ttiyt
•(•ton*.
M«lhyl aooutyl
Ktton*.
M^tfiyt
nwmaoytaM.
M«myl
memwtuNon-
•M.
Mcttytpvamon....
Naphttutan*
2-Nionttiytaflwi*....
Nitrotoonzsn* ..«._..
5-Nrtro-o-wturtn* ..
N-
mm*.
N.
NrtraMdkn4«r-
lamm*.
N-Nitroio-dt-n-
butytttivA*.
N-NrtrMWMinyt-
•mytvnra.
N-
Im*.
N.
NftraMpiptri-
dHM.
r«-
dine.
Pamthtnn
P«m*cntorob*4uram.
b«nz*n*.
PcntacMoro-
1pf^*nol.
Pti>n«c»*n
PhOfVtS.«.».« — -...
•ntrydM*.
PronMTCd*... —.,.
Pyr«o»
Pyncfen* ._.._
Sttrol*. . .
Sitvwt (2,4.5-TF).._,
2.4.5-T
1.2.4.5.-
T«McNorob*n-
{•fMl
TitracMorod-
b*nz^fuwn&
TctfttcMoradft*
b*roi>-p-(kO3on*.
1.1.1.2-
«n«.
CASnumtMT
conttrtuent
56-4»-6
75-09-2
76-93-3
106-10-1
80-62-6
66-27-3
298-00-0
91-20-3
91-69-6
96-96-3
99-55-8
100-02-7
55-18-6
62-75-*
924-16-3
10695-05-6
59-«a-2
100-75-4
93045-2
56-38-2
606-93-6
— — ~ —
87-6«-6
62-44-2
108-96-2
299-02-
85 44 9
23950-68-5
129-00-0
110-86-
94-59-
93-72-1
93-76-5
95-94-3
630-20-6
WMM
(m»/l)
0.0055
0.069
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.016
0.014
0.059
O.S2
0.068
0.32
012
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.013
0.013
0.014
0.055
0.000063
0.089
0.081
0039
0.021
0.069
0.093
0.087
0.014
0.081
0.72
0.72
0.055
0.000063
0.000063
0.057
rattn
NotM
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
P)
(')
I
j
(
(«)
(')
(')
(*)
(')
(')
(•)
(«)
(')
(M
(•)
fM
(•)
/it
(•>
n
<«)
m
o
o
«•)
(•)
(•)
(•)
Mom»«iti
(mg/kg)
15
33
36
33
160
NA
4.6
3.1
NA
14
28
29
28
NA
17
2J
2J
35
35
44
37
0.001
7A
16
«5
4.6
NA
1.5
92
16
22
7.9
7.9
19
0.001
0.001
4?
•watM
NotM
I1)
(')
(')
(')
I1)
(')
(')
('•
(M
(')
l\\
(')
(')
C>
(')
(')
(')
(')
C>
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
,,
(')
(')
-------
3898 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Rules ano^ Regulations
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
wtstecod*
K001
*
K002
K003
K004 ,
1
K005
K006.
K007
KOM
KOO*,,™.^. ^
KOIO
Commercial
U
pane.
1.1,2-Trichloro.
1.2.2-tritluOfO-
etnane.
Tri8<2.3^
dibromoDropyO
pnoapnate.
Vinyl cniortde
Xylenela)
Cyanides (Total) —
Sulflde
Antimony ..............
tvttnc —
Qsnucn..... -.—,
Befyttium
Cadmium ..
Chromium (Total)...
Cooper
Leed
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
a*yw — —
Thallium _
Zinc
Napntnalene
Pentachloio-
phenol.
Phenantnrene
Pyrene
Toluene
Xytenea (Total) —
Lead
Leed J
Chromum (Total)-
Chromum (Total)...
Chromium (Total)...
Leed
Cyanides (Total)—
Lead
Chromium (Total)...
LMd ._....__ __...
Cyandea (Total) —
Chromium (Total)...
Lead
Ct4viriAfi"t
Chlorc4orfvi .«.»*»—.
CAS number
hazardous
constituent
79-34-S
127-18-4
58-90-2
108-88-3
8001-35-1
120-82-1
71-8S-8
79-00-*
79-01 -«
ft*! fl* J
9V W5I ^
88-06-2
96-18-1
76-13-1
126-72-7
75-01-4
"ST^IW"
1Q964-468
8496-25-6
7440-36-0
7440-36-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47.32
7440-50-6
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-26-0
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
91-20-3
67-«6-6
85-01-6
129-00-0
106-66-3
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
57-12-«
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
67-66-3
67-66-3
Wait*
Concentration
(mp/i)
0.057
0.056
0.030
0.060
0.0095
0.055
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.16
0.03S
0.65
0.057
0.11
0.27
0.32
1.2
35
14
1.9
1.4
M
0.82
0.20
0.37
1 3
026
0.15
0.55
0.62
0.29
1 4
0042
1.0
0.031
0.18
0.031
0.026
0.028
0.032
0.037
09
3.4
0.9
34
0.9
34
0.9
3.4
0.74
n A
0.9
3.4
0.74
0.9
34
0 1
0.1
«ter»
NotM
I1)
Is)
<•)
0
(')
I1)
I1)
I1)
(')
n
o
(3)
t1)
o
(M
(')
(•)
i"»
(*)
(•)
I')
(')
(')
(»j
(')
it)
(i)
(')
(M
(')
I1)
<2>
(2)
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
I1)
(')
(X\
(')
<«)
1*1
(')
i*\
n
c)
0
c)
0
(M
(•)
lt\
Nonwist
Concentration |
(mg/kg) j
42
5.6
37
28
1.3
19
S.6
S.8
5.6
37
37
26
28
MA
33
28
1.8
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5
7.4
1.5
1.5
28
33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(«)
C)
NA
NA
(«)
NA
NA
6.0
•waters M
Note?
I1)
C)
C)
C)
i')
C)
(')
C)
C)
C)
C)
n
C)
C)
C)
C)
r....
"™I™."!~
!'"
i
("i
o
c>
C)
C)
C)
NA
-H t~-
C)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3899
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
wastaeod.
i
CofflflMfCUl I SAA rttO
cnmttinam. i
I
Rcgulatad
hazardoua
conttMnt
K013
K014. .
K01S
K016
f?17
K018 -_
K019
j
!
NA i NA
NA ..
NA
NA
NA_
NA.
M»
NA .. _
TabMCCWEIn
26841
NA
NA
NA, .,
AcrytanwM
B«nzan.
Cyanida (Total)..-..-
Ac«orvtnt.
Acryiamd.
Cyand. (Total)-
Aoatonm*.
Aoytontnt.
Banzai......... ...
Cyanida (Total) —
Anttti ac.n. . .
B«ualCNond. —
Sum ot BannXb)
Huorantt*n.
andB«ao
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
f^lMWi IttBll j
(mo/kg) i
1,1
1.4
23
0.03 I
5M
18
1.4
23
0.03
57
1.8
1.4
23
0.03
57
3.4
6.2
3.4
3.4
6.0
NA
NA
28
5.6
5.6
28
6.0
18
28
7.2
6.0
NA
60
6.0
28
56
29
5.6
60
56
6.0
6.0
NA
6.0
NA
28
56
5.6
NA
6.0
NotM
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
('»
(')
(')
(')
' (')
(')
(')
(')
(')
<')
(')
". n
n
n
o
c>
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
c
c
c
n
1
c
c
c
c
-------
3900 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.43 TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES— Continued
Wastacoda
KOPO
K021
K022
K023
K024
KC28 „
I
i
I
K029 I
Comnwc*
i
JNA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
NA _.
NA
i
1 1
K030 , NA .„.
i
NA
Tabia CCWE m
268.41.
I
TaWa CCWE In C
26841
NA
NA
Tabla CCWE tn
268.41.
i
NA ;
i
i
NA „.
RaoUatad
hazardous
consmuant
1.2.4-
Trictitorobaiv
zena.
1.1.1-
! Tricnloroathane.
1.2-
' Dichtoroethana.
1.1.2.2-
TitrachkxoatN
ana.
i Tetracrtkxoatn-
ene.
Ch'orotorm
Carbon
teuacfiiohda.
Oiphanytratrosa-
rfima.
Sum of
and
mma.
Phanot
Chromium (Total)...
Ntekal
Phtfialic
anftydnda
(maaturad as
Phttiahc
anhydnda
Phthahc acKfl.
1.1-
Dichkxoathana.
trans- 1.2-
Ochloroathana.
Hexachlorobuta-
diana.
Hexachloroatfiana .
P«macmoroatn-
ana.
1.1.1.2-
Tatracnloroatn-
ana.
•1.1.2.2-
Tatraentorosth-
ana.
1.1.1-
TficWoroetnana.
1.1.2-
Tnchtoroathana.
T«i/acnioroatriy-
lena.
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)...:
Laad
Nirtal
Chlrxoiorni
1.2-
CicMoroethana. i
1.1-
Cichloroethy-
Inna.
1.1.1-
Tncnloroathana.
Vinyl chlonda
o-
Oichloroban-
z*n*.
P-
Dichkxooan-
zana.
CASnumbar
lorraoUatad
hazardous
conftituam
120-82-1
71-65-6
107-06-2
79-34-6
127-18-4
67-66-3
56-23-5
7440-36-0
108-88-3
96-86-2
22-39-4
86-30-6
108-95-2
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
85-44-9
75-34-3
67-68-3
67-72-1
76-01-7
630-20-4
79-34-6
71-55-6
79-00-5
127-16-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
67-66-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
71-55-6
75-01-4
95-50-1
106-46-7
WtttawMtTa) NonwAstflwittrv
Concentration
(mo/l)
0.023
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.046
0.057
0.60
0.080
0.010
0.52
0.40
NA
0.039
0.35
0.47
0.54
0.54
0.007
0.033
0.007
0.033
0.033
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
6.4
0.35
0.037
0.47
0.04G
0.21
0.025
0.054
!
0.27
0.008
0.008
Notas Concantrstton
C)
(')
«')
'!'
'!'
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
19
6.0
6.0
5.6
60
6.2
6.2
NA
0.034
19
NA
NA
13
12
NA
NA
28
28
6.0
60
5.6
28
5.6
5.6
56
6.0
60
6.0
NA
NA
NA
MA
60
eo
€0
60
60
NA
NA
Notas
C)
I1)
O
C)
C)
(')
C)
C)
C)
(')
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
1 I-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3901
2S3.43 TABLE CCW.— CONSTTTUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES— Continued
Waste code
K031 .
K032 -
K033... ._ _
K034 ...
K035...
K036
Commercial
NA ... _..
NA.
NA
NA
NA.
o*rmjt*tmA CAS numoef
M£ *S£f
«**«"•* °£*K
Hexachkxoouta-
dwna.
Hexacfikxoetnane .
HexachJoropro-
pene.
Pentachkxoben-
zena.
Pantacntoroeth-
ana.
1.2.4.5-
Tetracnioroaerv
zena.
Tetr&chtoroetti-
ane.
1.2.4-
Tnchkxoban-
zene.
Tat)!e CCWE in A/ssnic
268.41.
NA. Hexachtoropenta-
done.
Oikvrtarvt , „ ,
Heptacntor....-
Heptacntor
eponde.
i pentadrana.
NA ; Haxacntorocydo-
paniadiana.
NA Acenaphthane
Anthracene
i Benziaiantnracene
Benzo(a)pyrena
Chryseoe
Dibenz(a,h)antnn>
cena.
Fhjorantnene
Fluorene
Indeno(l2.3-
j cd)pyrana.
i Crasois (m- and
{ p- Isomers).
Napntnatone
• o-creaot ^
Pheoantnrona.— ....
Phenol -. .
Pyrene
NA Diculfmnn
K037 NA NA riMi«n
-------
3902 F*dnai Regteter / Vol. 55, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Rules and Reputations
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
wasucoo*
K046. .
K04S _
K049
1
1
K050 „ 1
1
1
1
r
NA
NA - ....
NA
NA
I
1
, S««ai*o
|
Tab* CCWE in
268.41.
TalM CCWE in
268.41.
TaM CCWE In
258.41.
TabMCCWE in
268.41.
Raqulalwt
naraioeua
conMfeMi*
P^ntatcWwo*
prwnoL
TatracMoretttv
•o*.
Hmacniorodt-
CUfrro-o-dtanns.
H«ac*ikxo«3f-
bwizo-furara.
Pontscttorodh
(Mnzo-iMioxins.
PwincfJorodt-
Iwnzo-lurana.
twnzo^Hliauns.
Telnetuorodt-
bcrzo-furan*.
Laad. -
BtfzvfWi _ ,__.
B«nzoa»aUi „,„
Pyr vnc ..™...^.._
TO(U4»1»
Xyler»<») .. .
CyaradM (Toui)
Ofonwjm (Total) .
L«td
OttmX»pyi*ii»
Df%A«feMa
Cyandw (Total)
Chromium (Total)...
LMd
constituent
87-86-5
79-01-4
7439-92-1
71^*3-2
50-32-8
)17-«1-7
218-01-9
64-74-2
100-41-4
66-73-7
91-20-3
108-95-2
129-004
101-68-3
57~12-T
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
190-19-7
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81-7
7S-1&-0
2218-01-9
105-67-9
91-20-3
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-82-1
50-32^1
108-95-2
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
W*-
(mg/()
0.022
0.006
0001
0.001
0001
0001
0001
0.001
0.037
0011
0.047
0.043
0.043
0.08
0.011
0.05 -OMt
0.033
0.047
0.045
0.011
0.011
0.028
0.2
0037
OO9Q
0.011
0.047
0.043
0011
0.043
0033
0.033
0.047
0.045
9.9T1
OOT1
0.028
9.2
0037
0 047
0047
0.028
0.2
0.037
(
NOtM
C)
C)
,.,
:
C)
IM
C)
I')
*')
f 'I
t1)
C)
C)
<•)
-)
')
')
')
')
')
C)
C)
C)
.... •-—•——•
C)
C)
I1)
t1)
C)
(1)
C)
I1)
(1
C)
C)
C)
IM
t1)
(M
lt\
C)
..
RnMMMton
(Tig/ kg)
19
1.7
0001
0.001
0001
0001
0001
0001
NA
NA
^4
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
NA
42
3.6
36
14
22
18
NA
NA
Tfl
14
12
7.3
NA
15
NA
42
3.8
36
14
22
18
NA
NA
12
36
1.8
NA
NA
Notal"
C)
I1)
C)
C)
(1)
(IV
(ii
(')
111
I1)
C)
C)
I1)
n
<~i
i1)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
t
m
t1)
C)
C)
C)
C)
t1)
t1)
I1)
I1)
»')
C)
I1)
(It
(M
C)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1C91 / Rules and Regulations 3'
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste code
=£zss. s— " 35
K051 _ J NA
K052
K060
K061
NA.. .
NA
NA -
j
K062 NA
K069
K071
NA
NA
K073.. ._ .- NA .. _
Table CCWE in • Acenip/JM*
268.41. Anthracene
: Benzota)-
antiiracane.
Benzo=: 0.06
i!!^^- 0.011
^T^- 0.05
Cr 0033
-Z^^-0.039
H~~ -0.045
Z^r— °°11
__^/~^ 0.011
^J^~ 0.028
\! — ~- 0-^-
^ ^0.037
0.011
0.047
0.011
0.011
0.033
0.011
0.033
0039
0.047
0.011
0.011
0028
0.2
0.037
0.17
0.035
0.028
0.042
1.9
1.61
032
0.51
0.44
0.32
004
0.44
16
0.51
0.030
0.057
0.046
0.055
0.056
0.054
(')!
(J)
I'll
- "1
nl
iua
r)
o
i1)
0
1
i^
i
i
o
o
o
NA [
28
14
20
12
----- •- 73
15
14
NAl
42
34
38
36
14
22
1.8
NA
NA
14
12
.6.2
8.2
NA
14
42
34
36
14
22
1.8
NA
NA
0.071
3.6
34
3.4
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
62
6.2
30
62
i
62
i
i 77 ~
I
i
[:::::. '..:
i
r
1
1
-------
3904 Federal Reyster / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday, {anuary Cl. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.43 TABIE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES— Continued
Waste code
K083
K084
cnenecal name
NA _ _.
NA
KOS5 NA . . ..
'
See also
Table CCWE in
<;63.41.
'
hazardous
constituent
CASnumter
hazankxa
constittMnt
WMtewaten Ntonwastewt'ers
COtlJ^ti°n N«-
Benzene i 7V-«3-2 0.14
Anrine 1 62-63-3 o ai
DtpnenylBBWie ! 22-30-4
CipnenytntPoea- : 86-30-6
rrwte.
Sumo»
and
Ciphenytwew*-
nwte.
Nitrobenzene 98-96-3
Phenol .„._.__..
Cydorteianone
^ [
(mQ/kQ) ' "
|>) Rfi l'\
.-I ,.
0.52 (») | NA i
0.40 I2) ' NA 1
NA 11 I'l
0.068
108-96-2 | 0.039
138-94-t 1 0.36
NK*el 7440-O2-0 i 0.47
NA 1 Arsanie 744O-3.1-3
NA
•
Serene 71-^.1.9
Cnicvocwzeiie
0.79
n 1<
108-80-7 0.057
0- 95-50-1
CichXjroben-
m-
541-73-1
CichlcraOen-
zone.
P-
DicMoratwn-
:ene.
1 1.2.4-
Tncnlorotwn-
zene.
1.2.4.5-
Tattacfflorcoen-
zane.
PentBdXocooen-
zane.
Hexaeftloroben-
zere.
Arodoi 1016
Arodof 122t_
Arodo* 1232—
AfOdpf >242_
106-46-7
130-B2-1
95-94-3
608-93-5
118-74-1
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-6
53469-2 t-0
Am»Md>/24»_ 12672-23-6.
AreaoTl254 11007-69-1
' ArodOf 1260_ : 11096-82-6
O.OS8
|
i
(!) 14 C)
fi 6 1 ')
NA
_. NA
ft) A A (t 1
1 1 *•* I (
(2) 4.4 |'|
(=) 1 4.4 C)
j
0.036
0.090
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.013
0.014
0.013
0.017
0.013
0.014
(')
I1)
(*)
44 ,')
44 1 Cl
1
4.4 (')
-
(!)
<*)
(*>
(*)
C)
C)
I1)
C)
I1)
4.4 (')
1
4.4 C)
44 (')
0.92 I'l
0.92 "t'l
0.92 C)
0.92 C)
092 Cl
1 8 (')
0.014 i i»l 1 1 « i (')
-------
F«d«Ml R«gi«tar / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thuraday. January 31 1991 / Rulea and Regdatfam« 3905
268^43 TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS w WASTE&-Con8noed
VYutt coos
c£STS£a i S"«"° ' SSSSS
j <*ai»c»ntma j j eonwituam
Koea - • NA
K087
K083
K094
M095
K099 .. ..--
NA
NA_.
NA. 1
NA..._
NA
i
TaWaCCWEirt
268.41.
TablaCCWEin
268.41.
N»
f«
M*
NA ....
Acatona
Acatopnanona
Bi*<2-«tnyftiaxyl)
phttulata.
n-Butyl ttoonet
autytbtozytpmna-
la*f 1
Cyd^wlxinona ....
1.2- y
Dicttforobaiv
zana.
Diain* pMtntai*.....
Oitnattiyl
pnttwita.
DUvbutyl
pmnaiita.
Ci-n-octy»
phthtAA.
cthylbanzana.....^)
Maffiyi •obotyl
katona.
Mathylemyl
katona.
Mathylana.
chlonda.
Naptitftaiana.w,.—
T'^'lf'f1*
1,1.1-
TrtcMoioamana.
Trichtoroamytena ...
Xylana* (Totti)
Cyandaa (Total)
ChmfflMq (TnMI)
Laad
Banzatw
FHjofwithana .— — «
Indano(t2>
cd)pyraniL
Napmnttana
Toluana
Xytanaa
Laad
Pmtiakc
•nnydHda
(matawaaaa
PMMkcacMft.
PWha»e
•nriydada
(maaawada*.
PWunciad).
1.1.12-
Taftctiloroatlv
•na.
1.1.22-
ana.
Tvl/aLAluvuatn*
ana.
1.12-
ThcMoroamcna.
Trichloroaoiyiana ...
PanucUoroath-
•na.
1.1.1.2-
TatracNoroattv
•na.
1.122-
TetncMeroaOv
•na.
CASnun«ar
nX f^QtitBtvd
hazardous
cooctiBwnt
67-64-1
96-68-2
117-61-7
71-34-3
85-68-7
106-84- t
95-50-1
84-66-2
131-11-3.
54-74-2
117-84-0
T«t-78-«
100-41-4
67-58-T
108-tO-l
78-tS-3
75-09-2
S»-30-9
98-95-3
108-6*-9
71-66-9-
79-OT-«
57M*«
7440-C-32
7439-92-1
20a-96-«
rt-43-a
218-01-ft
206-44-0
193-39-5
91-20-3
85-01-6
108-8t-3
743
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
(')
I'l
(')
(!)
(')
_ . i
(mg/kg)
160
9.7
28
26.
79.
NA-
6.2-
28-
28.
28
28
33.
e.o
NA
33.
36
33
11-
14
28
&6
S6
28
1.5
NA
NA
3.4
0.071
3.4
3.4
3A
34
3A
aas
0.07
NA
28
28
5.8
5.6
6.0
6.0
5.6
2i
5,
5.6
5.6
Nota*
(')
t1)
01
-^4r^
'~~^- — (1)
^^;!
-— (>)
., ('}
^^. — <•»
^^-— — n
^— — -^(1)
~^3\
— -— — ^(l)
•^s"——~—
0>
(')
(')
CI
(')
(')
c>
«')
(')
(')
c:
c
c
c
c
<
t
<
(
i
-------
3906 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continue*
Wtste code
K097 „
K098 _...
K099
K100.. ..
K101
K102
K103
K104
K105
Commercial
cnemcainam*
NA
NA. ..
NA. _
NA
NA
NA _
NA
NA „
NA
See also
NA
NA
NA
Table CCWE in
268.41.
NA
Table CCWE In
268.41.
NA
NA
NA
Regulated
hazardous
constituent
Tetrachloroeth-
ane.
1.1.2-
Triehloroethane.
Tricrtloroemene
Trichloroetnylene ...
Dichtoroben-
zene.
Pentachioroatrt-
1.2.4-
Trichloroben-
zene.
Hexachlorocydo-
pentadiene.
Chlordane
Heptacnior....
Heptacnior
eponde.
Toxaprtene....
2.4-
Oicnfofopnen-
oxvaceac acid.
Hexecniorodh
Hexacniorodiban-
zoturana.
benze-p-dnxina.
Pentechlorodibefv
zoturana.
Tetracnioredi-
benzo-p-dioans.
zoturana.
Cadmium
Ovomum (Total).. J
Lead
o-Nitroanriina
Arsenic.-
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
o-Nitfopnenoi
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Aniline
Benzene
2.4-Dinrtropnenol....
Nitrobenzene
Aniline
2.4-Oinrtrophenol...J
Nitrobenzene
Phenot
Cyanides (Total)
Benzene
CnloroOenzene
o-
Dichloroben-
zene.
P-
zene.
2.4.5-
TricMoropnenol.
2.4.6-
TricfUorophenoL
2-Chloropheool ,
Phenol 1
CAS number
lor regulated
hazardous
constituent
127-18-4
79-00-5
79-01-6
79-01-6
541-73-1
76-01-7
12042-1
77-47-4
57-74-9
76-44-6
1024-57-3
8001-35-1
94-75-7
- —
7*40.43 9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-4
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
62-53-3
71-43-2
51-28-5
98-95-3
108-95-2
62-53-3
71-43-2
51-28-5
98-95-3
108-95-2
57-12-5
71-43-2
108-90-7
95-50-1
108-16-7
95-95-4
88-06-2
95-57-8
108-95-2
Waste
Concentration
0.056
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.036
0.055
0.055
0057
00033
00012
0.016
00095
1.0
0001
0.001
0001
0.001
0.001
0.001
1 6
0.32
0.51
027
0.79
0.24
0.17
0.082
O 098
079
0.24
017
0.082
4 j
015
0.61
0073
1 4
4 5
0.15
0.61
0.073
1 4
2.7
O 14
0.057
0.088
0.090
0.18
0.035
0.044
0.039
•raters
Notes
(*)
t*\
* '
«',
°
' '
.
1 '
Nonwtst
CoocGntnton
(mg/kg)
6.0
6.0
56
5.6
56
54
19
24
0 26
0 066
0.066
y ft
1.0
0001
0001
0001
0.001
0.001
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
C ft
60
56
56
56
60
56
56
56
1 8
44
44
44
4.4
4.4
44
44
cwaters
Notes
(i)
,,
,,
•
.-,
C)
' *
n
...
( '
( '
i
'
:,
,
*
*
j,
:,
.,
J,
.,
j,
.,
-
-------
Fednri Register / Vol 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3967
268.43 TAH£ CCW.—CONSTITUEJ*T COWCCWTRATICNS IN WASTES—Continued
3-
w
Q*
to
t
tf
0
-s
4
Waste cod*
Klfua
CoiftWQTCtaf
cnarrecal name
MA
|
1
K115 -i NA
>• I
P004 i AWri"
P01 1
P012
P013
P020
"021
P022
P024
PQZ9
P036
P037
posa
P039
P047
P050
P051
POM
P059 . .._ _
P060
ArMracpwttoxxM.
ArMnc trtcaode
Barium cyanide
2-tac.ButyM.6-
dinrtropnanot
(DinoMOI.
Calcium cyamd*....
Cartoon dnotlkt*
p-Chloroanatna
Copper cymd*
Cyandm (Joki&M
salts and v
cornpMXMJ/'
DicnkyoprWnfhf-
sm«.
DMMrai
DMthytanma
Ditulfotnn
4,6-Cinitro-c-
CTMOL
2,4-Oinitfopha»icl....
Endosuttart
Endrm
Rjonda
htaptaenior
liodm
Sa«alao
, Tifil* CCVME in
258.41 «nd
TabMZin
26142.
TabMCCWEin
268.41.
NA . -
TaMCCWEm
, 268.41.
TabMCXMEin
266.41.
Tabl«CCM£in
| 268.41.
Tab* CCWE in
268.41.
NA
NA
Tabto 2 in 266.42 ..
NA
NA
NA
TabMCCWEin
200.41.
N* . -
Tabfcccwem
268.41.
NA
NA
NA -
NA
NA
. TabM2h2BiX2..
NA „
NA _
P065
P071
P073
pft74
POTT
P082
P089 1
PC92
P094
P087
POM _
Marcury tUmnata ..
M*myiparath«n....
Nickal caroonyi
Nickel cyand*— ...
N-NitrosoeutMtn-
ytamn*.
PvatNon
ac*tt».
Famptwr
Potasawm
cyand*.
TabM CCWE in
206.41 and
TabM 2 to
268.42.
NA
TabM CCWE in
268 4 1.
TabM CCWE in
268.41.
NA _
TabM 2 m 26»A2 ..
NA _-
TabM CCWE in.
268.41 and
TabM 2 in
268.4Z
NA
NA
NA _..__
Raguialad
hazardous
consbtuant
Manuy
NicteBt.. .
Aldrin ... .
ArtWKC -
Arsan*
Arsanc .....
Cyanxtac (ToM)
CyanidM
(ArnanabMt
2-sac-ButyM.6-
dinrtropnanol
(Onosab).
Cyaradac (Tottt....
CyanidM
(AnwnabM).
Caroofi dMuHidSL....
p-Cntonanri«* —
Cyanida* (TotalX....
CyanidM
(AriMnabMW
Cyanida* (Tout)
Cyaradas
(AmanaMa).
Arsamc
DwtdRn ...«».._
Vsatvc .
DisuNoton
4.6-Omtro-o-
CTWOt.
EndOBultvit
EndoauHwt II
Endoauttan
sultaM.
ErxJnn _
Endm akMftyda
Fluortda-
Haptacntot
•penda.
Isodnn..
CyaradM (ToUI.-.
CyaratfM
(Amanatt*
M«thT(pa(*tnwn...
Nukfl
CyaradM (ToW)
CvandM
(AnMnatMK
Nickal
p-Nitroan*n»._
N-Nitroaod>n«uv
ytamma.
Paratluan
VMfcury
Pt»ra««
Famphur
CyandM fCotafl....
Cyan«M
(AnMnaoMf.
CASnutntMT
torraguwtod
haiarrtoua
consatuent
7439-«7-«
7440-02-0
309-00-2
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-36-2
57-1 2-4
57-t2-6
88-85-7
57-1 2-6
S7-ia-&
75-15-0
106-47-6
57-12-S
57-12-5
5T-12-S
S7-U-S
7440-38-2
60-57-1
7440-38-2
298-O4-4
534-52-1
5t-2»-5
»39-ee-6
332>3-6-S
1031-07-8
77-20-*
7421-03-4
1M84 i» 8
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-8
57-12-6
57-T2-6
7439-97-6
296-00-0
7440-02-0
57-12-4
57-12-6
7440-02-0
100-01-6-
62-7S-»
sa-aa-a
7439-97-6
296-02-2
S2-8&-7
57-12-5
57-12-5
Wastawatars ! Nonwastcwaters
Concafrl/atH^i
(n»g/l) !
0.030
0.4T i
0.07> I
0.79
0.79
i
0.79 1
1.9
0.1
0.066
1.»
0.1
OU014
0.46.
1.9
0.1
1.9
0.1
0.70
0.017
0.79
0.017
0.28
ff.1?
0.023
0.02*
0.029
0.0028
0.025
35
0.0012
0.016
0.021
>»
0.10
0.030
0.025
(?, W -OJ*.
1i
0.10
a.44
0.028
040
0.025
0.030
0.025
0.025
1.9
0.10
NolM !
(M
I
I
Cl
(')
m
CT
n
cr
(«T
o
o
o
i')
.—
i=)
rjuui^tr^uu. I
(mg/kg) ;
NA
NA
OJ56*
NAi
NA!
NA
110
9.1
2.5
. 1tO
9-1
NA
16
110
9.1
110
9.1
NA
0.13
NA
0.1
160
160
0-088
aw
at»
OL13
113
NA
0.066
0.086
0.066
m
9.1
NA
0.1
| NA
1 110
1
\ »«*•
t »
NA
0.1
i N*
1 0.1
0.1
110
9.1
NotM
«')
(')
(')
-
(')
-;-; -a -a -a -a ~~
(')
(')
t1)
(')
t1)
r
t1
c
-------
3908 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
268.43 TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES— Continued
wist* cod*
CommeroaJ
chemical name
S«««l«o
Regulated
hazardous
constituent
CAS numb*
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
Wastewaten '
Concentration 1 .. , ;
(mg/l) : Note*
Nonwastewaters
Concentration 1
(mg/kg) :
Notes
P099
P101
P103
PI 04
P106
P110
P113 _.
P1 14 _
P115
P119
P120
P121
PI 23
U002
U003
U004
U005
U009
U012
U018
U019 _..
U022
U024
U02S
U027
U028
i
U029
U030
U031
U032
U036
U037
U038 i
U039 :
1,043 i
U043 !
U044 !
U045 i
U047
U048
U050
cyanide
, Ethyl cyanide
(Propanennnle).
Silver cyanide
Sodium cyanide.. .
Tetraethyl lead ....
Thallic oxide
Thallium setenrte...
Thallium(i)suHate....
Ammone, vandate..
VanadNjm
pentonde.
Zinc cyanide
Toxaphene
Acetone
AcetonrMe
Acetophenone
2-
Acetylammo-
fluorane.
Arakne
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzofarpyrene
BislZ-
cr.ioroethoxy)
•^tnane.
B»,'2-chloroethyl)
etner.
Bi*(2-
chloroisopropyl)
ether.
Bis(2-ethylheiryl)
phthalate.
(Methyt
brorrMde).
1 Dromopfienyl
phenyt ether.
n-Butyl alcohol
Calcium chroma te..
Chlordane (alpha I
and gamma), i
Chlornrjemene
Chlorobenzilata I
p-Chloro-m-creaol ..1
a Chler-eetty* >•
Vinyl cfHonde 1
Chkxomethane <
(Methyl
chloride).
2-CNoro-
naphthalene. •
2-Chlorophenol . ;
Chn/sene
Table CCWE in
268.41.
NA
Table CCWE in
268.41.
Table CCWE in
268.41.
NA
Ta.ile CCWE in
258.41 and
Table 2 in
263.42.
T-Sle 2 in 268.42 .
Taole CCWE in
Z66«1.
Table • in 268.42 ..
Tab* 2 in 268.42 ..
Tib* 2 n 268.42 ..
NA
NA
NA
Table 2 in ? 8.42 ..
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table CCWE in
268.41.
NA
NA
Table 2 in 268 42
NA
Taele a m M8i«a . 1
NA '
NA . :
NA :
NA
NA ... !
NA ;
Cyanide* (Total)
Cyanides
(Amenable).
Slver
Ethyl cyanide
(Propanenitnle).
Selenium .
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanide*
(Amenable).
Silver
Cyanides (Total)
Cyarndea
(Amenable).
Lead
Thallium
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
Vanadium
Cyanides Total)
Cyanides
(Amenable).
Toxaphene
Acetone
Acetonrtrrie
2-
AcatyUmino-
nuortrw.
Acfytooitnlt
Anihn*
Btnzvnv
8is(2-
cnioroetnoxy)
methane.
Bisf2-chloroethyl)
ether.
Bi s(2-
'•ftloroisopropyi)
ether.
pi thaiate.
(Mithyl
bro'iidel.
pM»'»l ether
n-Butyl alcohol
Chromiii-n (Total) ...
Chlordar e (alpha
and gamma).
a Chte>een.v» •
winyl.
Vinyl chtonQ4
Chloroform
(Methyl
cnionde).
2-Chtoro-
naphthalene
2O^lorophenoi !
Chrysene :
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-22-4
107-12-0
7782-49-2
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-22-4
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-28-0
7782-49-2
7440-28-0
7440-62-2
7440-62-2
57-12-5
57-12-5
BO0 1-35-1
67-64-1
75-05-8
fta ag i
53-96-3
107-13-1
62-53-3
e« geeo
71^3-2
1 1 1-91-1
1 1 1 44-4
39fi3A-')9-Q
1 17^1-7
74-B3-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
7440-47-32
57-74-9
cin_i<^;
59-50-7
75-01-4
67-66-3
74-87-3
95-57-8
218-01-9
1 9
0.1
0.29
024
1 0
1 9
0.10
0.29
1 9
0.10
0040
0 14
1 o
0 14
28
28
1 9
0.10
0 OOQ4
028
0 17
0 MO
0 9el
OBI
0 14
n n*w>
0033
044
56
032
*95*-
O 97
' n A4A
A f\AA
QO«;Q
(j\
(7>
t*\
(*)
f'»
/1\
fl\
)
(t\
/1|
(t\
1
(*)
1
)
in
110
9.1 I
NA I
360
NA
110
91 1
91 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
110
9.1
1 1
160
A/ A— 0-4?*
140
64
J4
Ifi
7 2
72
ya
IS
26
NA
n 11
IT
c 7
82
C)
/It
ik
ii)
(U
Pi
(')
J'\
1
Cl
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3909
268.43 TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES— Continued
Wast* coda
U051
UCS2
U057
U060
U061
U063
U06S
U067
U068
U069.
U070
U071
U072
U075
U076
U077 ... .
U078
J079
U080 ... .
U081
UOB2
uoas
U084 _...
UQ88
U093
U101
U102
U105
U106
Commercial SM also
cnwnicai name 30* "
1 Creosote ... . Table CCWE in
i 266.41.
i Cresols (Cresyiic *«A
acid).
Cyclone*anone . .. Table 2 in 268.42 ..
ODD NA
DDT NA
Dibanzoia n) NA
anthracene.
l 2-Dibro«T>o-3- NA
cnkxooropane.
1 2-DltXOmo NA
emane
(Ethyten*
dibfomifla).
Dibromomethane : NA
Oi-n-butyl NA
pnmaiate.
O- ' NA
Dichtoroben.
z*n».
m- ' NA
Dichloroben-
zene.
p- NA.
Oichtorooen-
z*n«. i
OctikJfoOrtluofo- : NA .
methane. '•
1.1. : NA
Dichloroetnane. i
1 2- NA..
Dichtoroettiane. i
1 1- NA
Dichtoroetny- ,
tan*.
1.2- NA
Dichtoroetny. ;
lena.
Metnylen* NA
cntonde.
2.4- NA
Oichloropnenol. !
2.8- ' NA
Dichlofopn^nd. 1
1.2- NA
DiChlOTOOTQ
oan*
1.3- NA
Dichkxooro-
P*n*. ;
Dxtrtyi pnttiain* . NA .. .
p Tabl* 2 in 266.42 .
Oim*tnyian»n.
oa*OMnz«rw.
2.4- ; NA
DimcttiylpMnof. 1
Oifiwtftyl : NA . .
pmtiaict*. |
2 4-OiraUotOkMrw...i NA
2.8-Oinrtrotolu«rv«...i NA
£££ Sf-SSS
-= sss
Mapntnaien*
Pantachloro-
pncnoi.
Phenantnrana
Pyrena.
Toluono
Xyten«» (Total) .
Lead
o-Oaaol
Cresolt (m- and
p- isomars).
Cyclohoxanona
op'-OCO..
p.p'-ODO
o.p'-ODT
p p'-ODT
o p'-OOD
pp'-OOO
o.p -ODE
p p'-DOE
DitMnzo(a.h)
antnracvn*.
1,2-Dibfomo-3-
cnkvopnxMna.
1.2-0ibromo-
•tnan*
(Etnylen*
d.bromid*).
Dibronxxn«than« ...
Di-n-butyt
pnthaiat*.
O*
OichlorotMn-
zen«.
m-
Dichlorobvn-
za««.
p.
DichloroMn-
z*n«.
DicMoroditluoro-
maman*.
1 1-
Dichlorocthano.
1.2-
DicMoro«tnan«.
1.1-
Dtcnloro«tfiv-
\«r»
trans- 12-
OcMorottny-
l«n«.
Mctfiylan*
chlonoa.
2.4-
DichlOfopn«oo4.
2.6-
OicMonxrwxx
1.2-
Oicnlorotxo-
pan*
os-1 3-
OicftlOfOOrocv-
ier»
trana-1 3
Oicniofowop»
l«n«
Dietnvl phtnalat*....
P-
Dim»tnvtanwv
oazoocnzarw.
2.4-
Dimamytpnanol.
Oirrwmy*
pnmalaM.
2.4-Onrtretotu«o«..
2.6-OinjtrotolVMn*..
91-20-3
87-86-5
85-01-8
129-00-0
108-88-3
7439-92-1
95-48-7
108-94-1
53-19-0
72-54-8
789-02-6
50-29-3
53-19-0
72-54-«
3424-82-6
72-55-9
53-70-3
96-12-8
106-03-4
74-95-3
84-74-2
95-50-1
541-73-1
104-46-7
75-71-6
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
156-60-5
'5-09-2
120-63-2
S7-65-0
78-87-5
'0061-01-5
10061-02-6
44-66-2
60-11-7
105-67-9
131-11-3
121-14-2
606-2O-2
Wattewaterc : Nonwastewatars
Concentration N Concentration N
(mq/l) (Notes (mg/kg) Notos
0.031
0.18
0.031
0028
0.028
0.032
0.037
0.11
0.77
0.36
0.023
0.023
0.0039
0.0039
0.023
0.023
0.031
0.031
0.055
0.11
0.028
0.11
0.54
0.088
0.036
0.090
0.23
0.059
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.089
0044
0044
085
0036
0036
0.54
0.13
0.036
0.54
0.32
0.5S
i
i3)|
o
i:)
o
o
(2)
i2)
i1)
t')
i1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ia)
i1)
o
o
(')
!'•)
I1)
I't
I'l
I 1')
1')
I1)
t1)
(')
I1)
1 5
74
1 5
1 5
28
33
NA
56
3.2
NA
0.087
0.087
0.087
0087
0.087
0.067
0.087
0.087
8.2
15
15
IS
28
62
62
6.2
72
72
72
33
33
33
14
14
<8
' '9
1 •«
28
' NA
1
14
28
140
28
I1-)
r>
o
!')
('I
I1)
I')
i1)
1')
I1)
Cl
(M
("i
1"
("
t
I1
C
t,
(
(
(
\
1
1
i
-------
3§10
FeaWsl Ktgi«i«- / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 1BB1 / Rule* *ad
2S8.43 T«t£ CCW.—COIISTmjEWCDKZNTRHTIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Wast* cod*
chamical nama
Secitoo
FtogultfBd
tim ••nhi i !•
nBZWMS
CUIIBlftiiJIII
CASnumbar
formguttad
hazanjoua
comWuent I (mg/l)
Wastawatart
Coneantratton
NotM
Nonwastawatar*
Oonoanttabon
(mg/kg)
Not**
U107
U106 _
DHVoctyl
phthalata.
1.4-Oioxana
DMv
propylritroaoa-
U112..
U117..
U118..
U120
U127..
U128..
U129..
U130..
Ethyl aeauta —
,! Ethyl athar
Ethyl
matnaorylata.
Ruonvithana
TnchlorofDono*
ftuorofnatnana.
Haxacntorobafv
zana.
Haxachlorcfcuta-
U136 ............
U140..
U141..
U142.
U144..
U145..
U146..
U1SV.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.
CXrvoayl
phtMM*.
t,4-Ooxan«
DKV
Ethyl j
Ethyl <
Ethyl
Undana
NA.
NA
NA
NA.
NA.
NA.
Ruoramhww
Tn
HflKacMaMben-
He
aipha^BHC
t>Ma«MC
(Undam).
Haxaentonatfiafla
Hydrogan fluon^la.
CacodyHc acid—
lndano(1^>
c,d)pyrana.
lodomathana
itobutyl atoehoi
lso**fro!a
Kapona
NA.
Ttbta2ln268.42
TablaCCWEIn
268A1.
NA
Aratnic .
Laad phoiphata...
Laadsubaeatata.,
Marcwy
NA
NA.
NA.
NA
TablaCCWEIn
26641.
TabiaCCWEin
266.41.
TabiaCCWEin
266.41.
TabtaCOMEin
268.41 and
TaWaiti
266.42.
NA.
lodomatnana
isobuk^aieBhoi..
itoaafrot*—
Kapona
Marcun; -----
117-64-0
123-«1-1
621-44-7
VO-78-6
2W-44-C
113-74-1
87-8»-a
319-«4-e
319-8^-7
31S-86-8
77-47-T
16964^8^
103-38-6
74-88-4
78-63-1
12048-1
143-60-6
7439-92-1
7439-92-1
7«3B-»7-«
126-98-7
8748-1
91-60-5
101-14-4
-ltM
•1
91-59-8
924-16-8
'00-7S-4
930-55-2
OS4
0.12
0.40
0.34
0.12
4.44
0.068
00080
0.055
0.055
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
04017
CU»7
nnmc
35
0.79
nivuoc
0.19
ifl
0.081
0.0011
(*»
o
0.040
0.040
ooao
5.6
O081
1.0055
0.50
0.28
0.14
014
0.059
0.52
0.088
012 I
0.40
040;
o
0*18
0413
0.32
o
o
o
o
26
170
14
33
160
MO
8.2
33
37
28
0.66
0.66
0.66
048
34
28
NA
NA
4.2
65
170
2.6
0.13
NA
NA
64
NA
1.«
15
35
36
»!
-60 |
31 I
NA
14
29
17
A
35
26
37
i
I1)
(')
CI
I1)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3911
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste cede
U185
U187
U188
U190
U192
Commercial
chemical name
Pentachloronitro-
benzene.
Phenol
Phtnaiic
anhydride
(measured as
Phtnaiic acid).
Pmnftrmdtf
U196 Pyndme
U203
-------
3912 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Ruleg and Regulations
Appendix IV—Organometallic Lab
Packs
Hazardous waste with the following EPA
Hazardous Waste Code No. may be placed in
an "orqanometallic" or "Appendix IV leb
pack:"
P001. P002, P003. POM. POOS. P008. P007. POM.
P009. P013. P014. P015. Pmfl. P017. P018.
P020. P021. P02Z POZ3. P024. P028. P027.
P028. P029. POM. P031. P033. P034. P038.
P037. P038. P039. P040. P041. P042. P043.
P044. P04S. P046. P047. P048. P049. POSO.
P051. P054. POM. P057, POSB. P059. P080.
P062. P06S. P064. P065. P066. P067. POM.
P089, P070. P071. P072. P073. P074. P075.
P077. P081. P082. P084. P085. P087, P088.
P089. P09Z P093. P094. P095. P096, P097.
P098. P099. P101. P102. P103. P104. P105.
P108. P108, P109. P110. Pill. P112. P113.
P114. P115. P116. P118. P119. P120. P121.
PI 22. PI 23.
U001. U002. U003. U004. U005. U006. U007.
U008. U009. U010. U011. U012. U014. U01S.
U016. U017. U01B. U019. U020. U021. U022.
U023. U024. U025. U026, U027, U028. U029.
U030. U031 U032. U033. U034. U035. U038,
U037. U038. D039. L'041. U042. U043. U044.
U045. U044. U047. U048. U049. UOSO. U051.
UOS2. U053. U055. U056. UOS7. UOSfl. U059.
U060. U061. U062. U063. U064. U066. U067.
uoaa uoea uoro. uon. uo?2. uo?3.0074.
U075. U076. U077, U078. U079. U080. U081.
U082. U083, D084. U085. U088. U087. U068.
U089. U090. U091. U092. U093. U094. U095.
U096. U097. U098. U099. U101. U102. U103.
U105. UlOB. U107. U108. U109. UllO. Ulll.
Ulll U113. U114. U115. U116. U117. U118.
U119. U12D, U121. U122, U123. U124. U125.
U128. U127. U128, U129. U130. U131. U132.
U133. U138. U137. Ul3a U140. U141. U142.
U143. U144. U14S. U146. U147. U148. U149.
U1SO. U1S2. U153. U154. U155. UlM. U1S7,
U158. U1S9. U160. U161. U182. U163. U1B4.
U165. U188. U167. U168. U169. U170. U171.
U172. U173. U174. U176, U177. U178. U179.
U1SO, U131. U182. U183. UlM. U185. U188.
U187. UlBa U189. U190. U191. U192. U193.
U194. U196, U197. U200. U201. U202. U203.
U204. U20S. U2OS. U207. U208. U209. U210.
U211. U213. U214. U21S. U21S. U217. U2ia.
U219. U220. U221. U222, U223. U225. U228.
U227. U228. U234. U233. U238. U237. U238.
U231 L'240. U243. U244. U248, U247. U248.
U249.
FOOl. F002. F003. F004. FOOS. F006, F010. F020.
F021. F022. F023. F024. F02S. F026. F027.
F02B. F039.
K001. K002. K008. K009. K010. K011. K013.
K014. K015. K016, K017. K01B, K019. K020.
K021. K022. K023. K024. KOZS. K028. K027,
K028. K029. K030. K031. K032. K033. K034.
K035. K038. K037. K038. K039. K040. K041.
K042. KD43, K044. K045. K046. K047. K048.
K049. KOSO. K051. KOS2. K060. K061. K069.
K071. K073. K083. K084. K085. K086. K067.
K093. K094. K09S. K09B. K097. K098. K099.
K101. K10Z K103. K104. K105. Km K114.
K11S. KllB.
0001. 0002. D003. 0004. 0005. 0006.D007,
0008. D010. D011. 0012. 0013. 0014. D015,
D016. 0017.
14. Part 268. appendix V is revised to
read as follows:
Appendix V—Organic Lab Packs
Hazardous waste with the following EPA
Hazardous Waste Code No. may be placed in
an "organic" or "Appendix V" lab pack:
P001. P002. POOS. P004. POOS. P007. P008. P009.
P014. POlfl. P017. POlfl. POM. P021. P022.
P023. P024. P026. P027. P028. P030, P031.
P033. P034. P037. P03B. POM. P041. P042.
P043. P044. P045. P048. PO47, P048. P049.
POSO. P051. POM. P057. P058. POSa P060.
P062. P063. POM. P08B. P067. P06& P069.
P070. P071. P072. POTS. P077. P081. P082.
P084. P085. POB8. P089. P093. P094, P095.
4
°1
P097. P09a P101. P102. P10S. P108. P108.
P109. Pill. Pi 12. P11B, P118. P123.
L'OOl. L'002. U003. U004. UOOS. U006. U007..
U008, U009. UOia L'Oll. U012. UQ14. U0
U016. U017. U018. U019. U020. U021. U02
U023. L'024. U025, U02B. U027. UQ28. U029!
U030. U031. U033. U034. U035. U036. U037.
U038, U039. U041. U042. U043. LKM4. U045.
U048. U047. U048. U049, UOSO. UOS2. UOS3.
UOSS. UOSe. U057. U05B. UOS9, L'OBO. L'061.
U08Z U063. U084. U066. UOB7. U088. U069.
U070. U071. U07Z U073. U074. U075. L'076.
U077. U07a U079. U080. U081. U082. U083.
U084. uoss. uoee. uoe?. uoss. UOB9. UOQO.
U091. U09Z U083. U094. U095. UOB6. UOB7.
uoos. uooe. uim. tnoz. uu>3. uios. uioe.
U107. UlOB. U109. UllO. Ulll. Ulll U113.
UlM. U11S. U116. U117. U118. UT1». U120.
U121. U122, U123. U124. U12S. U12B. U127.
U128. U129. U130. U131. U132, U133. U135.
U137. U138, U140. U141. U142. U143. U147.
U148. Ul4a U1SO. U152. U1S3. U154. U1S5.
U156. U157. U1S8. U159. U160. U161. U162.
U1B3. U164. U16S. Uiea. U167. U188, U180.
U170. U171. U17Z U173. U174. U178. U177.
U17B. U179. U180. UlM. U18Z U183. U184.
U185. U188. U187. UlM. U189. U190. U191.
U192. U193. U194. U198. U197. U200. U201.
U20Z U203. U20B. U207. U20& U209. U210.
U211. U213, U218. U219. U220. U221. U222.
U223. U225. U228. U227. L'228. U234. UZ33.
U238. U237. U23&, U239. U240. U24J. U244.
U246. U2A7. U24B. U248.
F001. F002. F003. F004. FOOS. F010. F020. F021.
F02Z F023. F02S. P02B. F027. F028.
K009. K010. K011. K013. K014. K010. K017.
K01B. KOTO. K020. K023. K024. KD25, K026,
KD27. K029. K030. K03Z K033. K034. K035.
K036. K037. K03& K038. K040. K041.
K043. K044. K04S. K047. K08a K073. J
K093. KOB4, KD96. K00B. K097. K098,
K103. K104. K10S. K113. K114. K116.
0001. 0012. D013. 0014. DOTS. 0016. 0017.
15. Appendix VII to part 268 is revised
to read as follows:
Appendix VII
TABLE 1 .—EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (NON-SOU. AND DEBRIS) REGULATED IN THE LDfls •—COMPREHENSIVE
LIST
Waste category
Eltoetwoal*
California list..
I L
rita
California list..
California ust..
1M7
| JuTy 8. 1987
California tot..
CalrtarneksL.
0001
0002-
0003
D004
0004
DOO5
D006-
0007
0006
DOOA
MS wesles. mefudmg free kqwrts associated with solid or sludge. I July 8. 1987.
comanng tr»« cyanoet at concentratione greater then or equal to 1.000 1
mg/l or certa*) metals or compounds of mese metals grester man or equal
to the prorubroon levets.
LjouxJ (aqueous) hazardous wastes having • pH !•» tnan or equal to 2
Dilute HOC wastewaters. oeAned as HOC-waste mnrlures tnat are pnmanty
water and mat contain greater man or equal to 1.000 mg/l but less man
10.000 rng/L
UOUKJ haTsmnua weale containing PCS* greater tnan or eouai 10 SO ppm
Other dqind and nonbqud hazardous waaiee containing HOC* in total concen-
tration greater men or equal to 1.000 mg.
All _ _
AH ZZTIIZZ1™ ~"'"
AD "
, Wastewater
! Monwasiewater....
! AH
: AJ.
I AN..
1 Leed mafeneta before
Jut? a. 1087
NOV. a. isea.
Auq. 8. 1990
.I Aug. a. 1900
, Aug. 8. 1900.
Aug. 8. 1900.
Maya. IM2.
1 Aug. a. 1990
., Aug. 8. 1990
.I Aug. 8. 1990
Mey a. iflO
Aug. 8. 1990
-------
Fed«t»i Ragbtet / VoL 55. No. 21 / Thursday, January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3913
TABLE 1 .—EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (Mow-Son. AND DEBRIS) REGULATED M THE LDRs •—COMPREHENSIVE
UST—Continued
WtsMcod*
nnii
Oni?
"013
riniA,...,
rx><$
nnm
0017 .
P001 . — —
piyti
POOJ fi 1 j-trmoroaitw**}
P(V>?
POO?
POM
P003
P004 ...
PiyM
P.VW
C(V«
enn*_, ,
enn*
prmT
pnn^i
pnna
FQ1Q--..,-
PO11
cm 7
C010
F0?0
"=071 .,,., .,
P0»9
Fttn
Pfl94 (fn«iq^
POM*
P09«
P0»
C<""• . „,
*00»« ... ,_ .^
Km*
KO'6
"O1' J ^,r
K-mt
"ni3 „ ,
KHK , ,
K01' _
KOH_
"01S ,
"O^f
"017, . ,,,
K01f
*">-xx»cc guartty gwwnMort, CFRCUK f ttporni/ HCRA ccmckr* •ctnn. inrti*!
gtrwaiork »uln»« ••• MBAIM, to»«ni crmianng tludgM and aoMi.
SITIAM <|uw)My jtrtritff*B CFRCXA ratponM/RCRA cofrsctws acoon, nMai
AVott^m.
Sown qutttty gaxi^m. CERCLA CMponM/RCRA cocr«ow* acttm. infeal
gwontoc't MkMflMNMf ncrtn*. iokMM-ooco«nng dudgt* mt «oid«.
MA,..,. ..-I,....
A«
A«
AH
Al
^^fmnatvitAf „
AM
AM
AM
AD
AM
AM rttt^r^
AM
AM
AM
All
AMBlNwf
AM
AM
Nommtmu"
AM .
\A/.« ~T._
kl~~_ ,.__,._
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
AM
W.M.n.^,
Etfsrtv* dat*
Au^ 8s 1990.
AM^. ft, 1900.
Awp. t, twa
^i^ g, 1990.
Aug. A, 1900.
Aug. ft, tgea
»^ ft, I960
Now. ft, 1988.
NO*. •, IBM.
Atq. ft, 1990.
Now ft, 19M.
Now. ft, 198&
Now ft, 198*.
NOW ft, 198&
Now ft, 196C.
Now. ft. 198tl
Now. ft, 19M.
Now. 8. 1986.
Aug. ft, 1990.
Aug. ft, 19&ftV
July Vi 1999.
July ft, •ittML
July A. 1Aft4l
Ju^*. IMS.
jurat ft. 19W.
OAC.B, tftflt.
Jut**, 19ML
0*r (k 19Bd
July 8, tnea.
Aug.a.iasa
Now, 8, 19681
Now. ft. t988L
No*. 8, 198*.
Now.8, »98«.
Junat. 198ft.
Aug. ft, 1990.
Jun* 8, 198*.
Aug. 8.1980.
Now. 8, 1988.
Now. ft. 19*8.
Now. a. 1988X
Aug. ft, 1990.
ktar8, 198Z
Ayg.ft.198B.
Aug. 8. toaa.
AH*, a. ima
Aug. ft, 1990.
Aug. ft, 1990
Aug. ft, 1Wa
Aug.*. 1990.
Aug. ft. I99a
Aug. ft, 1990.
Jvn*C 19&9.
Aug. ft. I99a
Aug. 8. 198&.
Jumft. 1900.
JuMft. 196*.
Aug. 8. 139a
. JulM 8, 1989.
Aug. ft. 1990.
Jun«&. 1988X
4 Aug. ft, 1990.
4 Aug. ft, 19ftft,
. Aug. ft. 199O.
.Aug. ft, 198«,
4 Aug. 8s 19*0.
4 Aug. 8V l«fta
. Aug. 8X ItM.
. Aug.*, ma
j Aug.K,T«a
-------
3914 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (NON-SOIL AND DEBRIS) REGULATED IN THE LDRs '—COMPREHENSIVE
LIST—Continued
wast* coo*
Waste category
EHectiv* oat*
K021« ! Nonwast*wat*r i Aug. 8. 1988.
K022 ! Wast*wat*r „ ; Aug. 8. 1990.
K022 \ Nonwast*wat*r | Aug. 8.1988.
K023 „ ; All __ | Jun* 8. 1989.
K024 _ ! All _ _ _ j Aug. 8, 1988.
K025 „. ! Wastewatw „ Aug. 8. 1990.
K02S' — i Nonwastewater | Aug. 8. 1988.
K028 ! All JAug.8 1990
K027 _ j All I Jun* 8. 1989.
K028 (metals) _ ; Nonwast*wat*r j Aug. 8.1990.
K028 j Allotners „ | Jun* 8, 1989.
K029 ! Wast*wat*r _ ; Aug. 8. 1990.
K029 Nonw«st*wat*r.._ | Jun* 8. 1989.
K030 All _ j Aug. 8. 1988,
K03i I Wasteweter _ ; Aug. 8, 1990.
K03> j Nonwaswwater — | May 8 1992.
K032 __ !A« .j Aug. 8. 1990.
K033 _ _ I All | Aug. 8 1990
K034 _ ! All Aug. 8. 1990.
K035 I A.: Aug. 8. 1990.
K03« „ J Wast*wat*r _ Jun* 8, 1989.
K038* i NonMastcwater j Aug. 8. 1988.
K037» ._ _ .. I Wastewatar Aim R i
K037 _ — : Nonwastawrater Aug. 8. 1986.
K038 «____._ __ All _._..._„.., „ ,,-- I Jun* 8 1989
K039 ! AII LII!JZIZLr.".."r...r....™ jun*a! 19W.
K040 _ _ ! All _ Jun* 8. 1989.
K041 _ | All Aug. 8 1990
K048 j AII ._..!"„.""" ~_.. """""'"""""""!"""""Z"""""I""1_-I!1!! Aug! a! 1990.
KOAS _ AII _ „-,....,......_ _...~...I__.I...!_!I"!!_!""™__"_!™™ jun*a, 1909.
K044* „ AN ~ ~ " " " "" ~__" Aug. 8, 1988."
KG*,- „ — _ AII "zzi_ z_"i™"Z!Zzzizzz_iz!ziz__~.j Aug.a. idea.
K04« (Nonmartval Nonwastewater _ Aug. 6,1968.
K046 _ — All Otn*n _ _ ~ __L__~ Aug. a' 1990-
K047 • All AuJ 8, 1988.
K048 1 Wasl*wat*r Aug. el 1990.
K048 - _ —j Nonwa*t*wat*r Nov. 8. 1990.
K049 _ _ — I Wast*wat*r Aug. 8. 1990j
K049 _ i Nonwastewater Now. 8. 1990!
K050._ — I Wastewat*r _ _ i Aug. 8,1990.
K050 ! NonwasMwatar .._ . Nov 8 1990
KOS1 ._ __ I waatawaur Aug. 8.1990.
K051 — _ -.! NonwasMwatar _. Nov 8 1990
*°« jWast*water „ _ :„„: I. Aug. B, 1990.
K052 __ _ | Nonwaat*wat*r | Nov. 8.1990.
K060 — _ _ | Wast*wat*r j Aug. 8. 1990.
K060« — ! Nonwaawwaur _ j Aug. 8. 1988.
K061.— „ _ I Wastewattv i Aug.8. 1990.
K061 (low erci (intanm standard tor high anc remains in *K*ct i Nonwaatewatar 1 AUG. 8 1988.
until Augus 7, 1991). j " I '
K062 _ ; All _ _ . j Aug. 8 1988
K069(Non-CaloumS.Mat*)« j Nonwaat*wat*r . ' Aug. 8 1988.
K069 __ _ _ I AIIODWi I Aug. 8 1990
K071 _ i All __ _ _ I Aug. 8 1990
K073— -...lAII... 1.LLI..II1I..1.I Aug. 8. 1990.
KOB3 ._ „„ _ i All. _ | Aug. 8. 1990.
K084 j Waatewatar i Aug. 8. 1990.
K084 — ; NonwastawaUK J May 8. 1992.
KOM— ! Allotnars !__Z!Z_Z.-!ZZ!ZZZZl ZZr ZZ T3 "~ Auo.8. 19Sel
K087 _ I All _ AuaB 198*
K093.— All . '^^^"'^"™^^.~~^^'^^^. Jun* 8. 1989.
K094...._ --....-.... „ _....___.. All „ __„_ __..... _ " Jun* &' 1989
KQQ^M i, ,, IT--._JJII^ _ «„„..„... Waat*wat*f AL^. A. IOBO
K095 __ 1 Nonwa*Mwat*r „_ ... . _ _. Jun* 8. 1989
K096. — | Waawwatar _ Aug. 8.1990.
K098 _ _ | Nonwast*wat*r 1..1..1..I...IZ..; Jun* 8. 1989.
KO97 __..__.__..„_. _._.....___. ' All AuO. 8. 1990
KOM •. JAM ZI _IIi™7_.r.Z.I!Z!!!".™_IZZZZI__I. Aug.8.1900.
K099 J All ,-. Aug. 8, 1988.
Kinn _^ ._..._„.._...... _„..„....«_ WasttVMtar_„ _________«__«. «____«___ Au& 8.1990
K1OQ*,, .- ,.. , _.._..,_...„....... NOnw*jSt0W*t*f __ lit* • 1QAA
K101 (organca) __ Waau»w«t_r.....I"! ~Zr.r_7"ZZr..Z""~Z~riZZr.I Aug. 8 1988.
K101 (ma_y*) J WaMMUv _.. _ " Aua a, 1990.
K101 (organea) Nonwastawatw Aug. 8. 19M.
K101 (mMats)——. f)inn»aii*»n*r , _ „ U*y ~~
K102 (organca) j wastewatar ~ ' ™"™ ~ " ' AIM. 8 is
».•««»...•«•.•.•«....! 111>._. _.•.*. ...i, ..ii >_>._.4,« •»...• 11. r**> ^«
-------
Federal Regular / Vol. 55, No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
3915
TABI * 1.—EFFECTIVE DATES Of SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (Now-Sou. AND DEBRIS) REGULATED IN THE LDRs •—COMPREHENSIVE
LIST—Continued
Wast* cod*
WWW category
Ef1«ct*«
Aug. B. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Miy 8. 1992.
1969.
1969.
1969.
Aug. a. 1990.
Jana 8. 19*9.
Jona 8. 1989.
Aug. a. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. a. T990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aog. a. t990.
Aug. a. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aog. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. t990.
Aog. 8. 1990.
j Aog. 8. T990.
Aon, 8. TB90.
Juna 8.198*.
Juna a. 1969.
Aog. 6. 1990.
Aog, a. T990.
May a. T992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. a. T990.
Jon* 8.
Jam B.
-------
3916 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 .—EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (NON-SOIL AND DEBRIS) REGULATED IN THE LDRs '—COMPREHENSIVE
LIST—Continued
Waste coda
wast* category
Effective oatej
All..
; All..
All..
All..
All..
All..
All..
All..
P068 _
P069
P070
P071
P072
P073
P074
P075
P076 _
P077 _
P078
P081
P082 _
P084 _
P085 _ ! All.
P087 ; All..
P088 _. ! All..
: All..
; All..
; All..
: AH..
; All..
! All..
All..
P089 All
P092 Wastewater
P092 ! Nonwasl«wat*f..
P093 ! All
P094
P095 _
P096
P097 ; All
P098 ; All
P099 (silver) ; wutewater..
P099 | Allotriers
P101 _ i All
! All..
All..
I
P102 [[[ j AH ..................
P103 ................. „. [[[ i All ..................
Pl04(silveo [[[ i Wutewater..
P104 ................ .
P105 [[[ ; All
P108
P108....
P109
PI to
P111
P112
P113
P114
P115
I All
i All
..! All..
; AH..
! All..
I All..
P116..
P118..
P119..
P120..
P121..
P'22..
P123..
U001..
All..
I All..
! All..
All..
• AH..
! All..
All..
AH..
..: AH..
..I All..
All..
U002 ; All..
U003 : All.
U004 ; All..
U005 _ ] All..
U006 .. ; AH..
U007 ; AH
U008 "... ! All
0009 "! !!!!!.! All!!
U010 ; AH..
U011 : All.,
U012 I AH..
U014 _ ' All..
U015 _ ! All..
U016 | All..
U017 ; All..
U018 ' AH..
U019 _ • All.
U020 ; All..
U021
0022 _ !!!!!!!
U023 _
! AH.
: AH.
! AH..
U024 _ : ; All:..
U025 - ! All...
U026 ! All..
U027 _ ; AH..
U028
'AH
AH !
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. a. 1990.
June 8. 1989.
Aug. a. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Junes. 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. a. 1990.
June 8. 1989.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8. 1989.
Aug. B, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. B. 1990.
June 8. 1969.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. B. 1990.
June 8. 1969.
June 8. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June a. 1969.
Aug. 6. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8. 1969.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June a. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8. 1989.
Aug. a. 1990.1
Junes. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. B. 1990.
June a. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. B. 1990.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3917
TARL«- 1 .—EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (NON-SOIL AND DEBRIS) REGULATED IN THE LDRs •—COMPREHENSIVE
LIST—Continued
Wut* code
Wist* category
Elective date
U030...
U031...
U032...
U033...
U034...
U035...
U036...
U037...
. U038...
U039...
U041...
U042...
U043...
U044...
U045...
U046...
U047...
U048...
U049...
U050...
U051...
U052...
U053...
UOSS....
UC56...
U057..
U058..
UOS9..
U060..
U061,
UC62
U063
U064..
U066..
U067..
U068..
U069..
U070..
U071.
U072..
U073..
U074..
U075..
U076....
U077....
U078....
U079....
U080....
U081....
U082....
U083....
U084....
U085....
U086....
U087....
U088....
U089....
U090....
U091....
U092....
U093....
U094....
U095....
U096....
U097....
U098....
U099....
U101....
U102....
U103....
U10S....
U106....
U107....
U108....
U109....
U110....
0111....
U112....
'. All ! Aug. 8. 1990.
; AH ; Aug. a. 1990.
! All ! Aug. 8, 1990.
| All j Aug. 8. 1990.
. All 1 Aug. 8. 1990.
! All , Aug. 8. 1990.
! All ! Aug. 6. 1990.
..i All..
..; All..
..; AH..
..j All..
... All..
..! All..
..! All..
..! All..
..! All..
..I All..
..! All..
..! All..
..j All..
.. All..
i Aug. 8. 1990.
.! Aug. 8. 1990.
.! Aug. 8. 1990.
, Aug. 8. 1990.
! Aug. 8. 1990.
. Aug. 8. 1990.
,| Aug. 8. 1990.
I Aug. 8. 1990.
.! Aug. 8. 1990.
.j Aug. 8. 1990.
.; Aug. 8. 1990.
.1 Aug. 8. 1990.
. Aug. 8. 1990.
. Aug. 8, 1990.
All Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Juiwe. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
..| All I Aug. 8. 1990.
..; All I Aug. 8. 1990.
..; All....! _ i Aug. 8. 1990.
..; All Aug. 8. 1990.
..I All ! Aug. 8. 1990.
All
! All
; AH
'All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
.
All
All
AII :
All
All
All
All
All ..
All
All
All
All
"'::::::::"::::::::.:..'":....":".. "' '.:. ;:
All
AD
All
All.
.. Aug. 8. 1990.
.. Aug. 8. 1990.
Jun«8. 1989.
Jura 8. 1989.
..! All j Aug. 8. 1990.
..; AII
..! All
..I All Aug. 8. 1990.
..! All _
.., All ;
..! All j Aug. 8. 1990.
..; All Aug. 8. 1990.
..i All Aug. 8. 1990.
..; All Aug. 8. 1990.
..; All : Aug. 8. 1990.
..! All I Aug. 8. 1990.
' Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
! All..
All..
! All..
All..
All..
! All..
..] AH ; Jun« 8. 1989.
..! All i Aug. 8. 1990.
..! All ! Aug. 8. 1990.
..! All Aug. B. 1990.
.J AH 1 Jun« 8. 1989.
All..
Aug. 8. 1990.
I All | Aug. 8. 1990.
AH i Aug. 8. 1990.
AH ! Aug. 8. 1990.
! All ! Aug. 8, 1990.
-------
3918 Federal Retpater / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 .— EFFECTIVE D.» ~HS OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (Now-Son. AND DEBRIS) REGULATED IN THE LDRs •—COMPREHENSIVE
LIST— Continued
d*tj
Mast* coo*
Wist* cttagoiy
Efftctiv*
U113 I An _._ _ ; Aug.8. 1990.
U114 ! An _ _ | Aug. 8. 1990.
mi* _ : An _..._.._ _ _ _ _.._ _ __ i Aug. 8, 1990.
U116 - - An _ _ j Aug. 8. 1990.
U117_._ .. An _ _ i Aug. 8, 1990.
I All _ _ _ _ _ _ I Aug. 8. 1990.
'. Afl _ — ...._ | Aug. 8.1990.
U120~-._—..—_ ! An _ _ „ I Aug. 8. 1990.
u 121 _._..—_— _ ; An _ _ _ _ Aug. 8.1990.
..J An __...._ _,.._ _. Aug. 8, 1990.
-•• Afl „.. _ — __ Aug. 8. 1990.
U124 _.... An _ _ _. _.. Aug. 8,1990.
.J An ... _„ __„ _ Aug. 8, 1990.
-j M - — - _ Aug. 8.1990.
- M — - _ _ j Aug. 8. 1990.
-! *«• - _ Aug. 8.1990.
-•• M Aug. 8,1990.
,..! An _ „ Aug.8. 1990.
..i An „ . _, „ ^ _ Aug. 8. 1990.
"1 M ~ - — Aug. 8. 1990.
U133 ', An..._ _ _. „ Aug. 8.1990.
U134 „ _ J An _. .._ Aug.8, 1990.
! Afl — Aug. 8.1990.
— Aug. 8.1990.
r _ __ _.__„ „_ _ Mtv 8,1792.
U137 j All i... Z.ZZZZZ Aug.8,1990.
U138.-..I __ „_ —i Afl _ Aug.8.1990.
U140__.„__ ___..„_ ! Afl __ ___ ,__._, AuQ. 8 1990.
U141 . ! All 1ZZZZZZZ™ "" Aug! B! 1990.
IH^^ ,, MI... „ ". . , Afl mrt AuQ. 8 1990.
U143 j An " " " Aua B! 1990.
ui44 „ _ j An 1.ZZZ1I1ZIZIZZZI1ZZZZZZZZIZZZZ Aug! e. 1990.
..i AR ...««.... . ... AUQ. flL 19QQ.
I .... .»~... ..M............... . ' '•*». •*• •*«**.
..: An... _ ._.»„_.... _ Aua. 8, 1990.
U147 _ J An.... _ ~ _!_ ""! " AuJ 8.1990.
...' Afl _ __.__...._._.„_ _..._.. . Aug.8 199Q4
..j AR _ .! 1..ZZZZZZZZZ Aug. a! 19901
...i Afl _ _ Aug. 8, 1990^
.J WmwMRBT ..Jim,,,.,,„•..,iMn-mi i ............ Aug. 8. 1990.
..! Nonoait^MUl _. . May 8. 1992.
U152 ...JAR _ .„._ . Aug. 8 1990
U1S3 _..J Afl _ _ AUQ. 8 1990.
U154 J AR " Auo 8 1990.
U155 J AR ... ~ AUO! B' 1990.
U1M > Afl ; Z.ZZZ1ZZ..!!.... Aug.Y, 1990.
! An _ _ J Aug. 8. 1990.
| An _ j Aug. 8. 1990.
U1S»____ _ ; AB j Aug. 8. 1990.
-! AH _ _ _ I Aug. 8, 1990.
._! An | Aug. 8. 1990.
jAfl . I Auo. 8 1990
U163 ! All Alig 61990
U184 .j Afl.... _ l.Z.Z..::!Z!Z!:::.ZZ...! ! Aug. a! 1990.
U18S _.._.!«! | Aug.8. 1990.
Uiee .j An „ _ ; Aug.8, 1930,
U167 {Afl ; Aug. 8.1m
U1ftB.— „ — — I, in,,,,,,....„, .... All ' AIM A * QQO
ui89 zzzz AflZ::::::::z::zzzz:zzzizzzzzzz:z:zzz: i A£^^ ^
U170 AR ;Auq.B 1990.
11171 . 'Afl AIM L. 1Qf^l
^^ • ........................... »^,. . .........,..........._........,.....,.. AUy. f>, 19.N.
i '179 , _._ _ _ _M ^ j Afl _ _ __ i Aua. a 1990.
1H7*| Afl ' A.** ft 1 oof\
—~—^^ - --..,«..—»... , ™ _ _. _. "Uu o. ' »**.
11174 __. ! M ._ _. ' AUQ 8 1990
ui78 _ _ .j M.ZZZ"."".'"ZZZZZZZ ZT " ! Aug a 1990!
urn _ i Afl...z;.zz;"zzzzzzzzzLzzzzzzzzzzz!] AU^ ai 1990.
' M Aug. 8. 1990.
I An J Aug.8, 1990.
'• Afl _ _ : Aug. B. 1990.
, Afl _ _ ; Aug. 8. 1990.
U182 - An '_ Z"ZZZZZZZ '.', Aug. 8. 199a
; An | Aug. 8. 1990.
Afl _ _ | Aug. 8. 1990.
' Ml Z.ZZZZ..-J '.I Aug.8. 1990.
U186 _ ....' Afl ; Aug 8 1990
U187 ! Afl __ „ ' ! AUQ. 8 1QM
uiea „ 'An _ — : zz::z:z:::zzz:z:j AuT B! iH
HIM i Afl „._ 1 Aua 8 19^1
ui9o '3 AflZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZ:"ZIZZZ"'ZZZijun*a.i9S
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3919
TABLE 1 .—EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES (NON-SOIL AND DEBRIS) REGULATED IN THE LDRs "—COMPREHENSIVE
LIST—Continued
Wasta code
Waste category
Effective data
U191
LM92
U193
U194
U196
U197
U200
U201 .
U202
U203
U204
U205
U20«
U207
U208
U209
U210
U211
U213
U214
U215
U216
IJ217
U218
U219 ....
U220 .
U221
U?2? --, ,„--,-
U223
U225
U228
U227
U228
U234
U235 .
U236
U237
U238
U239
U240 .
U243
U244 .... .
U246
U247 ...
U248
U249
All _
AH
All „ ....
AM
All ______ ___ _____ _
All ..... .
All _ _ .
All
All _ _
All
AH _____ _ ,..,
AH
All , , ,
All ._.,. __„
AH _
AM
All , ,.....„ _ ,,..
AH _ __ _____ ... , ,.. _
AM
AM _ _ _ _..
Alt _
All .
All _ .... __
Alt _
AH ..,.
AH „ . ....
All ._.
AN
AH
All _ .
AM _
AH ... _ ._ _ .. _ ..
All „ . _
All ...
AM
AH _ „
All .
All
AM ..
All _ _
All _ . . _
AM „ _
All . ..
AH
All
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 19SO
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8 1990
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug 8 1990
Aug. n 1990.
Aug. 8 1990.
Juna 8. 1989.
Aug. 8 1990.
Juna 8 1989
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. a. 1990.
Juna 8. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 0. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
• This table does not include mixed raOioactiva wastes (from ma First Second, and Third rules) which ara receiving a national capacity vi
'or all applicable traatmam tachnolog
-------
3920 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVE
DATES OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRIC-
TIONS FOR CONTAMINATED SOIL AND
DEBRIS S_.
CaUtOJMkSl.
Califcma tot
CalitmaM
0002 •_.
All town F001-FOOS aotvent comwwig las* wan 1 percent total F001-F005 sottfer* corwMuanis_ ...I
Liqud hazardous wastes, naming tree bguds aisnriatafl with any tokd or tiudga, comamnq <<•• cyarada* at
oonoantrationa graatar tnan or equal to IJOOO mg/l or conuminq oanam OS% solids, the solid pha«e
of the sample is ground to pass a 9.5 mm
sieve and extracted with deionized water
which is maintained at a pH of 5±0.2. with
acetic acid. Wastes that contain
-------
Federal Regbter / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3921
40 A pparatus and Materials
4.1 Extractor—For purposes of this test.
an acceptable extractor is one that will
impart sufficient agitation to the mixture to
(1) prevent stratification of the sample and
extraction fluid and (2) ensure thai all sample
surfaces are continuously brought into
contact with well-mixed extraction fluid.
Examples of suitable extractors are shown in
Figures 1-3 of this method and are available
from: Associated Designs & Manufacturing
Co.. Alexandria. Virginia; Clas-Col
Apparatus Co.. Terre Haute. Indiana:
Millrpore. Bedford. Massachusetts: and
Rexnerd. Milwaukee. Wisconsin.
4.2 pH meter or pH controller—Accurate
to O.OS pH units with temperature
compensation.
4.3 Filter holder—Capable of supporting a
0.45-tim Ulter membrane «od of withstanding
the pressure needed to accomplish
separation. Suitable filter holders raage from
simple vacuum units to relatively complex
systems lhat-can exert up to 5.3 4g/cor1 (75
psi) of presume. The iype of filter bolder used
depuds upon the properties of the mixture to
be filtered. Filler holders known to EPA and
deemed suitable for use are listed in Table 1.
4.4 Filter membrane—Filter trwmbnme
suitable for conducting the required filtration
shall be fabricated from a material that (11 is
not physically dunned by the waste material
to be filtered and (2} does aet Absorb or teach
the chemical species for which a waste's EP
extract will be analyzed. Table 2 lists filter
media known to the agency to be suitable for
solid waste testing.
4.4.1 In cases of doubt about physical
effects on the filter, contact the filter
manufacturer to determine if the membrane
or the prefllter is adversely affected by the
particular waste. If no information is
available, submerge the filter in the waste's
liquid phase. A filler that undergoes visible
physical change after 48 hours (i.e- curls.
dissolves, shrink*, or swells) is unsuitable for
use.
4.4.2 To test for absorption or leaching by
the filter
4.4.2.1 Prepare a standard solution of the
chemical species oi interest.
4.4JL2 Analyze the standard for its
concentration of the chemical speoes.
4.4.13 Filter the standard and reanalyze.
If the concentration of the filtrate differs from
that of. the original standard, then the filter
membrane leaches or absorbs ant or more of
the chemical apecies and is not usable in this
test method.
4.5 Structural integrity tester—A device
meeting the specifications shown in Figure 4
and having a 3.18-cm (1.25-in) diameter
hammer weighing 0.33 kg (0.73 Ib) with a free
fall of 15.24 cm (6 in) shall be used. This
device is available from Associated Design
and Manufacturing Company, Alexandria.
VA 22314. as Part No. 125. or it may be
fabricated to meet these specifications.
5S> Reagents
5.1 Reagent grade chemicals shall be used
in all tests. Unless otherwise indicated, it is
intended that all reagents shall conform to
the specifications of the Committee on
Analytical Reagents of the American
Chemical Society, where such specifications
are available. Other grades may be used.
provided it is lint ascertained that the
reagent is of sufficiently high purity to permit
its use without lessening the accuracy of the
determination.
5.2 Reagent water. All references to water
in this method refer to reagent water, as
defined in Chapter One.
5J Acetic acid (6.SN1. CH>COOH. This
can be made by diluting concentrated glacial
acetic acid (17.5N) by adding 57 ml glacial
acetic acid to 1.000 ml of water and diluting
to 2 liters. The glacial acetic acid must be of
high purity and monitored for impurities.
5.4 Analytical standards should be
prepared according to the applicable
analytical methods.
6.0 Sample Collection. Preservation, and
Handling
6.1 All sample* must be collected using a
sampling plan that addresses the
considerations discussed in Chapter Nine of
this mapn^|
6.2 Preservatives must not be added to
samples.
0.3 Samples can be refrigerated if it is
determined that refrigeration will not affect
'.he integrity of 4he sample.
"0 Procedure
7.1 If the waste does not contain any free
liquid, go to Sup 73. If the sample is liquid or
multiphase, continue as follows. Weigh filter
membrane and prefUter to ±0.01 g. Handle
membrane and prefilters with blunt curved-
tip forceps w vacnnrn tweezers, or by
applying suction with « pipet.
7.2 Assemble filter holder, membranes.
and pretiltgis following the manufacturer's
instructions. Place the 0.4t-pm membrane on
the support screen and add prefilters in
ascending order of pore size. Do not prewet
filter membrane.
7.3 Weigh out a representative subsample
of the waste (100 g minimum).
7.4 Allow slurries to stand, to permit the
solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle
slowly may be centrifnsed prior to filtration.
7.5 Wet the fii*«r wtth s small portion of
the liquid phase from the waste or from the
extraction mixture. Transfer the remaining
maiensl to the filter bolder and apply
vacuum or gentle pressure (10-15 psi) until all
liquid passes through the filter. Stop filtration
when air or pressurizing gas moves through
the membrane. If this point is not reached
under vacuum «r gentle pressure, slowly
increase the pressure in 10-psi increments to
75 psi. Halt fUtrsuon when liquid flow stops.
This liquid will constitute part or all of the
extract (refer to Step 7.16). The liquid should
be .refrigerated until time of analysis.
Note: OH samples or samples containing oil
are treated in exactly the same way as any
other sample. The liquid portion of the
sample is filtered and treated as part of the
EP extract. If the liquid portion of the sample
will not pass through the filter {usually the
case with heavy oils or greases), it should be
carried through the EP extraction as a solid.
7.6 Remove the solid phase and Glter
media and. while not allowing them to dry.
weigh to ± 0.01 g. The wet weight of the
residue is determined by calculating the
weight difference between the weight of the
Filters (Step 7.1) and the weight of the solid
phase and the filter media.
7.7 The waste will be handled differently
from this point on. depending on whether it
contains more or less than 0.5% solids. If the
sample appears to have <0.5% solids.
determine the percent solids exactly (see
Note below) by the following procedure:
7.7.1 Dry the filter and residue at 80 'C
until two successive weighings yield the
same value.
7.7.2 Calculate the percent solids, usms
she following equation:
weight of
filtered solid
and filters
tared weight
of filters
solids
initial weight of
waste material
Nates This procedure is used onry to
determine whether the solid must be
extracted or whether it can be discarded
unekiracied. It is not used in T°l'-"1°''nB the
amount of water or acid to use in the
extraction step. Do not extract solid material
that has been dried at 80 *€. A new sample
will have to be used for extraction if a
percent solids determination «'performed.
7.8 If the solid constitutes 3 J cm1 or passes through a 95-
mm (0.375-in.) standard sieve, the operator
shall proceed to Step 7.11. If the surface urea
is smaller or the particle sue larger than
specified above, the solid material shall lie
prepared for extraction by crushing, cutting.
or grinding the material so that it passes
through a 9-5-mm (0.375-in.) sieve or. if the
material is in a smgJe pteoe. by subjecting the
material to the "Structural Integrity
Procedure" described in Step 7.10.
7.10 Structural Integrity Procedure (SIP).
7.10.1 Cat a 3.3-cm diameter by 7.1 -cm
long cylinder from the waste maienal. If the
waste hat been treated using • fixation
process, the wsste may be cast in the form of
a cylinder end allowed to cure for 30 days
prior to testing.
7JOJ Place waste into sample holder snu
assemble the tester. Raise the hammer to its
maximum height and drop. Repeat 14
additional times.
7.10.3 Remove solid material from tester
and scrape off any particles adhering to
sample holder. Weigh the wsste to the
nearest 0.01 g and transfer it to the extractor
7.11 If the sample contains >0-5% solids.
use the wet weight of the solid phase
(obtained m Step 7.6) to calculate the amount
of liquid and acid to employ for extraction by
using the following equation:
w»w,-w,
where:
W —Wet weight in g of sobd to be chacged to
extractor.
-------
3922 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
W,« Wet weight in g of filtered solids and
filter media.
W,« Weight in g of tared filters.
If the waste does not contain any free
liquids. 100 g jf the material will be subjected
to the extrac.mn procedure.
7.12 Pla' e the appropriate amount of
material (n fer to Step 7.11) into the extractor
and add 1'. times its weight with water.
7.13 After the solid material and
water a:e placed in the extractor, the
operat ir shall begin agitation and
measi re the pH of the solution in the
extra ;tor. If the pH is >5.0. the pH of
the solution shall be decreased to 5.0
±0 2 by slowly adding 0.5N acetic acid.
If the pH is <5.0. no acetic acid should
be added. The pH of the solution shall
b: monitored, as described below.
' uring the course of extraction, and. if
ie pH rises above 5.2.0.5N acetic acid
;hall be added to bring the pH down to
5.0 ±0.2. However, in no event shall the
aggregate amount of acid added to the
solution exceed 4 ml of acid per g of
solid. The mixture shall be agitated for
24 hours and maintained at 20-40 *C
(68-104 *F) during this time. It is
recommended that the operator monitor
and adjust the pH during the course of
the extraction with a device such as the
Type 45-A pH Controller, manufactured
by Chemtrix. Inc.. Hillsboro. Oregon
97123. or its equivalent, in conjunction
with a metering pump and reservoir of
0.5N acetic acid. If such a system is not
available, the following manual
procedure shall be employed.
Not*: Do not add acetic acid too quickly.
Lowering the pH to below the target
concentration of 5.0 could effect the metal
concentration! in the leachate.
7.13.1 A pH meter shall be calibrated
in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications.
7.13.2 The pH of the solution shall be
checked and. if necessary, 0.5N acetic
acid shall be manually added to the
extractor until the pH reaches 5.0 ±. 0.2.
The pH of the solution shall be adjusted
at 15-, 30-. and 60-minute intervals.
moving to the next longer interval if the
pH does not have to be adjusted more
than 0.5 pH units.
7.13.3 The adjustment procedure
shall be continued for at least <• ars.
7.13.4 If. - :he end of the : ur
extraction -• id, the pH of r. . "jtion
is not belc -, l and the maxL" .::;
amount ot aa;d (4 mL per g 01 ;c.ids) has
not been auded, the pH shall be
adjusted to 5.0 ± 0.2 and the extraction
continued for an additional 4 hours.
during which the pH shall be adjusted at
1-hour intervals.
7.14 At the end of the extraction
period, water shall be added to the
extractor in an amount determined by
the following equation:
V = (20)(W)-16(W)-A
Where:
V = mL water to be added.
W = Weight in g of solid charged to extractor.
A = mL of 0.5N acetic acid added during
extraction.
7.15 The material in the extractor
shall be separated into its component
liquid and solid phases in the following
manner
7.15.1 Allow slurries to stand to
permit the solid phase to settle (wastes
that are slow to settle may be
centrifuged prior to nitration) and set up
the filter apparatus (refer to Steps 4.3
and 4.4).
7.15.2 Wet the filter with a small
portion of the liquid phase from the
waste or from the extracted mixture.
Transfer the remaining material to the
filter holder and apply vacuum or gentle
pressure (10-15 psi) until all liquid
passes through the filter. Stop filtration
when air or pressurized gas moves
through the membrane. If this point is
not reached under vacuum or gentle
pressure, slowly increase the pressure in
10-psi increments to 75 psi. Halt
filtration when liquid flow stops.
7.16 The liquids resulting from Steps
7.5 and 7.15 shall be combined. This
combined liquid (or waste itself, if it has
< 0.5% solids, as noted in Step 7.8) is
the extract and shall be analyzed for the
presence of any of the contaminants
specified in 40 CFR 261.24 using the
analytical procedures as designated in
Step 7.17.
7.17 The extract is then prepared
and analyzed using the appropriate
TABLE 1.—EPA-APPROVED FILTER HOLDERS
analytical methods described in
Chapters Three and Four of this manual.
Notr. If the EP extract includes two phi^l
concentration of contaminants is determin^
by using a simple weighted average. For
example: An EP extract contains SO mL of oil
and 1.000 mL of an aqueous phase.
Contaminant concentrations are determined
for each phase. The final contamination
concentration is taken to be:
SO X contaminant
cone, in oil
1.000 X
contaminant cone.
of aqueous phase
1050
Note: in cases where a contaminant was
not detected, use the MDL in the calculation.
For example, if the MDL in the oily phase is
100 mg/L and 1 mg/L in the aqueous phase.
the reporting limit would be 6 mg/L (rounded
to the nearest ing). If the regulatory threshold
is 5 mg/L the waste may be EP toxic and
results of the analysis are inconclusive.
7.18 The extract concentrations are
compared with the maximum
contamination limits listed in 40 CFR
281.24. If the extract concentrations are
greater than or equal to the respective
values, the waste then ia considered to
exhibit the characteristic of Extraction
Procedure Toxicity.
5.0 Quality Control
8.1 Refer to Chapter One for specifi,
quality control procedures.
9.0 Method Performance
9.1 The data tabulated in Table 3 were
obtained from records of state and contractor
laboratories and are intended to show the
precision of the entire method (1301 plus
analysis method).
10.0 References
1. Rohrbough. W.C.: et al. Reagent
Chemicals. American Chemical Society
Specifications. 7th ed.: American Chemical
Society: Washington. DC 1988.
2.1985 Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Vol. 11.01: "Standard Specification for
Reagent Water": ASTM: Philadelphia. PA.
1985: D1193-77.
3. Caskill. A.. Compilation and Evaluation
of RCRA Method Performance Data. Work
Assignment No. 2. EPA Contract No. 68-01-
7075. September 1986.
Manufacture
Size ' Mod«l No. ! Comments
vtcuum Filttn I |
Nalo»n« I 500 mL..
NucWpore l 47 mm...
Millipor* 47 mm...
Pressun fitran I
Nucwpor* ] 142 mm.
Micro Filtration Systems 142mm.
-•%* i i I
44-OC45 i Disposaol* plastic unit, including premier, filter pads, and reservoir can be usee
solution is to be analyzed tor inorganic constituents.
410400 '
XXt004700
..! 425900
... 302300
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 3123
TABLE 1.—EPA-APPROVED FILTER HOLDERS—Continued
Manufacturer
Size
Model No.
Comments
M:ll'DOf».
, 142 mm ! YT30 142 HW
TABLE 2.—EPA-APPROVED FILTRATION
MEDIA
Supplier
Coarst ortMtn
Gelman
Nucleoore
Filter to be
used lor
aqueous
systems
61631.61635..
210907.
Filler to be
used tor
organic
systems
. 61631.61635
210907.
Milkpore..
Meata/m prtMtery
Gelman
Nuclepore
211707. ! 211707
AP2S 035 00. : AP25 035 00.
AP25 127 i AP25127
50. j 50
61654.61655....:
210905. 210905.
211705. 211705
TABLE 2.—EPA-APPROVED FILTRATION
MEDIA—Continued
Supplier
Fitter to be > Filler to b*
used lor i used tor
aqueous : organic
systems ' sy*teme
Mrflipore...- , A»20 035 00.
I AP20 124
i 50.
Pint orehiten ;
Gelman.... , 6*788. 64603.
Nuclepore ! 210903.
I 211703.
Milhpore AP15 035 00.
| AP15 124
I 50.
Frrn hlttrs (0.45 I
u/n>
AP20 035 00.
AP20 124
SO
_, 64798. 64803
1 210903.
i 211703
APIS 035 00.
I AP15 124
! 50
TABLE 2.—EPA-APPROVED FILTRATION
MEDIA—Continued
Supplier
Gelman
Pall
Nuctepore
Millipore ..
Setts
Filter to Be
used tor
aqueous
systems
63069 66536
NX047SO,
NX14225.
142218
HAWP 047 00
HAWP 142
50.
83485-02.
63486-02.
Filter to.tm
used tor
onjane
systems
60 540 or
661*9.
66191
"V422TJ8
fiHUP D47 00
PHU> 147
SO
53465-02.
38486-02
organic solvents.
TABLE 3.—PRECISIONS OF EXTRACTION-ANALYSIS PROCEDURES FOR SEVERAL ELEMENTS
Element
Sample matnx
Analysis
mmnod
Laboratory
repkcate*
Arsenic
Banum
Cadmium.
Chromium..
Mercury....
Lead
Nickel
Chromium
IV')..
1. Auto tlutt
2. Barret sludg*
3. Lumber treatment company sediment..
. 1. Lead smelting emission control dust
2. AutotluH
3. Barrel sludge
1. Lead smelting emission control dust
2. Wastewater treatment sludge Irom electroplating..
3. Autoltufl
4 Barrel sludge
5. Ori refinery tertiary pond sludge
1 Wastewater treatment sludge trorn electroplating..
2. Pamt pnmer
3 Paint pnmer titter
4 Lumber treatment company sediment
5 Oil retmery tertiary pond sludge
. 1. Barrel sludge
2. Wastewater treatment sludge trom electroplating..
3. Lead smelting emission control dust _.
, 1. Lead smelting emission control dust
2. Auto tlutt
3. Incinerator asn
4 Barrel sludge _
5. Oil retinery tertiary pond sludge
. 1. Sludge
2. Wastewater treatmeri sludge trom electroplating..
. 1. Wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating..
7080
7060
! 7060
i 6010
1 7081
,! 7081
.! 3010/7130
.; 3010/7130
! 7131
.1 7131
.1 7131
.! 3010/7190
.! 7191
: 7191
.; 7191
.; 7191
.: 7470
.; 7470
7470
., 3010/7420
.; 7421
7421
7421
7421
7521
., 3010/7520
7196
1.8.1.5 uq/L
0.9. 2.8 (iQ/l.
28. 42 mg/L
0.12. 0.12 mg/L
791.780 ng/L
422. 380 ug/L
120. 120 mg/L
360. 290 mg/L
470. 610 ng/L
1100.890 ug/L
3.2. 1 9 ug/L
| 1.1. 1 2 mg/L
61. 43
081. 089 mg/L
I-
| 0.1S. 0.09 ug/L
I 1 4. 04 ug/L
j 04. 0 4 ug/L
I 940. 920 mg/L
I 1540. 1*90
| 1000. 974
I 2550. 2800 ug/L
1 31. 29 ug/L
1 2260. 1720 ug'L
I 130. 140 mg/L
I 18. 19 uq/L
8IU.INO CODE I
-------
3924 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 21 / Thursday. January 31,1991 / Rules and Regulations
5.0
.25
4.0
Non-Clogging Support Bushing
1 Incn Bladt at 30° to Horizontal
9.0
Figure 1. Extractor,
-------
7 I Uif PUttic or Gin* BnltUt
1/1S-Hort«po«Mf Electric Motor
79RPM
Screws for Hnlriina Roitlcf
Figure 2. Rotary Extractor.
-------
1 Ballon riMtlc
or Glm BottU
Foam Bond«l lo Cover
Totally Enclowd
ran Cooled Motor
Fo»m lone«
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 21 / Thursday. January 31.1991 / Rules and Regulations
3927
\
s
MM
1
i
I
a
i
ComDin«d
uu .-..,••••
tigm
.33 kg 1.73
ID)
Figure 4. Compaction tener.
KUJMO COOt IMP M>
-------
3988 Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 21 / Thnrsday. January 31. 1991 / Rule* and Regulation*.
PART 270-EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912, 6924.6925,
6927,6939. and 6974.
Subpart D—Changts to Permit
2. The entry in appendix I to J 270.42,
B.l.b., is revised to read as follows:
§ 270.42 PcnnK modification at tft«
raojutst of trw
APPENDIX I TO SECTION 270.42.—
CLASSIFICATION OF PERMIT MODIFICATION
Modification CUM
B. G«nMl FKttty Stand**
1. • • •
b. To incorpomt* change* tMooatM
with F039 (muNMouro* HichiM) **m-
pttng or tnalyM m*tttods (') 1
1 modrtteattam rvqunno pnor Aotncy ID-
prov«L
[FR Doc. 91-2234 Filed 1-30-01: 8:45 am]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 84
Toxicity Characteristic; Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants
56 FR 5910-5915
February 13, 1991
(RCRA Cluster I, HSWA Rule)
Note: This Revision Checklist addresses an interim final rule which suspends the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) rule (see 55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990, Revision Checklist 74) for certain
used Chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants which exhibit the toxicity characteristic and which are recycled.
The exemption only applies if the refrigerants are reclaimed for reuse. This interim final rule
provides for a standard which is narrower in scope than would be imposed in the final TC rule.
Thus, States are not required to mandate this narrower-in-scope standard V, and the affected
citation is designated as optional. Section 3009 of RCRA, however, provides that States may
impose requirements that are broader in scope or more stringent than those imposed under
Federal regulations.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
t EXCLUSIONS
used Chlorofluoro-
carbon refrigerants
from totally enclosed
heat transfer equip-
ment, provided the
refrigerant is
reclaimed for further
use
261.4(b)(12)
This rule is considered "narrower-in-scope" because it narrows the wastes which are regulated,
by exluding from regulation certain Chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants as specified at 261.4(b)(12).
February 13, 1991 - Page 1 of 1
CL84.11 - 8/14/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
5910 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 30- / Wednesday. February 13..1991 / Rulei and Regulation!
INVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
•AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
(SWH-fRL-3904-«/EPA/OSW-FR-»1-OOSl
Hazardous Waata Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardoua Waata; Toxtetty
Charactartatk;
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request
for comments.
SUMMARY: On March 29. 1990, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated revisions to the toxicity
characteristic, one of several
characteristics used to identify waste
regulated as hazardous under Subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Since the
promulgation of the Toxicity
Characteristic (TCI. the Agency has
received information that the rule's
immediate application may cause _
certain used chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)
refrigerants to be subject to hazardous
waste regulations becanse-tfaey exhibit
|he TC. EPA is concerned that
Objecting used CFC refrigerants to
Subtitle C regulations will promote
continued or increased venting.
increasing the levels of ozone-depleting
substances in the stratoaphere^As a
result of this new information and to
allow time for gathering additional
information and giving all relevant facts
careful consideration, the Agency is
intmrlrr, finlj rule
to suspend the TC rule for used
refrigerants which exhibit the toxicity
characteristic and wbidrawncjrcied.
The exemption only applies if the
refrigerants are reclaimed forrense. At
the **in* time. 'th«i Agency is •"•^"H
public comment on the merits of this
suspension.
DATES: Effective Date: February 5. 1991.
Comment Date: Comments must be
submitted on or before April 1, 1991.
Aoomsses: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to: RCRA Docket Information
Center (OS-305). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20480.
Place the docket number F-01-CFIP-
FFFFF on your comments. The EPA
RCRA docket is located at EPA RCRA
(Docket (room M2427). 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20406.
The docket is open from 9 a jn. to 4
p.m.. Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
maitrii'T Call (202) 475-032r(ar.
appoinimanisi Copies of docket
materials cost $0.15/page.
ran FURTHER mrom
N comma?
For general information aboatmis
notice, contact the RCRA/Soperfund
Hotline at (800) 424-8346
(703) 920-9810 in the Washin
metropolitan area. For Information on-
specific aspects of this notices, umlaut
Becky Cuthbertson. Regulatory-
Development Branch. Office olSa&L
Waste (OS-332), US. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Steet SHE,
Washington, DC 20460, (2Q2£C5-8BK.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFOftMATtOee
Outline of Today'iNottw -.''!'
L Background ~*-~ -— »^-
A. Refrigeration System (tymmtiimt
B. RCRA Applicability - -
C. Previous EPA Actioocon Rattgtrsarts
D. Regulations under th»dea»Aat A«t
0. Application of ExUting-flagulassqr
Framework .':2"
A. Definition of Solid Waste '-'• '
E Refrigerant Handlers' RCRA, '.-
Requirements •
UL IMUSI Arising from the TC Rrfer
A. Impacts on Recycling Markets:
B. Impacts on an Orderly CFC Phaveev*
aad Tnasraon to CFC SubsttBtea
C. F->lv^t'fttMna>fft^
IV. Suspension of TC Requirements
A. Eligible Refrigerants
B. Rationale for Suspension
V. State Authorization
-palicabffity of Rules in A
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
VLAddittooaL Information
A. Jteecatirs Order 12291— Regaiatory
Impacts
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C Paperwork deduction Act
VB. References
L Background
A.' Refrigeration System Operation
Vapor compression refrigeration
systems typically use CFC ret
as the working fluid. The most
refrigerants include CFC-11. tZ. 114, 802
and HCFC-22. These cycles arvdoead
systems, relying on the ability to
continually compress and evagasxctfae
refrigerants to provide the proper he*t
transfer for cooling.
CFC-11 is typically a liquidat room
temperature, but because its botilBf
point is around 75 *P. it volatilizes
easily. An infrequently used refrigerant.
CFC-113, also has a high boilingpaint
(117 *F). However, the other more
common refrigerants, such as CEC-12
and HCFC-22. have very low bofllag
points (—21 and —41 degrees P •
respectively), which causa thearte
immediately volatilize: therefoesvlfc*r .
are not likely to leach from waates'uito
groundwater in any measurable
•quantities.
Refrigerants, as the working fluid of a
.'mechanical cooling process, are not
-'deliberately vented or removed from the
system, unless the systems are being
Jested, serviced, maintained, retired, or
'retrofitted to use new CFC alternatives.
In order to service the refrigeration
BiMdware, the closed refrigeration loop
•BMt be opened. Because of the rapid
volatilization of CFC refrigerants when
•they are released from the closed
refrigerant system, traditional service
•and maintenance procedures involved
,-" venting the refrigerant However.
~baouse of environmental concern
. ffSfBding ozone depletion, recent
'international regulations phasing out
* ^production of CFCs. (see London
'Amendments to the Montreal Protocol)
and Increased price and decreased CFC
javailability. service technicians are
- beginning to capture aad reuse
^refrigerant.
B. RCRA Applicability
• . ; RCRA regulations apply to materials
' : that an solid wastes (including solids,
liquids, semi-solids, and contained
-yasesl. as that term is defined in 40 CFR
vrJZ8L2. Used Refrigerants are considered
r ipent materials, and if reclaimed, are
solid wastes under 40 CFR 281.2(c)(3).
However, a limited subset of used
refrigerant Le~ those which an used or
assaad without prior reclamation, are
s*ta*faject to regulation under the
RCRA hazardous waste program (see 40
CFR261.2(e)(l)(ii)).
. On March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), EPA
promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic
Jo replace the EP toxicity characteristic.
:(Tha TC want into effect September 25,
'1980.) The Toxicity Characteristic is
used to identify solid wastes which are
identified as hazardous based on the
pretence of constituents that may leach
from the waste. The TC expanded the
. tange of wastes subject to subtitle C
(hazardous waste) controls, because a
Bomber of constituents not regulated
-under the EP toxicity characteristic.
voddtit replaced, were included in the
Twvof the new TC constituents may
be pnsent in certain used refrigerants
{e.g.. those containing CFC-11) and an
. • likely to leach from the waste at levels
that may causa the used refrigerants to
be subject to the federal hazardous
•aata regulations. The two-constituents
which an of concern in CFC-11 an
•arbtavtetrachloride. which is pnsent in
••Md-CK-ll refrigerant at levels of 25-
tJtasjfl. and chloroform, present in
-••KECPC-11 refrigerant at levels of 6-62
~ sjf/I (The TC regulatory level for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 30 /.Wednesday. February 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 5011
carbon tetrachloride is 4.5 mg/1. and for
chloroform, it is 6.0 mg/L) These
contaminants are prevent hi taw ievelt
in the manufacturing raw feedstock
required to produce CFC-tl and are left
over in used CFC-41 and remain as
residuals in used CFC-41. Thus wbeo
the refrigerant is removed from the
refrigeration system, it may contain
carbon tetrachloride sod/or chloroform
at levels that cause it 1o exhibit the
characteristic of fcndciry. See the data
provided in the August 29. t9M letter
from CA. McCain ef El DuPoet de
Nemours and Co* to Ma. Leu Nirk of
EPA. available for public viewing in the
docket for this notice.
For the data oa CFC-11 provided in
the docket there is no documentation of
the analytical methods ox quality
control / quality nti?iirnrtco procedures
used.' We also do not have data on other
CFC refrigerants, e*, CFC-113. EPA
solicits f-nmnmntq nn whpttwr other data
an available that can ba used to
determine whether used CFC
refrigerants are TC hazardous. EPA also
solicits comment on whether the
suspension should be extended to
hydrofhiorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants.
which are being used as refrigerants (for
example, in mobile air conditioning
systems): EPA has no data at all on
whether MFCs would exhibit any
hazardous waste characteristics when
removed from refrigeration systems.
C. Previous EPA Actions on
Rfffrtgfnnts
The issue of RCRA applicability to
refrigerants being recycled has bee*
discussed previously; see the July 28.
19V Federal Register notice (54 FR
31335) describing the states of recycled
refrigerants under the I960 Federal
hazardous waste regulations. Under the
regulations in place from 1900 to 1880.
recycled refrigerants were unlikely to be
Federally regulated es nazardoas
wastes because they would not have
exhibited any of the «fr«f^p*»*p«MM of
hazardous waste, nor did they fit any of
the hazardous waste listing descriptions.
However, as discussed above, the TC
regulation promulgated on Match 28.
1980. wkich added new constituents to
the Toxicity Characteristic, may change
the RCRA regulatciy states of those
recycled refrigerants containing carbon
tetrachloride or other Toxkity
Characteristic constituents.
No commenters on the original
Toxicity Characteristic proposal raised
the issue of possible negative impacts
on recycling of used refrigerants if they
were to become regulated as hazardous
wastes. One reason this may have
occurred ie that at .the time ef IBM
original TC proposal flon* It. Iff* ««e
51 FR 21648) most refrigerants were
being vented and recycling was not
feasible.
EPA has taken a related action tinder
the Clean Air Act by issuing an
Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rutemaking (ANPRM) on May 1.1990
(55 FR 18258) to develop a national CFC
and halon recycling program. Some
commenters on that notice raised
concerns about RCRA applicability to
recycled refrigerants and described
potential disruption of recycling markets
if refrigerant is managed as a hazardous
waste under RCRA. However, the
commenters did not specifically mention
the Toxicity Characteristic.
D. Regulations under the Clean Air Act
The recently enacted amendments to
the Clean Air Act require EPA. by 1992.
to isaae regulations regarding the use
and disposal of certain CFCs in
appliances and industrial process
refr jgKMtirm anita. The regulations ntust
include IBQ uuementB to1
recapture and recycling and ensure sale
disposal. The asneadraeats. as a general
nun. also prohibit venting of certain
CFCs to the environment
The new Clean Air Act authority is
the Agency's best available tool to limit
CFC emiseieas. The Clean Air Act
authority enables the Agency to regulate
the handling, recycling, reuse and
disposal of CFCs by refrigerant
recyden. service technicians and
equipment owners and manufacturers.
When EPA proposes and finalizes a
prohibition on venting
chlorofluorocarbons under the Clean Air
Act and the prohibition becomes
effective, the Agency will reconsider the
issae of RCRA applicability to used CFC
refrigerants being recycled.
II. Application of Existing Regulatory
Framework
A. Definition of Solid Waste
One of the first questions that arises
in determining RCRA applicability to
refrigeration system maintenance and
repair is whether a material is a solid
waste. The hazardous waste regulations
of RCRA Subtitle C apply to materials
that are "solid wastes." which are
defined in RCRA section 1004(27) as
* * * discarded material including 10110.
liquid, semi-solid or contained gawons
material muMng from indtutriaL
commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations, and from community achvitiei
Contained gases thus clearly are solid
wastes under RCRA, whereas
uncontemed gases not associated with
solid waste management units are
outside of RCRA.
As stated in the July 28,1969 Feden
Register (54 FR 31336). EPA's regulatil
classify the used refrigerants as spent
materials that are solid wastes when
reclaimed. (The refrigerants must be
collected as a contained gas under this
scenario.) See 40 CFR 261.2(cM3). If the
waste also exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous waste, it is a hazardous
waste in addition to being a solid waste.
Thus, the equipment servicer who must
remove the chlorofluorocarbon
refrigerants in order to service the
equipment must decide whether to vent
them (and thus avoid hazardous waste
regulatory requirements) or collect them
and possibly be required to manage
them as hazardous wastes. EPA is
concerned that, if the refrigerants are
regulated as hazardous wastes, most
servicers will vent the material rather
than collect it for recycling.
B. Refrigerant Handlers' RCRA
Requirements
This section presents the hazardous
waste requirements for handlers ef used
CFC refrigerants being reclaimed, if
those used CFC refrigerants were to be
classified as hazardous wastes because
they exhibit the ToKiciry Characteristic.
The requirements described here era
suspended by today's action (discul
farmer m section IV of this notice).*
Currently, the owners of refrigeration
equipment using CFC refrigerant as die
heat transfer fluid are considered
haurdous waste generators if the used
CFC refrigerant exhibits the
characteristic of Toxicity, and if they
collect the used CFC refrigerant for
reclamation or disposal. In addition.
parties who repair or maintain the
refrigeration equipment under contract
with the equipment owners would be
"co-generators" if their actions produced
hazardous waste, or caused it to be
subject to regulation (see 45 FR 72026,
October 30.1890). Parties co-generating
hazardous waste must arrange among
themselves who is to take responsibility
for managing the hazardous waste,
although all parties remain potentially
liable for hazardous waste
mismanagement
As of September 25.1990. generators
who generate more than 1000 kg of
hazardous waste per month must
manege their TC hazardous wastes
according to the requirements in 40 CFR
parts 261 and 262 and other relevant
parts of the hazardous waste
regulations. For generators of 1QO-UOO
kg of hazardous waste per month
effective date fat managing TC
hazardous wastes according to the
hazardous waste icquiieaiciits is March
29.1991. (Generators of lees than 109kg
-------
012 Federal Register / VoL 56, No. 30 / Wednesday. Febrnary 13.
Rules and Regulations
hazardous waste per month an
conditionally exempt from hazardoui
waste management standards.)
In a scenario in which the
refrigeration equipment servicer collects
the CFC refrigerant and transports it
from a large quantity generator's site for
recycling, that servicer acts as a
transporter (in addition to being a co-
generator) and must comply with the
requirements in 40 CFR part 263 if the
used CFC refrigerant exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic.
Transporters may hold hazardous
wastes at "transfer facilities" for up to
ten days, consistent with activities
undertaken in the normal course of
transportation, without needing a RCRA
storage permit
As of September 25.1990, the
recycling facility accepting CFC
refrigerants that are hazardous wastes
from large quantity generators (greater
than 1000 kg/month) must meet the
definition of a "designated facility."
which requires that the facility either
has a permit or interim status, or meets
certain other conditions as a recycling
facility (see 40 CFR 200.10 for the
definition of designated facility).
IIL IstiiM Arisinf From the TC Rule
A. Impacts on Recycling Market*
EPA has received information since
promulgation of the TC indicating that
certain companies currently recycling
CFC refrigerants may stop doing so if
they must manage the CFC refrigerants
as hazardous wastes. See Items No. 2-7
in the public docket for this notice.
These companies and other groups
generally cite the cost and complexity of
the hazardous waste regulations, along
with specific RCRA requirements such
as manifesting, and other requirements
that may be imposed at the local level
as a result of the hazardous waste
requirements (i.e~ rezoning refrigerant
distribution centers as hazardous waste
transfer stations), as reasons that
recycling will Himini«h or cease.
Although EPA is still evaluating the
merits of the arguments presented by
the parties submitting this information.
EPA is concerned that some of the
results suggested may cause serious
environmental harm, the nature and
significance of which EPA did not
explore during the TC rulemaking. EPA
is concerned that the increased
requirements associated with regulating
refrigerants as hazardous wastes will
result in increased venting. EPA has not
considered the feasibility of
administrative options to reduce the
impacts on recycling of these materials
under current RCRA regulations.
Therefore. EPA is suspending
application of the rule in order to have
time to evaluate these issues.
In order to evaluate these issues, EPA
is soliciting public comment on whether
handling used CFC refrigerants as a
hazardous waste is causing or will cause
a decrease in current recycling rates,
and whether the decrease (if any) is or
will be occurring for the reasons these
parties put forward, or for other reasons.
To assess the potential impacts of the
hazardous waste regulations on used
CFC refrigerant recycling. EPA will
consider information on the universe of
used CFC refrigerant handlers (numbers
of facilities reclaiming, number of
faculties that use the CFC-11 and other
refrigerants and would be classified as
generators if the CFC refrigerants were
hazardous wastes, and how many
transporters there an currently). Finally,
EPA is soliciting comment on whether
the concerns can be redressed by
phased compliance rather than
exemption, and on whether alternative
approaches (such as streamlined
permitting, or reduced manifesting
requirements) could be used to reduce
any adverse recycling impact of RCRA
regulations.
Under RCRA, there is a requirement
to obtain • permit prior to beginning
construction of a new hazardous waste
management facility (if the facility did
not manage hazardous wastes prior to
the effective date of regulations for
those hazardous wastes—see 40 CFR
270.10(0). This requirement exists for
facilities that intend to treat ston. or
dispose of hazardous wastes from
generators other than conditionally
exempt small quantity generators. (In
the case of used CFC refrigerants, if
such facilities hadbegun storing and
reclaiming used CFC refrigerants prior
to September 25,1990. and met certain
other requirements, they would be able
to obtain "interim status" and would
have been able to continue storing and
reclaiming after September 25. However.
it appears that few parties were aware
of the TCs potential application to used
CFC refrigerants.) EPA believes that this
requirement may act as a deterrent to
firms contemplating entering the OKC
reclamation market after the effective
date of the TC rules. EPA notes that the
preceding discussion applies only to the
facilities actually conducting the
reclamation or reprocessing of the
refrigerants, and not to all refrigeration
equipment owners who have used
refrigerants that can be reclaimed.
In addition to potential requirements
on reclaimed refrigerants, other factors
may be influencing the reclamation/
n»p»iM««
-------
F«d*)ral RefUter / Vol. 56. No. 30 / Wednesday. February 13. 1991 / Rulet and Regulation! 5913
satisfy nil environmental, health, and
safely concerns. For instance, a
premature selection of an alternative
that is less energy efficient would result
in increases in carbon dioxide and other
Hir pollutants which may cause
increases in global warming.
Recycling CFCs provides the
opportunity for industry to postpone or
even avoid entirely the need to retire
prematurely or retrofit equipment. The
Agency estimates that a recycling
program in the major air conditioning
and refrigeration sector*, fully
implemented by the early 1990's. could
rrsult in a net saving of over 159.000
metric tons of CFCs by the year 2000.
Complying with RCRA regulations may
increase venting of CFC refrigerants.
and thus increase the cost of the
Agency's CFC phaseout regulations. The
Agency discussed the potential for
increasing the costs of a recycling
program if there art: delays in its
implementation in an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking published on May
I. 1990 (55 FR 18256).
C. Environmental Concerns
In the ANPRM of May 1.1990 (55 FR
18250). the Agency described the human
health and environmental risks of CFCs.
An EPA analysis shows that chlorine
levels will continue to increase from
current levels of 3.0 to about 4.0 parts
per billion (ppb) despite • pha*»out in
production of controlled substances by
the year 2000. The Antarctic ozone hole
was discovered at chlorine levels of
approximately 2.5 ppb: natural chlorine
levels are .7 ppb. Earlier reductions in
CFCs before 2000 would reduce the
environmental risks (described below)
even as chlorine levels continue to
increase over the next decade.
The largest environmental impact
from emissions of CFC* come* from the
chlorine'* ability to deplete the ozone
layer, and thereby increasing the
amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching
the earth's surface. EPA believe* that an
increase in UV radiation will result In
increased death* from ikin cancer.
increased incidence of cataract*.
reduction in the function of the body'*
Immune system, and damage to crop*.
CFC* are also suspected greenhouse
gates
Recycling provide* an opportunity to
delay or reduce the increase in chlorine
level*. Indeed, estimates bated on
preliminary EPA analysis of a proposed
recycling program indicate that one-
third of all CFC* could be recycled by
the turn of the century. Recycling may
reduce the peak rale of chlorine loading
to the stratosphere.
The Agency is currently investigating
the impact that recycled CFCs may have
S-OSI9W QODXOONI2-FEB-4I IOI72U
on the ozone layer. Since these
chemicals are difficult to destroy, it is
likely that they will be eventually
released although at a later point in
time.* F.PA is investigating the impact of
their eventual release on peak chlorine
concentrations. Recent scientific
evidence suggests that a reduction of the
peak chlorine concentrations may more
than proportionally reduce ozone
depletion.1 It is likely that delayed or
reduced release of CFCs due to
recycling over the next 30 'o 40 years
will lower the peak of chlorine
concentration.
The Agency is promulgating today's
interim final rule with the belief that this
action will encourage used refrigerant
recycling. EPA is interested in hearing
from commenler* who have evidence on
the effect of this exemption. EPA is also
interested in evidence of harmful
environmental or health effects other
than those discussed in thin rulemaking.
Because EPA is attempting to balance
the potential environmental harm
caused by disruption to emerging
refrigerant recycling market* against the
potential environmental harm caused by
removing thit waiteitream from RCRA
subtitle C regulatory control. EPA is
asking for commenter* to provide any
available information to aid in
evaluating the human health and
environmental effect* of the*e action*.
D. Time Conside.vtiont
Of paramount concern to the Agency
it mitigating the potential for significant
advene health and environmental
impact*, a* discussed above, while
investigating these issues further. Under
the Clean Air Act amendment*, a
prohibition on venting mu*t become
effective by July 1.1982. Thus because of
the potential seriousness of the risk*
po*ed by CFC refrigerant venting. EPA.
believe* that Immediate action to
temporarily postpone the RCRA
regulation of the** material* pending
further Investigation 1* warranted to
mitigate the potential health and
environmental effect*. EPA is exercising
it* authority under the good cause
exemption* in section* 5S3(b|(3) and
S53(d)P) of the Administrative
Procedure Act to immediately impend
the requirement* impoted as a result of
the TC for CFC refrigerant* being
• Th« Aatncy ii •u»Min* the pnuiMllty that
•uch cnwniuli could •ilh« b* dctlroytd or
ticnifomwd into olh»r ctwmicalt «l • towr date.
IhiM dlminithin* lh»ir rvmtiul impact on th» uton*
layer
•US RnvironmmUl Protection A*»«cy
Analyst! of Environmental Implication* of In*
Kulura Cmwlh in Demand for Pirtully H«lae»iwlrd
ChlonnaWd Oimpnundi . KPA 400/IWDO1 January
IMO.
470l.FMT...|16,30|...12-28-90
recycled. EPA believe* that, without the.
immediate suspension, recycling of CFCl
refrigerants may decrease substantially."
with potentially serious impacts on
stratospheric ozone levels that are
contrary to the public's best interest.
IV. Suspension of TC Requirements
A. Eligible Refrigerants
The refrigerant* that are eligible for
(hi* exemption are those
chlorofluorocarbons that are recycled
and that were used a* the heal transfer
fluid in a refrigeration cycle in totally
enclosed heat transfer equipment. These
chlorofluorocarbon* include CFC-11.
CFC-113, and the other
chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants.
including IICFC*. Example* of the
equipment in which these
chlorofluorocarbons may be used
include mobile air conditioning systems
(e.g.. those used in mass transit
vehicle*), mobile refrigeration
(refrigerated truck* and rail car*), and
commercial and industrial air
conditioning and refrigeration sytlem*.
The requirement* imposed by the TC are
suspended for such refrigerants by
today'* interim final action. The spent
CFC* that are being reclaimed will not
be regulated a* a Federal hazardous
waste a* a result of today's action
(unless a future determination to do *o,
I* made). Thui. the hazardous waste
regulatory requirement* for generator*.
transporter*, and recycler* of u*ed
chlorofluorocarbnn* that are being
reclaimed (discussed in lection II.R of
this notice) are suspended, effective
February 5.1981.
B. Rational* for Sutpttuion
A* a mult of the new information
provided In thi* notice, and to allow
adequate time lo collect additional data
and give careful consideration to all the
relevant liaue* and regulatory option*.
the Agency I* today promulgating an
Interim final rule that suspends the TC
rule for handler* of u*ed CFC
refrigerant* being recycled. Tt •
suspension will allow lime for
individual* to submit comments on the
various issues raised in this proposal,
and It will allow the Agency time to
consider all information concerning
lhe*e operation*. Had the Agency been
aware of this issue during the comment
period on the TC proposal, the Agency
would have carefully considered the
impact* and consequences of the TC
and determined the appropriate action
at thai time. Faced with new
information concerning the potential
adverse environmental impact* caused
by the TC. EPA weighed the benefits of
-------
5914 Federal Register / Vol 56VNo. 30 / Wedne«d«y,!,Febniaryvl3.U9» / Rules and Regulationa
the rule as applied to CFC refrigerants
against the potential public health
consequences of applying the rule to
CFC refrigerants in the interim while
EPA considers the new information, in
this case, due to the environmental and
health consequences from ozone
depletion. EPA believes that the public
interest may be better served by
suspending the rule to evaluate the
consequences. EPA solicits public
comment on its decision to suspend the
TC regulation for used CFC refrigerants
being reclaimed.
V. State Authorization
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization. EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008,3013. and
7003 of RCRA. although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1964 (HSWA). a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program in lieu of EPA administering the
Federal program in that State. The
Federal requirements no longer applied
in the authorized State, and EPA could
not issue permits for any facilities that
the State was authorized to permit.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obliged to enact
equivalent authority within specified
time frames. New Federal requirements
did not take effect in an authorized
State until the State adopted the
requirements as State law. In contrast
under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C.
6826(g)), new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by HSWA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
nonauthorized States. EPA is directed to
carry out these requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization. HSWA
applies in authorized States in die
interim.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
EPA considers this rule to be part of
the TC rule, and thus also a HSWA rule.
As a result EPA will implement the
provision* of today's rule in audiorized
States until their programs are modified
to adopt the final toxicity characteristic
and the modification is approved by
EPA. Implementation of today's rule
beyond the date of a State's receiving
final authorization for the toxicity
characteristic depends upon actions
taken by the State, as discussed below.
EPA will implement the provisions of
today's rule in unauthorized States.
Today's rule suspends the
requirements imposed in the final
Toxicity Characteristic regulation (see
55 FR11798, March 29,1990) for certain
CFC refrigerants being recycled. The
Toxicity Characteristic was
promulgated pursuant to a HSWA
provision and must be adopted by
States which intend to retain final
authorization. However, today's rule
provides for a standard which is
narrower in scope than would be
imposed in die final Toxicity
Characteristic for certain CFC
refrigerants which may fail the
characteristic and an recycled. In order
to promote recycling operations, today's
rule provides that these wastes would
not be hazardous wastes under the
Federal regulations, and States would
not be required to mandate their
management as such in order to retain
their RCRA authorization. However.
Section 3009 of RCRA provides that
States may impose requirements that
an broader in scope or more stringent
than those imposed under Federal
regulations. States, whether using RCRA
authorities (e.g\, authorities under State
law when States have received final
authorization to implement the toxidty
characteristic provisions in lieu of their
implementation by EPA), or other State
authorities under other statutes, may
impose hazardous waste requirements
on such operations, or may require other
more stringent conditions upon
management of these wastes.
VL Additional Information
A. Executive Order 12291—Regulatory
Impact*
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must determine whether a regulation is
"major." and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The overall effect of today's
rule would be to suspend requirements
imposed by the final Toxicity
Characteristic rule for certain CFC
refrigerant recycling operations. There
are no sampling or analysis
requirements in today's rule. The net
effect of this rule is to extend cost
savings to certain segments of the
potentially regulated community.
Consequently, no regulatory impact
analysis is required.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act 5 U.S.C. 601-612. whenever an
agency is required to publish a General
Notice of Rulemaking for any proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required, however, if the
head of the Agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The suspension of the Toxicity
Characteristic requirements for certain
limited CFC recycling activities in this
rule is deregulatory in nature and thus
will only provide beneficial
opportunities for entities thatmay be
affected by the rule. Accordingly. 1
hereby certify that this regulation will.
not have a «ignifirant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This regulation, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Than are no reporting, notification, or
recordkeeping (information) provisions
in this rule. Such provisions* were they
included, would be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
VIL References
Copies of the following documents are
available for viewing only in the OSW
docket room:
1. August 29,1990 letter from CA.
McCain of EJ. du Pont de Nemours A
Company to Lena Nlrk of EPA.
2. September 24.1990 letter from
Kevin J. Fay of the Alliance for
Responsible CFC Policy to Sylvia
Lowrance of EPA.
3. September 24,1990 letter from
Gerald Hapka of du Pont to Steve
Cochranof EPA.
4. September 4.1990 letter from
Lorraine Segala-Long of Omega
Recovery Services to Steve Seidel and
Jean Lupinacci of EPA.
5. September 4.1990 letter from
William Chaisson of the Air
Conditioning Contractors of America to
Sylvia Lowrance of EPA.
ft. September 24,1990 letter from
fames Patrick Leonard of National
Refrigerants to Sylvia Lowrance of EPA.
7. September 24.1990 letter from
James Patrick Leonard of United
Refrigeration Inc. to Sylvia Lowrance of
EPA.
-------
Federal Register /'Vol. 56.:N
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85
Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
56 FR 7134-7240
February 21, 1991
(RCRA Cluster I, HSWA and non-HSWA provisions)
1) There are numerous typographical and technical errors in the final rule addressed by this checklist;
where they are obvious, we have noted them. On July 17, 1991 (56 FR 32688; Revision Checklist 94)
extensive corrections were made to the final rule addressed by this checklist because of the many
typographical and other errors found in the February 21, 1991 final rule. The Agency also published a
second technical correction on August 27, 1991 (56 FR 42504; Revision Checklist 96), which reversed the
revisions to 265.112(d)(2), 265.113(a) and 265.113(b) made by the final rule addressed by this present
checklist, which contains these revisions as published in that February 21, 1991 (56 FR 7134) final rule.
States are cautioned not to make the corrections to 265.112(d)(2), 265.113(a) and 265.113(b) as requested
by this checklist. Otherwise those corrections will have to be undone when Revision Checklist 96 is applied
for. Finally, Revision Checklists 111 (57 FR 38558; August 25, 1992) and 114 (57 FR 44999; September
30, 1992) made several technical amendments to the BIFs rule. Because of the extent of the technical
corrections made to the rule addressed by Revision Checklist 85, States are strongly encouraged to use the
Consolidated Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Checklist, which consolidates this present Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces rule with subsequent revisions made to it. A Consolidated Checklist which consolidates all final
BIFs rules through December 31, 1991 (i.e., Revision Checklists 85, 94, 96 and 98 (56 FR 33874;
September 5, 1991) is currently available on the SRPB Electronic Bulleting Board System. That
consolidated checklist will be part of SPA 12. The consolidated checklist will be updated as part of
subsequent SPAs as additional final rules addressing the BIFs rule are promulgated. For example, a
Consolidated Checklist which consolidates changes to the Federal code through June 30, 1993, including
Revision Checklists 85, 94, 96, 98, 105 (57 FR 27880; June 22, 1992), 111 (57 FR 38558; August 25,
1992) and 114 (57 FR 44999; September 30, 1992) will be developed as part of SPA 14.
2) States applying for Revision Checklist 85 are urged to adopt required Revision Checklists 94, 96, 111
and 114 changes at the same time the requirements addressed by Revision Checklist 85 are adopted.
States that have already adopted the provisions addressed by Revision Checklist 85 are strongly
encouraged to apply for the Revision Checklists 94, 96, 111, and 114 provisions as soon as possible.
3) Note that on September 5, 1991 (56 FR 43874; Revision Checklist 98), an administrative stay was
published affecting this final rule, by delaying when the permit standards become effective for coke ovens
burning certain hazardous wastes from a coke by-products recovery process. The changes addressed by
Revision Checklist 98 are optional. However, the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 105 (June 22,
1992; 57 FR 27880) removed the September 5, 1991 administrative stay. Thus States should either not
adopt the administrative stay or, if they choose to adopt the stay, state in their regulations that this stay
ends on June 22, 1992.
4) The regulations addressed by this checklist typically do not make a distinction between the various types
of burning devices. However, the provisions in the regulations as they apply to sludge dryers, carbon
regeneration units, infrared incinerators, and plasma arc incinerators are non-HSWA requirements, while the
regulations as they apply to all other types of burning devices are HSWA provisions. EPA will implement
the HSWA requirements in authorized States until the States modify their programs and such modifications
are approved by EPA. The non-HSWA requirements are applicable only in those States that do not have
authorization. In authorized States, the non-HSWA requirements will not be applicable until States revise
their programs to adopt equivalent requirements under State law.
CL85.11 • 10/2/91
February 21, 1991 - Page 1 of 108 [Pm** 6/1*93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
change "Parts 260
through 265 and 268"
to "Parts 260 through
266 and 268"
"carbon regeneration
unit'-
revise "incinerator-
replace "controlled
flame devices" with
"thermal treatment" in
introductory text of the
definition for
"industrial furnace"
redesignate paragraph
(12) in the definition
for "industrial furnace"
as paragraph (13);
add new paragraph
(12) that adds halogen
acid furnaces to the
list of devices
considered industrial'
furnaces
"infrared incinerator"
"plasma arc
incinerator"
"sludae drver"
260.1 0(intro)
260.10
260.1 Om&(2)
260.10
260.10(12)&(13)
260.10
260.10
260.10
i
February 21, 1991 - Page 2 of 108
CL85.11 -
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REFERENCES
add to the first set
of listings, in alpha-
betical order:
"U.S. EPA, Screening
Procedures for Esti-
mating the Air Quality
Impact of Stationary
Sources..."
260.11 (a)
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
redesignate (d)(2) as
(d)(3); add new para-
graph (d)(2) regarding
secondary materials
fed to a halogen acid
furnace that exhibit a
characteristic or are a
listed waste
261 .2(d)(2)
redesignate old
261.2(d)(2) as
261.2(d)(3)
261.2(d)(3)
EXCLUSIONS
add exclusion for coke
and coal tar when
used as a fuel that
contains or is
produced from K087;
process of producing
coke and coal tar in
a coke oven
also excluded
from requlation
261.4(a)(10)
February 21, 1991 - Page 3 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
|Pnnt«d: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
insert "except as
provided by §266.112
of this chapter for
facilities that burn or
process hazardous
waste" at end of
paragraph
revise first sentence to
include phosphate rock
and overburden from
the mining of uranium
ore in the existing
parenthetical phrase;
insert "except as
provided by §266.112
of this chapter for
facilities that bum or
process hazardous
waste" at end of first
sentence
add "except as
provided by §266.112
of this chapter for
facilities that bum or
process hazardous
waste" to end of
paragraph
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261 .4(b)(4)
261.4(b)(7)
261.4(b)(8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
remove existing para-
graph 261.6(a)(3)(vii)
and redesignate
261.6(a)(3)(viii) as
261.6(a)(3Hvli)
redesignate
261.6(a)(3)(ix) as
261.6(a)(3)(viii)
261.6(a)(3)(vii)
261.6(aM3Mviii)
February 21, 1991 - Page 4 of 108
CL85.11 •
(Printed 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART G - CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
CLOSURE OF PLAN: AMENDMENT OF PLAN
add sentence
regarding written
notification of
Regional Administrator
at least 45 days prior
to partial or final
closure of a boiler or
industrial furnace
264.1 12(d)(1)
SUBPART O - INCINERATORS
APPLICABILITY
regulations apply to
owners and operators
of hazardous waste
incinerators (as
defined in 260.10)
except as 264.1
provides otherwise
264.340(a)
February 21, 1991 - Page 5 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART G - CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
CLOSURE PLAN: AMENDMENT OF PLAN
insert "or by six
months after the
effective date of the
rule that first subjects
a facility to provisions
of this section" after
"Bv Mav 19, 1981"
add sentence
regarding submittal
of closure plan
at least 45 days
prior to beginning
partial or final closure
of a boiler or
industrial furnace; add
sentence regarding
written notification at
least 45 days prior to
beginning partial or
final closure of a
boiler or industrial
furnace when the
owner or operator has
an approved closure
plan
265.112(a)
265.1 12(d)(1)
February 21, 1991 - Page 6 of 108
CL85.11
[Pnnt»d: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 restructure paragraph
by deleting the
subparagraph
designations (i) and
(ii) and the text
under (ii); add
"Exception for boilers
and industrial furnaces
that operate under
interim status, as
specified by
266.1 03(c)(7)(i)(B)
or (C)" at beginning of
paragraph; add
sentence at end of
paragraph requiring
the date when interim
status boilers and
industrial furnaces
expect to begin
closure to be within
30 days of failure
to meet
266.1 03(c)(7)(i)(B)
or (C) deadline
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 12(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CLOSURE; TIME ALLOWED FOR CLOSURE
remove text regarding
the final volume of
nonhazardous waste;
add text regarding the
90-day requirement for
a boiler or industrial
furnace that does not
submit a complete
certification of
compliance by the
266.1 03(c)(7)(i)(B) or
(C) deadline
265.113(a)
February 21, 1991 - Page 7 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
1 remove text regarding
the final volume of
nonhazardous waste;
add text regarding the
180-day requirement
for a boiler or
industrial furnace that
does not submit a
complete certification
of compliance by the
266.1 03(c)(7)(i)(B)
or (C) deadline
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.113(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALoS IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART 0 - INCINERATORS
APPLICABILITY
regulations apply to
owners and operators
of hazardous waste
incinerators (as defined
in 260.10) except as
265.1 provides
otherwise
265.340(a)
PART 266 - STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES
AND SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
SUBPART D - HAZARDOUS WASTE BURNED FOR ENERGY RECOVERY
remove and reserve
Subpart D
266.30-266.35
February 21, 1991 - Page 8 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2791
(Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- MORE r BROADER
ALENT | STRINGENT j IN SCOPE
SUBPART H - HAZARDOUS WASTE BURNED IN BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES
APPLICABILITY
regulations apply to
hazardous waste
burned or processed
in a boiler or industrial
furnace, irrespective of
purpose, except as
266.1 00(b),(c) and (d)
provide; definition of
"burn"; 266.104-
266.107 emissions
standards apply to
interim status or
permitted facilities
as specified in
§§266.102 and
266.103
hazardous wastes and
facilities not subject
to regulation under
Subpart H:
used oil burned for
energy recovery that
is hazardous solely
because it exhibits a
characteristic; regulated
under 266. Subpart E
gas recovered from
landfills and burned
for energy recovery
exempt hazardous
wastes under 261.4
and 261.6(a)(3)(v)-(viii);
CESQG hazardous
wastes under 261.5
coke ovens burning
onlv K087
266.100(3)
266.1 00(b)
266.1 OO(b)d)
266.1 00(W(2)
266.1 00(b)(3)
266.1 00(b)(4)
February 21, 1991 - Page 9 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
|Prin(»d 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
owners and operators
of smelting, melting
and refining furnaces
processing hazardous
waste solely for metal
recovery conditionally
exempt, except for
266.101 and 266.112
requirements for
exemption from
266.102 through
266.111
one-time written
notice indicatina:
owner or operator
claims 266.100(c)
exemption
metal recovery as per
266.1 00(c)(2)-
provisions
recoverable levels of
metals
compliance with
266.100 sampling and
analysis and record-
keepinq requirements
sample and analyze
hazardous waste and
other feedstocks as
necessary using
specified procedures
maintain specified
records at facility for
at least three vears
criteria under which
a hazardous waste is
not processed solely
for metal recovery
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 00(c)
266.1 OO(c)d)
266.1 00(c)MMi)
266.1 00(cM1)(i)(A)
266.1 00(cW1MO(B)
266.1 00(c)(1)(i)(C)
266.1 00(c)MWi)(D)
266.1 00(c)m(ii)
266.1 OOfcMDflii)
266.1 00(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 10 of 108
CL85.11 - 1072751
|Pnnt«d 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
total concentration of
261, Appendix VIII
organic compounds
exceeds 500 ppm by
weight and are con-
sidered burned for
destruction
heating value of
5,000 Btu/lb or more
and considered
burned as fuel
266.1 1 1 direct transfer
operation standards
apply only to
facilities subject to
266.102 or 266.103
standards
266.112 residue
management standards
apply to any boiler or
industrial furnace
burning hazardous
waste
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 00(c)(2)(i)
266.1 00(c)(2)(ii)
266.1 00(d)
266.100(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO BURNING
generators of hazar-
dous waste that is
burned in a boiler or
industrial furnace
subject to Part 262
transporters of hazar-
dous waste that is
burned in a boiler or
industrial furnace
subject to Part 263
266.101(a)
266.10Kb)
February 21, 1991 - Page 11 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Pnn1»d: 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
owner and operators
of facilities that store
hazardous waste
burned in a boiler or
industrial furnace sub-
ject to 264 and 265,
Subparts A through L,
and 270, except as
provided by
266.1 01 (c)(2); stan-
dards applicable to
storage by burners
and intermediary
facilities
generators of hazar-
dous waste who burn
on-site in boilers or
industrial furnaces
exempt from
regulation under
266.108 small
quantity burner
provisions are exempt
from regulation under
264 and 265,
suoparts A through L,
and 270 with respect
to storage of mixtures
of hazardous waste
and the primary fuel
in tanks that feed
mixture directly to
burner; hazardous
waste storage prior to
mixing subject to
266.1 01 (c)(1)
regulation
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 01 (c)m
266.1 01 (c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 12 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(PnnWd 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- MORE BROADER
ALENT | STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
PERMIT STANDARDS FOR BURNERS
owners and operators
not operating under
interim status and not
exempt under 266.108
small quantity burner
exemption, are
subject to
266.102, 270.22 and
270.66 requirements
applicable 264
provisions:
266.1 02(a)(1)
266.1 02(aH2)
266.1 02(aM2)(i)
266.1 02(a)(2)(ii)
266.1 02(a)(2)(iii)
266.1 02(a)(2)(iv)
266.1 02(a)(2)(v)
266.1 02(aM2)(vi)
266.1 02(a)(2)(vii)
266.1 02(a)(2)(viii)
266.1 02(a)(2)(ix)
February 21, 1991 - Page 13 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
analysis to quantify
concentration of any
261, Appendix VIII
constituent at levels
detectable by specified
analytical procedures;
identification;
explanation of consti-
tuents excluded from
analysis; analysis pro-
vides Subpart H,
270.22 and
270.66 information to
prescribe permit con-
ditions; analysis
included in Part B
permit application or
in trial burn plan for
interim status facilities;
owners/operators of
units not operating
under interim status
include 270.22 or
270.66(c) information
in Part B application,
to extent possible
sampling and analysis
throughout normal
operation to ensure
permit-specified
physical and chemical
composition limits
are met
compliance with
266.104 through
266.107 emissions
standards
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(b)(1)
266.102(b)(2)
266.102(0
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 14 of 108
CL85.11 - 1072/91
[Primed 3/18/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
burn only hazardous
wastes specified in
permit under
266.102(e) operating
conditions; exception
for approved trial
burns under 270.66
conditions
new permit or permit
modification necessary
to bum hazardous
waste not specified
in permit; trial burn
results or Part B
alternative data form
basis for new waste
operating requirements
266.103 interim status
boilers and industrial
furnaces permitted
under 270.66(g)
procedures
permit for new boiler
or industrial furnace
must establish
appropriate conditions
for each applicable
266.102 requirement
in order to comply
with specified
standards:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(d)(1)
266.1 02(d)(2)
266.1 02(d)(3)
266.1 02(d)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 15 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for period beginning
with initial introduction
of hazardous waste
and ending with
initiation of trial burn;
such period not to
exceed 720 hours;
operating requirements
in compliance with
266.104-266.107
emissions standards;
applicable provisions
when seeking waiver
from a trial burn;
extension for up to
720 additional hours
by Director
based on good
cause demonstration
during trial burn,
operating requirements
sufficient for 266.104-
266.107 emissions
compliance and in
accordance with
approved trial burn
plan
immediately after trial
burn, for minimum
period needed to
allow sample analysis,
data computation,
submission and review
of trial burn results,
and permit
modification, operating
requirements to
ensure 266.104-
266.107 emissions
compliance
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(d)(4)(i)
266.1 02(d)(4)(ii)
266.1 02(d)(4)(iii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 16 of 108
CL85.11 -
(Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
2 for duration of permit,
operating require-
ments based on trial
burn or 270.22
alternative data,
sufficient to ensure
266.104-266.107
emissions compliance
operating require-
ments specified in the
permit apply at all
times where
hazardous waste
is in unit
operating conditions,
either case-by-case
for each hazardous
waste to ensure
compliance with
266.104(a) ORE
performance standard
or special operating
requirements provided
by 266.1 04(a)(4) ORE
trial burn waiver;
when no waiver, each
set of operating
requirements will
specify composition of
hazardous waste to
which they apply;
permit-specified
operating limits for
each hazardous waste
include:
feed rate of
hazardous waste and
other fuels as
Der266.102(e)(6)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(cfl(4)(iv)
266.1 02(e)(1)
266.102(e)(2)(H
266.1 02(e)(2W)(A)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
KSUFT^"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 17 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed 11/12/92J
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPAO1.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
minimum and
maximum device
production rate
when producing
normal product as
per 266.102(e)(6)
appropriate controls
of hazardous waste
firinq system
allowable variation in
boiler and industrial
furnace system design
or operating
procedures
minimum combustion
gas temperature
measured at a
location indicative of
combustion chamber
temperature as per
266.1 02(eM6)
appropriate indicator
of combustion gas
velocity as per
266.1 02(e)(6), unless
270.66 documentation
other operating
requirements to
ensure 266.104(a)
ORE compliance
permit must
incorporate carbon
monoxide (CO) limit
and, as appropriate,
hydrocarbon (HC) limit
as per 266.104(b)-(f);
permit limits
specified:
when complying with
266.1 04(b)(1) CO
standard, permit limit
is 100 ppmv
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(2Hi)(B)
266.1 02(e)(2)(WC)
266.1 02(e)(2)(i)(D)
266.1 02(e)(2)(i)(E)
266.1 02(e)(2)(i)(R
266.1 02(e)(2)(iHG)
266.1 02(e)(2)(ii)
266.1 02(e)(2)(ii)(A)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 18 of 108
CL85.11 -
(Printed 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when complying with
266.104(c) alternative
CO standard, permit
limit based on trial
burn, established as
specified average, and
permit limit for HC
is 20 ppmv, except as
266.104(0 provides
when complying with
266.1 04(f) alternative
HC limit, permit limit
for HC and CO is
baseline level when
hazardous waste is
not burned
no hazardous waste
as feed during start-up
and shut-down, unless
device is operating
within permit
conditions; exception
except as provided
in 266.1 02(e)(3)(ii)
and (iii), operating
requirements the
permit will specify to
ensure 266.105 partic-
ulate standard
compliance:
total ash feed rate
from hazardous waste,
other fuels, and
industrial furnace
feedstocks, as per
266.1 02(e)(6)
maximum device
production rate when
producing normal
product as per
266.102(eH6)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.102(e)(2)(ii)(B)
266.1 02(eM2)(ii)(C)
266.1 02(e)(2)(iii)
266.1 02(e)(3)(n
266.1 02(e)(3W)(A)
266.1 02(e)(3)(0(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 19 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
operation and main-
tenance controls for
hazardous waste firing
system and air pollu-
tion control system
allowable variation in
system design
including air
pollution control
system or operating
procedures
other operating
requirements to ensure
266.1 11(b) paniculate
standard compliance
no permit conditions to
ensure particulate
standard compliance
for 266.1 05(b) exempt
facilities
for cement kilns and
light-weight aggregate
kilns, permit conditions
shall not limit ash
content of hazardous
waste or other feed
materials
operating requirements
the permit will specify
to conform with
266.1 06(b) or (e)
Tier I or adjusted
Tier I metals feed rate
screenina limits:
total feed rate of each
metal in hazardous
waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace
feedstocks as per
266.1 02(eM6)
total feed rate of
hazardous waste as
oer266.102(e)(6)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(3)(i)(C)
266.1 02(e)(3)(i)(D)
266.1 02(e)(3W)(E)
266.1 02(e)(3)0n
266.1 02(e)(3)(iii)
266.1 02(eK4Hi)
266.1 02(e)(4)ONA)
266.1 02(e)(4)(i)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 20 of 108
CL85.11 -
(Pnnwl 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
sampling and metals
analysis oroaram
operating requirements
the permit will specify
to conform with
266.1 06(c) Tier II
metals emission rate
screening limits and
266.1 06(d) Tier III
metals controls:
maximum emission
rate for each metal
based on average
rate during
trial burn
feed rate of total and
pumpable hazardous
waste as per
266.1 02(e)(6)(n
3 feed rate of each
metal in specified
feedstreams,
measured and
specified as per
266.1 02(e)(6)
total feed rate of
chlorine and chloride
in total feedstreams
as oer 266.1 02(e)(6)
maximum combustion
gas temperature
measured at location
indicative of combus-
tion chamber tempera-
ture as per
266.1 02(eK6)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(4)(i)(C)
266.1 02(e)(4Mii)
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(A)
266.1 02(e)(4Mii)(B)
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(C)
266.1 02(eK4)(ii)(C)m
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(C)(a
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(C)(3)
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(D)
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(E)
1
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 21 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
maximum flue gas
temperature at inlet
to particulate matter
air pollution control
system as per
266.1 02(e)(6)
maximum device
production rate when
producing normal
product as per
266.1 02(eH6)
operation and main-
tenance controls of
hazardous waste firing
system and any air
pollution control svstem
allowable variation in
system design
including air pollution
control system or
operating procedures
other operating
requirements
to ensure
266.106(c) or (d)
metals standards
compliance
operating require-
ments the permit will
specify to conform
with 266.1 06(f) alter-
native implementation
approach:
maximum emission
rate for each metal
based on
average rate
feed rate of total and
pumpable hazardous
waste as per
266.1 02(eH6Hn
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(F)
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(G)
266.1 02(e)(4)(ii)(H)
266.1 02te)(4Wi)M
266.1 02(eU4Hii)(J)
266.1 02(eH4)(iii)
266.1 02(e)(4)(iii)(A)
266.1 02(eK4Wii)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 22 of 108
CL85.11 -
[Printed 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
feed rate of each
metal in specified
feedstreams,
measures and
specified
as per 266.1 02(e)(6)
total feed rate of
chlorine and chloride
in total feedstreams
as per 266.1 02(e)(6)
maximum combustion
gas temperature
measured at location
indicative of combus-
tion chamber
temperature as per
266.1 02(e)(6)
maximum flue gas
temperature at inlet
to paniculate matter
air pollution control
system as per
266.1 02(e)(6)
maximum device
production rate when
producing normal
product as per
266.1 02(e)(6)
operation and main-
tenance controls of
hazardous waste firing
system and any
air pollution
control system
allowable variation in
system design
including air pollution
control system or
operating procedures
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(4)(iii)(C)
266.1 02(e)(4)(iii)(C)m
266.1 02(e)(4)(iii)(C)(2)
266.1 02(eK4)(iiWD)
266.1 02(e)(4Hiii)(E)
266.1 02(e)(4)(iiiHR
266.1 02(e)(4)(iii)(G)
266.1 02(e)(4)(iii)(H)
266.1 02(eH4)(iiiHn
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
3,4
February 21, 1991 - Page 23 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
other operating
requirements to en-
sure 266.106(c) or (d)
metals standards
compliance
operating requirements
the permit will specify
to ensure
266.1 07(b)(1) Tier I
total chloride and
chlorine feed rate
screening limits
conformance:
feed rate of total
chloride and chlorine
in hazardous waste,
other fuels, and
industrial furnace
feedstocks as per
266.1 02(e)(6)
feed rate of total
hazardous waste as
oer 266.102(e)(6)
sampling and analysis
program for totai
chloride and chlorine
operating requirements
the permit will specify
for 266.1 07(b)(2)
Tier II and 266.107(c)
Tier III HCI and CI2
emission rate
screening limits
conformance:
maximum emission
rate for HCI and CI2
based on averaae rate
feed rate of total
hazardous waste as
oer 266.1 02(eH6)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(4)(iii)(J)
266.1 02(e)(5)(i)
266.1 02(e)(5)(i)(A)
266.1 02(eH5)(i)(B)
266.1 02(e)(5Hi)(C)
266.1 02(e)(5Kii)
266.102(e)(5Hii)(A)
266.1 02(e)(5WH(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 24 of 108
CL85.11 -
[Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
total feed rate of
chlorine and chloride
in total feedstreams
as oer 266.1 02(e){6)
maximum device
production rate when
producing normal
product as per
266.1 02(e)(6)
operation and main-
tenance controls of
hazardous waste firing
system and any
air pollution
control system
allowable variation in
system design
including air pollution
control system or
operating procedures
other operating
requirements to ensure
266.1 07(b)(2) or (c)
HCI or CI2 standards
compliance
as specified in
266.1 02(e)(2)-(5), each
operating parameter
shall be measured and
permit limits on the
parameter established
according to following
procedures:
measured and re-
corded on instan-
taneous basis
and permit limit based
on time-weighted
average
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(5Mii)(C)
266.1 02(e)(5Mii)(D)
266.1 02(e)(5)(ii)(E)
266.1 02(e)(5)(ii)(R
266.1 02(e)(5)(in(G)
266.1 02(e)(6)(i)
266.1 02(e)(6)(i)(A)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 25 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed n/12/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
hourly rolling average
basis as defined
5 permit limit based on
average overall valid
test runs of highest
hourly rolling average
value oer run
feed rate limits for
carcinogenic metals
and lead established
on either an hourly
rolling average basis
or on (up to) to
24-hour rolling
average basis; re-
quirements for 2 to
24 hour average
period:
feed rate of each
metal limited to ten
times the allowable
hourly rolling average
basis feed rate
5 specifications the
continuous monitor
shall meet
feed rate permit limit
based on specified
averaae
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(6)(i)(B)m
266.1 02(e)(6)(i)(B)(/)
(i)
266.1 02(e)(6)(i)(B)(7)
(/A
266.1 02(e)(6W)(BM2)
266.1 02(eM6Mii)
266.1 02(eM6Mii)(A)
266.1 02(e)(6)(iiHB)
266.1 02(e)(6)(iiHB)m
266.1 02(e)(6MiiMBM2J
266.1 02(e)(6)(ii)(C)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 26 of 108
CL85.11 - 10*7^91
[Pnnt«d 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
feed rate limits for
metals, total chloride
and chlorine, and ash
established and
monitored based on
feedstream concen-
tration and flow rate;
flow rate continuously
monitored as per
266.1 02(e)(6)(i)
and (ii)
if no simultaneous
demonstration of
266.104-266.107
compliance during a
set of test runs,
operating conditions
of additional test runs
as close as possible
to original operating
conditions
facility to operate
under trial burn condi-
tions and reach
steady-state
operations before
obtaining test data to
demonstrate 266.104-
266.107 emissions
standards compliance
or establishing
operating parameter
limits; specific
industrial furnaces
need not reach
steady-state conditions
for flow of metals
prior to beginning
metals emissions
compliance testinq
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(6)(iii)
266.1 02(e)(6)(iv)(A)
266.1 02(eK6)(iv)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 27 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
trial burn data
obtained during
emissions sampling
are used to establish
operating parameter
limits in the permit
when parameter must
be established
as oer 266.102(e)
requirements for con-
trolling fugitive
emissions
automatic waste feed
cutoff required;
Director may limit
number of cutoffs per
operating period;
additional require-
ments include:
maintenance of permit
limit for minimum
combustion chamber
temperature while
hazardous waste or
residues remain in
chamber
exhaust gases ducted
to air pollution control
system while
hazardous waste
or residues
remain in chamber
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(6)(iv)(C)
266.1 02(e)(7)(i)
266.1 02(e)(7)(i)(A)
266.1 02(e)(7)(i)(B)
266.1 02(e)(7)(i)(C)
266.1 02(e)(7)(ii)
266.1 02(e)m(iWA)
266.1 02(e)(7)(ii)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
I
February 21, 1991 - Page 28 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/STl
(Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
continued monitoring
of parameters with
limits during cutoff
and hazardous waste
feed not restarted
until parameters
comply with limits;
for parameters
monitored on
instantaneous basis,
conditions for
restarting
hazardous waste feed
cease burning hazar-
dous waste when
changes in
combustion properties,
feed rates, or design
or operating conditions
deviate from
permit limits
operator or operator,
while burning hazar-
dous waste, must
monitor and record:
specified feed rates
and composition of
specified materials
CO, HC, and oxygen
on a continuous basis
as specified; monitors
installed, operated
and maintained as per
266, Appendix IX
methods
sampling and analysis
as requested to verify
that requirements
established in permit
achieve
266.104-266.107
standards
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(7)(ii)(C)
266.1 02(e)(7)(iii)
266.1 02(eH8)(i)
266.1 02(e)(8)(i)(A)
266.1 02(e)(8)(i)(B)
266.1 02(e)(8KO(C)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 29 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
|Pnnt«d tl/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitors record data
in permit limit units,
unless permit allows
otherwise
daily visual inspection
of boiler or industrial
furnace and
associated equipment
when they contain
hazardous waste
test automatic feed
cutoff system and
associated alarms at
least once every 7
days when hazardous
waste is burned
unless specified
conditions are
demonstrated; opera-
tional testing at least
once every 30 days
monitoring and inspec-
tion data recorded
and placed in 264.73
operating record
compliance with
266.111 if direct
transfer of hazardous
waste to boiler or
industrial furnace
without use of
storage unit
all 266.102-required
information and data
in facility operating
record for not less
than three years
remove all hazardous
waste and hazardous
waste residues at
closure
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 02(e)(8)(ii)
266.1 02(e)(8)(iii)
266.1 02(e)(8)(iv)
266.1 02(e)(8)(v)
266.102(e)(9)
266.1 02(e)(10)
266.1 02(e)(11)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 30 of 108
CL85.11 - 1072791
|Pnnt»d 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
I FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV- MORE I BROADER
ALENT STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR BURNERS
establish minimum
national standards for
owners and operators
of existing boilers and
industrial furnaces
until permitted under
266.1 02(d) or closed
definition of "existing
or in existence";
facility has com-
menced construction
if all permits
necessary to begin
physical construction
are obtained and
either:
continuous on-site,
physical construction
Droqram has begun
contractual obligations
cannot be cancelled
or modified without
substantial loss and
physical construction
is to be completed
within reasonable time
if boiler or industrial
furnace at facility with
permit or interim
status, then
compliance with
270.42 permit
modification or 270.72
interim status changes
266.103 requirements
not applicable to
hazardous waste and
facilities exempt under
266.1 00(b) or 266.1 08
266.1 03(a)(1 Hi)
266.1 03(a)(1)(ii)
266.1 03(aH1)(ii)(A)
266.1 03(a)m(iiHB)
266.1 03(aH1Hiii)
266.1 03(a)(2)
February 21, 1991 - Page 31 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
|Print«d: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
hazardous waste
listed for dioxin or
derived from
F020-F023, F026
or F027 may not be
burned in interim
status boiler or
industrial furnace
interim status owners
and operators subject
to specified 265
provisions:
controls that apply to
interim status
industrial furnaces
that feed hazardous
waste for a purpose
other than solely as
an ingredient at any
location other than
the hot end and
where fuels are
normally fired:
fed at location where
temperatures are at
least 1800° F
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(a)(3)
266.1 03(a)(4)
266.1 03(a)(4)(i)
266.1 03(a)(4)(ii)
266.1 03(a)(4Kiii)
266.103(a)(4)(iv)
266.1 03(a)(4)(v)
266.1 03(a)(4)(vi)
266.1 03(a)(4)(vii)
266.1 03(a)(4Kviii)
266.1 03(aH5)
266.1 03(a)(5Xi)(A)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 32 of 108
CL85.11 -
[Printed 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
determination and
documentation in
facility record of
adequate oxvqen
for cement kiln
systems, hazardous
waste fed into kiln
applicability of
266.104{c) or
266.1 04(c)(5)
hydrocarbon controls
criteria for burning
hazardous waste for
a purpose other than
solely as an
inqredient:
total concentration
of 261, Appendix VIII
nonmetal compounds
exceed 500 ppm by
weight as generated
and considered
burned for
destruction
heating value of
5,000 Btu/lb or more,
as generated or as
fired, and considered
burned as fuel
burning hazardous
waste with heating
value less than 5,000
Btu/lb prohibited
except for purposes of
compliance testing for
no more than
720 hours
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(a)(5)(i)(B)
266.1 03(a)(5)(i)(C)
266.1 03(a)(5HO(D)
266.1 03(a)(5)(ii)
266.1 03(a)(5)(ii)(A)
266.1 03(a)(5Kii)(B)
266.1 03(aH6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
KuTV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 33 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO 9541.00-17
SPA,
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
266.111 compliance if
hazardous waste
directly transferred
from transport vehicle
to boiler or industrial
furnace without
storaqe unit use
August 21, 1991 sub-
mittal date for
266.1 03(b)(2) informa-
tion; establish limits
for 266.1 03(b)(3)
parameters; certificate
of precompliance;
burning limited to
266.1 03(b)(3) condi-
tions until
266.1 03(b)(8) revised
certification of pre-
compliance, or
266.1 03(c) certifi-
cation of compliance,
or permit is issued
information to be sub-
mitted with certification
of precompliance to
support determination
and compliance with
operating parameter
limits
general facility
information
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(a)(7)
266.1 03(b)m
266.1 03(b)(2)
266.1 03(b)(2Hi)
266.1 03(b)(2)fl)(A)
266.1 03(bM2MiMB)
266.1 03(bH2)(i)(C)
266.1 03(b)(2Hi)(D)
266.1 03(b)(2)(i)(E)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 34 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
except for facilities
complying with Tier I
feed rate screening
limits provided by
266.1 06(b) or (e) and
266.1 07(b)(1) or (e),
estimated uncontrolled
emissions of
paniculate matter,
each 266.106
metal, hydrogen
chloride and chlorine,
and following infor-
mation to support
determinations:
feed rate of specified
materials in each
feedstream
estimated partitioning
factor to combustion
gas for
266.1 03(b)(2)(ii)(A)
materials, basis for
estimate, and estimate
of partitioning to HCI
and CI2 of total
chloride and chlorine
in feed materials;
use best engineering
judgment or
266, Appendix IX
procedures
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(b)(2)(ii)
266.1 03(b)(2)(ii)(A)
266.1 03(b)(2Hii)(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 35 of 108
CL85.11 • 10/2/91
(Printed 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for industrial furnaces
that recycle collected
particulate matter and
certify compliance with
266.1 03(c)(ii)(A)
metals emissions
standards,
estimated enrichment
factor for each metal,
using best engineering
judgment or specified
Appendix IX
procedures
basis for best
engineering judgment;
270.1 1(d) certifica-
tion of determinations
included in certifica-
tion of Drecompliance
for facilities complying
with Tier I feed rate
screening limits, the
feed rate of specified
materials in each
feedstream
for facilities complying
with Tier II or III
emission limits for
metals or HCI or Clz,
estimated controlled
emissions rates of
particulate matter,
each 266.106 metal,
HCI and CI2, and
following information
to support deter-
minations:
estimated air pollution
control system (ARCS)
removal efficiency for
specified materials
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.103(bH2)(ii)(C)
266.1 03(b)(2Hii)(D)
266.1 03(b)(2)(iii)
266.1 03(bH2Hiv)
266.1 03(b)(2)(iv)(A)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
'STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 36 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed 11/12/321
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
use best engineering
judgment or 266,
Appendix IX
procedures
basis for best
engineering judgment
in conformance with
266.1 03(b)(2)(ii)(D)
determination of
allowable emissions
rates for specified
materials and infor-
mation to support
such determinations
to include:
for all facilities:
for owners or
operators using Tier
III site specific
dispersion modeling
to determine
266.1 06(d) or
266.1 07(c) allowable
levels, or adjusted
Tier I feed rate
screening limits under
266.106(e) or
266.107(e):
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(tt(2)(iv)(B)
266.1 03(b)(2)(iv)(C)
266.1 03(b)(2)(v)
266.103(b)(2)(v)(A)
266.1 03(b)(2)(v)(A)(ft
266.1 03(b)(2)(v)(A)(2>
266.1 03(bK2)M(A)(3)
266.1 03(b)(2)(v)(A)(4)
266.1 03(b)(2)(v)(A)(5)
266.1 03(bK2)(v)(A)(6)
266.103(b)(2)(v)(A)(7)
266.1 03(bH2)(vHB)
266.1 03(b)(2)(v)(B)(f)
266.1 03(b)(2)(v)(BW2)
266.1 03(b)(2)(vKBK3)
266.1 03(b)(2)M(B)l4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"KUI^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 37 of 108
CL85.11 • 10/2/91
[Printed 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for facilities complying
with Tier II or III
emissions rate
controls for metals or
HCI and CI2,
comparison of
266.103(b)(2)(iv)
estimated rates with
266.1 03(b)(2)(v)
allowable rates
for facilities complying
with Tier I or adjusted
Tier I feed rate
screening limits for
metals or total
chloride and chlorine,
comparison of actual
feed rates determined
under 266.1 03(b)(2)(iii)
to Tier I allowable
feed rates
for industrial furnaces
that feed hazardous
waste for any purpose
other than solely as
an ingredient at any
location other than
product discharge end
of device,
documentation of
266.1 03(a)(5)(i)(A)-(C)
compliance
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(b)(2)(vi)
266.1 03(b)(2)(vii)
266.1 03(bK2)(viii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 38 of 108
CL85.11 - 1075/91
(Printed 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for industrial furnaces
that recycle collected
paniculate matter back
into the furnace and
that will certify
266.1 03(c)(3)(ii)(A)
metals emissions stan-
dards compliance,
applicable paniculate
matter standard and
precompliance limit
on metal concentration
establish limits on
266.1 03(b)(3)(i)-(v)
parameters consistent
with 266.1 03(b)(2)
determinations and
certify the facility
will operate within the
limits during interim
status when there is
hazardous waste in
the unit until certain
conditions are met
feed rate of total
hazardous waste and
pumpable hazardous
waste
feed rate of each
metal in specified
feedstreams
total feed rate of
chlorine and chloride
in total feedstreams
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(b)(2)(ix)
266.1 03(b)(2)(ix)(A)
266.1 03(b)(2)(ix)(B)
266.1 03(b)(3)
266.1 03(bK3Ku
266.1 03(bK3)(ii)
266.1 03tt»(3Mii)(A)
266.1 03(b)(3)(ii)(B)
266.1 03(b)(3)(ii)(C)
266.1 03(b)(3)(iin
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 39 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
total feed rate of ash
in total feedstreams,
except ash feed rate
for cement kilns and
light-weight aggregate
kilns is not limited
maximum production
rate when producing
normal product
special operating
requirements under
266, Appendix IX for
furnaces that recycle
collected particulate
matter back into
furnace and that
certify compliance with
metals emissions
controls under
266.1 03(c)(3)(ii)(A)
limits on 266.103(b)(3)
parameters
established and
continuously
monitorinq under:
8 instantaneous limits
5 hourly rolling average
basis as defined
feed rate limits for
carcinogenic metals
and lead established
on either an hourly
rolling average basis
or on (up to) 24 hour
rolling average basis;
requirements for 2 to
24 hour average
period:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(b)(3)(iv)
266.1 03(b)(3)(v)
266.1 03(b)(4)
266.1 03(b)(5)(i)
266.1 03(b)(5W)(A)
266.1 03(b)(5)(iHB)
266.1 03(b)(5)(i)(B)m
266.1 03(b)(5)(i)(B)(2)
266.1 03(b)(5)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 40 of 108
CL85.11 10/2/91
[Printed 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
feed rate of each
metal limited to
ten times the
allowable hourly
rolling average basis
feed rate
5 specifications the
continuous monitor
shall meet:
feed rate limits for
metals, total chloride
and chlorine, and ash
established and
monitored based on
feedstream concen-
tration and flow rate;
flow rate continuously
monitored as per
266.1 03(b)(5)(i)
and (iO
owner or operator
submits notice to
major local newspaper
and sends copy of
notice to State and
local government
units; provide
evidence of notice
submittal for
publication with
certification of
pre-compliance to
Director; notice must
bear specified title
and include:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(b)(5Kii)(A)
266.1 03(b)(5)(ii)(B)
266.1 03(b)(5)(ii)(B)(?)
266.1 03fbM5WIMBM2)
266.1 03(bH5)(iii)
266.1 03(b)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 41 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information to
include in public
notice
when monitoring
systems for
266.1 03(c)(1)(v)-(xiii)
operating parameters
are installed and
operating in con-
formance with vendor
or 266, Appendix IX
specifications, con-
tinuous monitoring
required and records
maintained in
operating record
submittal of revised
certification of pre-
compliance under
266.1 03(b)(2)&(3)
procedures
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(b)(6)(i)
266.1 03(b)(6)(ii)
266.103(b)(6)(iii)
266.103(b)(6)(iv)
266.103(b)(6)(v)
266.1 03(bU6)(vi)
266.1 03(b)(6)(vii)
266.1 03(b)(6Mviii)
266.103(bK6)(viii)(A)
266.1 03(bK6)(viii)(B)
266.1 03(b)(6)(ix)
266.1 03(b)(6)(x)
266.1 03(b)(7)
266.1 03(b)(8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 42 of 108
CL85.11 - 1C
[Printtd: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
266.103fb)(6) public
notice requirements
not applicable to
recertifications
operation of facility
within limits
established for
266.1 03(b)(3)
parameters until
266.1 03(b) revised
certification or
266.1 03(c) certification
of compliance is
submitted
language of signed
statement that must
be included with the
certification of
orecompliance
on or before August
21, 1992, conduct
emissions testing to
document compliance
with 266.1 04(b)-(e),
266.105-266.107 and
266.1 03(a)(5)(i)(D)
emissions standards;
submittal of certifi-
cation of compliance
establish limits on
266.1 03(c)(1)(i)-(xiii)
parameters based on
operations during
compliance test and
include with certifica-
tion of compliance;
device will be
operated within these
limits when hazardous
waste is in the unit
until permit is issued
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(b)(8)(i)
266.1 03(b)(8)(ii)
266.1 03(b)(9)
266.1 03(c)
266.103(0(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 43 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Pnntid 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
feed rate of total
hazardous waste and
pumpable hazardous
waste
feed rate of each
metal in specified
feedstreams
total feed rate of
chlorine and chloride
in total feedstreams
total feed rate of ash
in total feedstreams,
except ash feed rate
for cement kilns and
light-weight aggregate
kilns is not limited
carbon monoxide con-
centration and where
required, hydrocarbon
concentration in
stack gas;
CO and HC limits
maximum production
rate when producing
normal product
maximum combustion
chamber temperature
with temperature
measured where
specified: exception
maximum flue gas
temperature entering
a particulate matter
control device;
exception
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.103(0(1)0)
266.1 03(c)(1)(ii)
266.1 03(c)(1)(ii)(A)
266.1 03(c)(1)(ii)(B)
266.1 03(c)(1)(ii)(C)
266.1 03(c)(1)(iii)
266.103(c)(1)(iv)
266.1 03(c)(1)(v)
266.1 03(c)(1)(vi)
266.103(c)(1)(vii)
266.1 03(c)(1)(viii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATTATIALOS IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 44 of 108
CL85.11 - 107W1
[Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
limits for
systems using wet
scrubbers, including
wet ionizing
scrubbers; exception:
systems using venturi
scrubbers, the
minimum differential
gas pressure
across the
venturi; exception
limits for
systems using dry
scrubbers; exception:
limits for
systems using wet
ionizing scrubbers
or electrostatic
precipitators;
exception:
systems using fabric
filters, the minimum
pressure drop;
exception
at least 30 days
prior to 266.1 03(c)(3)
compliance testing,
notify Director and
submit required
information:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(c)(1)(ix)
266.1 03(c)(1)(ix)(A)
266.1 03(c)m(ix)(B)
266.1 03(c)(1)(ix)(C)
266.1 03(cK1)(x)
266.1 03(c)(1)(xu
266.1 03(c)(1)(xi)(A)
266.1 03(c)(1)(xi)(B)
266.1 03(c)m(xii)
266.1 03(c)m(xii)(A)
266.1 03(c)m(xiu(B)
266.1 03(cH1)(xiii)
266.103(0(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 45 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printad 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
general facility
information
specific information
on each device to
be tested
information on testing
planned, including
complete copy of test
protocol and QA/QC
plan, and summary
description for each
test that provides
specified information
compliance testing
under 266.1 03(b)
and 266.1 03(c)(2)
conditions
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(c)(2)(i)
266.1 03(c)(2)W(A)
266.1 03(c)(2)(i)(B)
266.1 03(c)(2)(i)(C)
266.1 03(c)(2Hi)(D)
266.1 03(c)(2)(ii)
266.1 03(c)(2)(ii)(A)
266.1 03(c)(2)(iiKB)
266.1 03(c)(2)(ii)(C)
266.1 03(c)(2Hii)(D)
266.1 03(c)(2)(ii)(D)m
266.1 03(cM2Mii)(DM2)
266.1 03(cK2)(ii)(DH3)
266.1 03(c)(2)(ii)(E)
266.1 03(cM2MiiMR
266.1 03(c)(2)(iii)
266.1 03(c)(2Hiii)(A)
266.1 03(cN2Hiii)(B)
266.1 03(c)(3)(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 46 of 108
CL85.11 -
(Pnnt«J 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
industrial furnaces that
recycle collected
particulate matter from
air pollution control
system must test to
determine 266.106(c)
or (d) metals
standards compliance
using one of the
followinq procedures:
266, Appendix IX
testing requirements
in "Alternative Method
for Implementing
Metals Controls"
stack emissions testing
for 6 hrs/day while
hazardous waste is
burned during interim
status; conditions for
testing; analysis for
metals content to
assure 266.106(c) or
(d) compliance; para-
meters for which
operating limits must
be established under
266.1 03(c)(3)
conduct compliance
testing and establish
limits on 266.1 03(c)(1)
parameters after kiln
system has been
conditioned and has
reached equilibrium
with metals feed and
metals emissions;
conditions to be met
during conditioning
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.103(c)(3)(in
266.1 03(cM3Min(A>
266.1 03(c)(3Hii)(B)
266.1 03(cK3)(in(B)(7)
266.1 03(c)(3Min(BM0
266.1 03(c)(3Hii)(BW3)
266.1 03(c)(3)(ll)(B)(4)
266.1 03(c)(3Mii)(B)(5)
266.1 03(c)(3)(ii)(C)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 47 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[PrinMd: 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
if no simultaneous
demonstration of
266.104-266.107
compliance during a
set of test runs,
operating conditions
of additional test runs
as close as possible
to original operating
conditions
facility to operate
under compliance test
conditions and reach
steady-state operations
before obtaining test
data to demonstrate
266.104-266.107 emis-
sions standards com-
pliance or establishing
operating parameter
limits; specific
industrial furnaces
need not reach
steady-state conditions
prior to beginning
metals compliance
testing
compliance test data
obtained during emis-
sions sampling are
used to establish
operating parameter
limits in the certifi-
cation of compliance
when parameter must
be established as
per 266.1 03(c)m
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(c)(3)(iii)(A)
266.103(c)(3)(iii)(B)
266.1 03(c)(3)(iiiHC)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 48 of 108
CL85.11 -
{Printed. 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
within 90 days of
completing compliance
testing, certification
to Director of
compliance with
266.1 04(b), (c)
and (e),
266.105-266.107 and
266.1 03(a)(5)(i)(D)
emissions standards;
certification must
include:
general facility and
testina information
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.103(0(4)
266.1 03(O(4)(i)
266.1 03(c)(4)(i)(A)
266.1 03(cH4Ki)(B)
266.1 03(O(4)(i)(C)
266.1 03(c)(4Kn(m
266.1 03(c)(4)(H(E)
266.1 03(c)(4Hi)(R
266.1 03(c)(4)(H(Q
266.1 03(c)(4)(i)(H)
266.1 03(c)(4)(i)(l)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 49 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
specific information
on each test
comparison of actual
emissions per test
with emissions limits
prescribed by
266.1 04(b),(c)&(e)
and 266.105-266.107
and established in
266.1 03(b) certifica-
tion of precompliance
determination of
operating limits based
on all valid runs for
266.1 03(c)(1) para-
meters using one of
two procedures:
instantaneous limits
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(c)(4)(ii)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ii)(A)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ii)(B)
266.1 03(cK4)(ii)(BHf)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ii)(B)(2)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ii)(BH3)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ii)(B)(4)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ii)(B)(5)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ii)(B)(0
266.1 03(cM4)(ii)(B)(7>
266.1 03(cH4XiiKB)(S)
266.1 03(cW4Mii)(B)(0)
266.103(cN4Xiii)
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ivHA)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 50 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Pnnttd: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
hourly rolling average
basis as defined
parameter operating
limit based on com-
pliance test data and
specific average
feed rate limits for
carcinogenic metals
and lead established
on either an hourly
rolling average basis
or on (up to) 24 hour
rolling average basis;
requirements for 2
to 24 hour average
period:
feed rate of each
metal limited to
ten times the allow-
able hourly rolling
average basis feed
rate
specifications the
continuous monitor
shall meet
operating limit for
feed rate of each
metal established
based on compliance
test data as the
specified average
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)(B)(f)
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)(B)( 7)
(i)
266.103(c)(4)(iv)(B)(7)
(/A
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)(B)(2)
266.1 03(c)(4Wv)(C)
266.1 03(c)(4)(ivHC)m
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)(C)(2)
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)(C)(2)
(/)
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)(C)(2)
(//>
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)(CK3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
CQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 51 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: '1/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
feed rate limits for
metals, total chloride
and chlorine, and ash
established and moni-
tored based on feed-
stream concentration
and flow rate; flow
rate continuously
monitored as per
266.1 03(c)(4)(iv)(AHC)
language of statement
to accompany the
certification of
compliance
if required to comply
with 266.1 04(c) or
266.1 03(a)(5)(i)(D)
HC controls, condi-
tioned gas monitoring
system may be used
in conformance with
266, Appendix IX
specifications,
provided certification
of compliance is sub-
mitted without
266.103(c)(7) time
extension
special operating
requirements for
industrial furnaces
that recycle collected
paniculate matter from
air pollution control
system:
266, Appendix IX
operating require-
ments in "Alternative
Method to Implement
the Metals Controls"
if complying with
266.1 03(c)(3)(ii)(A)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(c)(4XivKD)
266.1 03(c)(4)M
266.1 03(c)(5)
266.1 03(c)(6)
266.1 03(c)(6Hi)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 52 of 108
CL85.11 - 1075/91
(Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
operating require-
ments of
266.1 03(c)(3)(ii)(B)
if complying with
that oaraaraoh
requirements if fail
to submit complete
certification of com-
pliance for 266.104-
266.107 emissions
standards by
Auaust 21. 1992:
stop burning hazar-
dous waste and begin
266.103(1) closure
limit hazardous waste
burning to a total
period of 720 hours
beginning August 21,
1992; submit notifi-
cation to Director
by August 21, 1992,
stating operation
under restricted
interim status and
intention to resume
hazardous waste
burning; submit com-
plete certification
of compliance by
Auaust 23. 1993
obtain case-by-case
time extension under
266.1 03(c)(7)(in
condition under which
a case-by-case time
extension may be
requested for any
266.1 03(c) time limit
in granting extension,
Director may apply
specified conditions
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(c)(6)(ii)
266.1 03(cM7M»
266.1 03(c)(7HO(A)
266.1 03(c)(7)(h(B)
266.1 03(c)(7)(i)(C)
266.1 03(c)(7)(ii)
266.1 03(c)(7)(ii)(A)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 53 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
|Pnnl«d It/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
if time extension
requested to obtain
RCRA permit because
266.1 04(c) HC limit
cannot be met:
what Director
shall consider:
determine if complete
Part B permit appli-
cation that includes
270.22(b) information
has been submitted
consider if good faith
effort to certify
compliance with all
other emission con-
trols has been made
5 if extension granted,
require facility to
operate under
266.1 04(f)(1) baseline
CO and HC flue gas
concentration limits
submit at any time
a revised certification
of compliance under
specific procedures:
prior to submittal, may
not burn hazardous
waste for more than
720 hours under
operating conditions
that exceed those in
current certification of
compliance; such
burning conducted only
to determine if
266.104-266.107 emis-
sions standards can
be met under revised
conditions
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(O(7)(ii)(B)
266.1 03(O(7)(iiHB)(/)
266.1 03(c)(7)(ii)(B)(/)
266.1 03(c)(7)(ii)(B)(f)
(/7)
266.1 03(O(7)(ii)(B)(2>
266.103(0(8)
266.1 03(O(8)(i)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
•
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 54 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
at least 30 days prior
to first burning under
revised conditions,
notify Director and
submit specific
information:
EPA facility ID
number, facility name,
contact person, tele-
phone number and
address
operating conditions
owner/operator is
seeking to revise
and description of
changes that
prompted need to
revise
determination that
under revised operat-
ing conditions,
266.104-266.107
standards unlikely
to be exceeded;
266.1 03(b)(2) infor-
mation for
documentation
complete emissions
testing protocol for
pretesting and new
compliance test, in-
cluding schedule for
266.104-266.107
emission standards
compliance; 30 day
prior written notice if
revision in compliance
test date
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(cM8Mii)
266.1 03(c)(8)(ii)(A)
266.1 03(c)(8)(ii)(B)
266.1 03(c)(8)(ii)(C)
266.1 03(c)(8Kii)(D)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
KlUIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 55 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
conduct compliance
test under revised
operating conditions
and submitted proto-
col to determine
266.104-266.107
emissions standards
compliance
submit revised
certification of
compliance under
266.1 03(c)(4)
recertification of
compliance within
three years; if
recertification under
new operating condi-
tions, 266.103(c)(8)
compliance
if noncompliance with
interim status com-
pliance schedule,
burning is to terminate
on date deadline is
missed, closure to
begin under
266.103(1), and no
resumption of burning
except under 270.66
operating permit
no hazardous waste
as feed during start-up
and shut-down unless
device is operating
within certification
conditions
during 266.103(c)(3)
compliance test and
upon certification of
compliance, automatic
waste feed cutoff
required; additional
requirements include:
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(cH8)(iii)
266.103(c)(8Wv)
266.1 03(d)
266.103(6)
266.1 03(f)
266.103(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 56 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed 11'12/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
maintenance of
minimum combustion
chamber temperature
while hazardous waste
or residues remain in
chamber to minimize
emissions or organic
compounds
if compliance with
combustion chamber
temperature limit
is based on hourly
rolling average,
minimum temperature
during compliance test
is averaged over
all runs of the lowest
hourly rolling average
for each run
if compliance with
combustion chamber
temperature limit
is based on instan-
taneous temperature
measurement, mini-
mum temperature
during compliance test
is time-weighted
average during all
test runs
continued monitoring
of operating param-
eters with limits
during cutoff; no
restart of hazardous
waste feed until
parameters comply
with certification of
established
compliance limits
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.103(0X1)
266.1 03(a)(1)CO
266.1 03(a)(1)(ii)
266.103(a)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 57 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPAJJ
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements for
controlling fugitive
emissions
cease burning hazar-
dous waste when
changes in combustion
properties, feed rates,
feed stocks/fuels
or design or operating
conditions deviate
from permit limits
owner or operator,
while burning hazar-
dous waste, must
monitor and record:
specified feed rates
and composition of
specified materials to
ensure conformance
with certification
CO, HC and oxygen
on a continuous basis
as specified; monitors
installed, operated and
maintained as per 266,
Appendix IX methods
sampling and analysts
as requested by
Director to verify
compliance with
266.104-266.107
standards
daily visual inspection
of boiler or industrial
furnace and
associated equipment
when they contain
hazardous waste
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.103(h)
266.1 03(h)(1)
266.1 03(h)(2)
266.1 03(h)(3)
266.1 03W
266.1 03(iH1)
266.1 oammm
266.1 03(nm(ii)
266.1 03(i)(1)(iii)
266.1 03(H(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 58 of 108
CL85.11 -
|Pnnt«d 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
test automatic feed
cutoff system and
associated alarms at
least once every
7 days when
hazardous waste is
burned unless
specified conditions
are demonstrated;
operational testing
at least once every
30 davs
monitoring and in-
spection data recorded
and placed in
operating loq
all 266.103-required
information and data
kept in facility
operating record for
three vears
remove all hazardous
waste and hazardous
waste residues at
closure and comply
with 265.111-265.115
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 03(i)(3)
266.1 03(M4)
266.1 03(10
266.103(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS TO CONTROL ORGANIC EMISSIONS
except as
266.1 04(a)(3)
provides, ORE of
99.99% required for
all organic hazardous
constituents;
demonstration
during trial burn for
each POHC in permit
for each waste feed;
ORE equation
266.1 04(a)(1)
February 21, 1991 - Page 59 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
POHC compliance
with ORE require-
ments to be
demonstrated in
trial burn in
conformance with
270.66 procedures;
designation of POHCs
for each waste feed
by Director
based on degree of
difficulty of destruction
and on waste feed
concentrations con-
sidering analyses sub-
mitted with Part B;
261, Appendix VIII
compounds unless
demonstration of other
compound is suitable
indicator of ORE
reauirements
ORE of 99.9999% for
F020-F023, F026 or
F027 as determined
from 266.1 04(a)(1)
equation; notification
of intent to bum
such wastes
owners and operators
of boilers operating
under 266.110
requirements are
exempt from ORE
trial bum
owners and operators
of boilers or industrial
furnaces in
compliance with
266.109(a) are exempt
from ORE trial bum
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 04(a)(2)
266.1 04(a)(3)
266.1 04(a)(4)
266.1 04(a)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
I STATE ANALM IS:
"EQUiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
10
February 21, 1991 - Page 60 of 108
CL85.11
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
except as 266.104(c)
provides, CO stack
gas concentration
cannot exceed 100
ppmv on an hourly
rolling average basis,
continuously corrected
to 7% oxygen, dry
qas basis
continuous monitoring
of CO and oxygen
in conformance with
266, Appendix IX
specifications
demonstration of
100 ppmv CO com-
pliance during trial
burn or compliance
test; highest hourly
rolling average CO
must not exceed
100 ppmv
stack gas concen-
tration of CO may
exceed 100 ppmv if
HC concentrations do
not exceed 20 ppmv;
exception under
266.1 04(f)
HC limits established
on hourly rolling
average basis,
reported as propane,
continuously corrected
to 7% oxygen, dry gas
basis
HC continuously
monitored under 266,
Appendix IX specifi-
cations; CO contin-
uously monitored
under 266.104(b)(2)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 04(b)m
266.1 04(b)(2)
266.1 04(b)(3)
266.1 04(c)m
266.1 04(c)(2)
266.1 04(cH3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
FQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 61 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
alternative CO stan-
dard based on trial
burn data (new facility)
and compliance test
(interim status facility);
definition and
implementation
industrial furnaces that
feed hazardous waste
for purpose other than
solely as an ingredient
at any location other
than end where
products are normally
discharged and fuels
are normally fired
must comply with
266.104(c) or (f)
hydrocarbon limits,
irrespective of
whether 266.104(b)
standard is met
site-specific risk
assessment for
specific boilers and
industrial furnaces to
demonstrate that
chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans emis-
sions do not result in
increased lifetime
cancer risk exceeding
1 in 100,000 MEI;
assessment require-
ments:
determine emission
rates of certain tetra-
octa congeners during
trial bum or
compliance test using
266, Appendix IX
Method 23
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 04(c)(4)
266.104(d)
266.104(e)
266.1 04(e)(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 62 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Pnnt«d: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
estimate 2,3,7,8-TCDD
toxicity equivalence of
specified congeners
using 266, Appendix
IX procedures;
formula for estimation
of equivalent emission
rate
conduct dispersion
modeling using recom-
mended methods to
predict maximum
annual average off-site
ground level concen-
trations of
2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalents; maximum
annual average on-
site concentration
used when a person
resides on-site
specified
2,3,7,8-TCDD ratio
shall not exceed 1 .0
for industrial furnaces
that cannot meet the
20 ppmv HC limit
because of organic
matter in raw material,
Director may establish
alternative HC limit on
case-by-case basis;
cement kilns equipped
with by-pass duct
meeting 266.104(g)
requirements not
eligible for alterna-
tive limit
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 04(e)(2)
266.1 04(e)(3)
266.1 04(e)(4)
266.1 04(fl
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ESDIV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 63 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Pnnt»d 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA,
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
demonstrate that
facility is designed and
operated to minimize
HC emissions from
fuels and raw materials
when baseline HC
(and CO) level is
determined; baseline
level defined; may be
multiple baseline
levels
develop approach to
monitor over time
changes in facility
operation that could
reduce baseline
HC level
conduct emissions
testing during trial
burn to:
determine baseline
HC (and CO) level
demonstrate that HC
(and CO) levels do
not exceed baseline
level when hazardous
waste is burned
identify types and
concentrations of 261 ,
Appendix VIM organic
compounds that are
emitted; conduct dis-
persion modeling; on-
site ground level
concentrations evalu-
ated if person resides
on-site
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 04(f)m
266.1 04(W2)
266.1 04(f)(3)
266.1 04(f)(3)(i)
266.1 04(f)(3Wii)
266.1 04m(3)(iii)
266.1 04(f)(3Kiin(A)
266.1 04(f)(3Hiin(B)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 64 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
demonstrate that
maximum annual
average ground level
concentrations of
266.1 04(f)(3)(iii)
compounds do not ex-
ceed specified levels
monitor and report all
266.1 04(f) hydrocarbon
levels as
266.1 04(c)(1)&(2)
specify
cement kilns may
comply with CO and
HC limits under
266.104(b)-(d) by
monitoring in the
by-pass duct provided:
fire hazardous waste
only into the kiln
by-pass duct diverts
minimum of 10% of
kiln off-qas into duct
simultaneous demon-
stration of 266.104
compliance by emis-
sions testing or during
separate runs under
identical operating
conditions; data to
demonstrate com-
pliance with CO and
HC limits or to
establish alternative
limits must be
obtained during ORE
testing, CDD/CDF
testing and compre-
hensive organic
emissions testing
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.104(W3)(iv)
266.1 04(f)(3)(iv)(A)
266.1 04(f)(3)(iv)(B)
266.1 04(W3)(iv)(C)
266.1 04(W4)
266.104(a)
266.1 04(a)m
266.1 04(a)(2)
266.1 04(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
11
February 21, 1991 - Page 65 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance with permit
operating requirements
regarded as
compliance with
266.104; if such
compliance is in-
sufficient, modification
or revocation and re-
issuance of permit
under 270.41
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.104(0
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS TO CONTROL PARTICULATE MATTER
particulate matter
emissions limited to
180 milligrams per
dry standard cubic
meter after specified
correction using Part
60, Appendix A,
Methods 1-5 and 266,
Appendix IX
procedures
owner or operator
meeting 266.109(b)
requirements for low
risk waste exemption
is exempt from
particulate matter
standard
compliance with
permit operating
requirements regarded
as compliance with
266.105; if such
compliance is insuffi-
cient, modification or
revocation and re-
issuance of permit
under 270.41
266.105(a)
266.1 05(b)
266.105(c)
February 21, 1991 - Page 66 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Pnnt*d 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS TO CONTROL METALS EMISSIONS
compliance with
266.1 06(b), (c), (d),
(e), or (f) for each
266.1 06(b) metal that
is detectable in waste
using specified
procedures
Tier I feed rate
screening limits for
metals specified in
266, Appendix I as a
function of
terrain-adjusted
effective stack
height and terrain and
land use in facility
vicinity; criteria for
ineligible facilities
in 266.1 07(b)(7)
feed rates of
antimony, barium,
lead, mercury, thallium
and silver in all
feedstreams shall not
exceed 266, Appendix
I screenina limits
what feed rate
screening limits
for antimony, barium,
mercury, thallium,
and silver are
based on
what feed
rate screening
limit for lead is
based on
266.106(a)
266.1 06(b)
266.1 06(b)(1)
266.1 06(b)(1)(i)
266.1 06(b)(1)(i)(A)
266.1 06(b)(1)(i)(B)
266.1 06(b)(1)(ii)
266.1 06(b)(1)(ii)(A)
266.1 06(b)(1)(ii)(B)
266.1 06(b)(1)(ii)(C)
i
February 21, 1991 - Page 67 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[PnnWd: 11/12/961
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
feed rates of arsenic,
cadmium, beryllium
and chromium in all
feedstreams shall not
exceed values derived
from 266, Appendix I
screening limits; feed
rate limit equation
what feed
rate screening
limits for carcinogenic
metals are based on
equation for terrain-
adjusted effective
stack heiaht (TESH)
stack height may not
exceed 40 CFR
51.100(ii) good
engineering practice
if TESH for a parti-
cular facility is not
listed in table in
appendices, nearest
lower TESH to be
used; if TESH < 4
meters, a value of 4
meters shall be used
screening limits
function of
non-complex or com-
plex terrain; criteria;
use U.S. Geological
Survey 7.5-minute
topographic maps
screening limits
function of urban or
rural land use;
determination using
266, Appendices
IX or X
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 06(bM2)W
266.1 06(b)(2Xii)
266.1 06tt>)(2Mii)(A)
266.1 06(bK2Xii)(B)
266.1 06(b)(3)(i)
266.1 06(b)(3Hii)
266.106(b)(3)(iii)
266.1 06(b)(4)
266.1 06(b)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 68 of 108
CL85.11 -
(Printed. 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
facilities with multiple
stacks must comply
with screening limits
for all units assuming
all hazardous waste is
fed into device with
worst-case stack;
worst-case stack
equation, with lowest
K value the worst-
case stack
criteria under which
Tier III standards
apply instead of Tier I
and Tier II screening
limits
monitor feed rate of
metals in each feed-
stream to ensure
screening limits are
not exceeded
Tier II emission rate
screening limits func-
tion of stack height
and terrain and land
use in facility vicinity;
ineligible facilities
comply with
266.1 06(b)(7) criteria
emission rates of
antimony, barium,
lead, mercury, thallium
and silver shall not
exceed 266, Appendix
I screeninq limits
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 06(b)(6)
266.1 06(b)(7)
266.1 06(b)(7)(i)
266.1 06(b)(7)(ii)
266.1 06(b)(7)(iii)
266.1 06(b)(7)(iv)
266.1 06(b)(7)(v)
266.1 06(b)(8)
266.1 06(c)
266.106(0(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 69 of 108
CL85.11 • 10/2/91
[Pnntad: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
emission rates of
arsenic, cadmium,
beryllium and
chromium shall not
exceed values derived
from 266, Appendix I
screening limits;
emission rate equation
emission rate limits
implemented by
limiting individual
metal feed rates to
trial burn or
compliance test levels;
averaging periods;
monitoring of metals
feed rate in each
feedstream to ensure
compliance with
266.102 or 266.103
limits
266.1 06(b) definitions
and limitations for
specified terms also
apply to 266.106(c)
Tier II emission rate
screening limits
facilities with multiple
stacks must comply
with emissions screen-
ing limits for any such
stacks assuming all
hazardous waste is
fed into device with
worst-case stack
worst-case stack
determined by
266.1 06(b)(6)
procedures
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.106(c)(2)
266.1 06(cH3)
266.1 06(c)(4)
266.1 06(cH5)(i)
266.1 06(c)(5)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 70 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for each metal,
total emissions from
those stacks shall
not exceed
worst-case stack
screeninq limit
conformance with Tier
III metals control
demonstrated by emis-
sions testing, air
dispersion modeling,
and demonstration that
acceptable ambient
levels are not
exceeded
266, Appendices IV
and V list acceptable
ambient levels; RACs
listed for
noncarcinogenic
metals and 10'5
RSDs listed for car-
cinogenic metals;
RSD defined
sum of the ratios of
predicted ambient
concentrations to risk-
specific dose for all
carcinogenic metals
emitted shall not
exceed 1.0: equation
for noncarcinogenic
metals, predicted
maximum annual
average off-site
ground level
concentration shall not
exceed the RAC
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 06(c)(5)(iii)
266.1 06(d)m
266.1 06(d)(2)
266.1 06(d)(3)
266.1 06(d)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 71 of 108
CL85.11 • 10/2/91
printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
owners/operators with
multiple stacks must
conduct emissions
testing and dispersion
modeling to demon-
strate that aggregate
emissions do not
exceed acceptable
ambient levels
under Tier III, feed
rates limited to trial
burn or compliance
test levels; averaging
periods same as
under
266.1 06(b)(1)(i)-(ii)
and (b)(2)(ii); monitor
metals feed rate in
each feedstream to
ensure 266.102 or
266.103 compliance
adjusted Tier I feed
rate screening limits
to account for site-
specific dispersion
modeling; how to
estimate adjusted
feed rate; feed rate
screening limits for
carcinogenic metals
implemented under
266.1 06(b)(2)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 06(d)(5)
266.106(d)(6)
266.106(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 72 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Ponied 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
alternative implemen-
tation approaches
approved by Director
on a case-by-case
basis for Tier II or
III metals emission
limits
determination of
266.1 06 (d) emissions
limits for each
noncarcinogenic and
carcinoqenic metal
use 266, Appendix IX
Multiple Metals Train
to conduct emissions
testina
chromium emissions
assumed to be hexa-
valent chromium
unless owner/operator
determines otherwise
dispersion modeling
conducted according
to specified methods
to predict maximum
annual average off-
site ground level con-
centration; on-site
concentrations when
person resides on-site
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.106(W1)
266.106(f)(2)
266.1 06(W2)(i)
266.1 06(fl(2Hii)
266.1 06(f)(2)(ii)(A)
266.1 06(W2)(ii)(B)
266.1 06(a)m
266.1 06(a)(2)
266.1 06(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 73 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
compliance with
266.102 permit oper-
ating requirements
regarded as 266.106
compliance unless
evidence indicates
otherwise; modification
or revocation and
re-issuance of permit
under 270.41
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.106(0
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS TO CONTROL HYDROGEN CHLORIDE (HCI) AND CHLORINE GAS (CI2)
EMISSIONS
Compliance with HCI
and CI2 controls under
266.1 07(b). (c). or (d)
Tier I feed rate
screening limits for
total chlorine specified
in 266, Appendix II as
a function of stack
height and terrain and
land use in facility
vicinity; feed rate of
total chlorine and
chloride in all feed-
streams not to exceed
specified levels
Tier If emission rate
screening limits for
HCI and CI2 specified
in 266, Appendix III
as a function of
terrain-adjusted effec-
tive stack height and
terrain and land use in
facility vicinity; stack
emission rates not to
exceed specified levels
266.107(a)
266.1 07(bK1)
266.1 07(b)(2)
t
February 21, 1991 - Page 74 of 108
CL85.11 -
(Pnntcd 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
266.106(b) definitions
and limitations for
specified terms also
apply to 266.1 07(b)
screeninq limits
facilities with multiple
stacks subject to HCI
or CI2 emissions con-
trols must comply with
Tier I and II screening
limits assuming all
hazardous waste is
fed into device with
worst-case stack
worst-case stack
determined by
266.1 06(b)(6)
procedures
under Tier I, total
feed rate of chlorine
and chloride to all
subject devices not to
exceed worst-case
stack screeninq limit
under Tier II, total
HCI and CI2 emissions
from all subject stacks
not to exceed worst-
case stack screening
limit
conformance with Tier
III controls demon-
strated by HCI and CI2
emissions testing, air
dispersion modeling,
and demonstration
that acceptable
ambient levels are not
exceeded
266, Appendix IV lists
RACs for HCI and Cl,
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 07(b)(3)
266.1 07(b)(4)
266.1 07(b)(4)(i)
266.1 07(b)(4Kin
266.1 07(b)(4)(iii)
266.1 07(c)(1)
266.1 07(c)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 75 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/98)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
facilities with multiple
stacks subject to HCI
or CI2 emissions con-
trols must conduct
emissions testing and
dispersion modeling to
demonstrate that
aggregate emissions
do not exceed accept-
able ambient levels
for HCI and CU
HCI and CI2 controls
implemented by
limiting feed rate of
total chlorine and
chloride in all
feedstreams; feed rate
under Tier I limited
to Tier I screening
limits; feed rate under
Tiers II and III
limited to trial burn
or compliance test
feed rates; feed rate
limits based on:
adjusted Tier I feed
rate screening limits
to account for site-
specific dispersion
modeling; how to
determine these
adjusted rates
emissions testing for
HCI and CI2 con-
ducted using 266,
Appendix IX
procedures
dispersion modeling
conducted according
to 266.106(h)
provisions
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 07(c)(3)
266.1 07(d)
266.1 07(d)(1)
266.1 07(d)(2)
266.107(e)
266.107m
266.107(0)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
12
February 21, 1991 - Page 76 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for permit enforcement
purposes, compliance
with 266.102 permit
operating requirements
regarded as 266.107
compliance unless
evidence indicates
otherwise; modification
or revocation and
re-issuance of permit
under 270.41
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 07(h)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SMALL QUANTITY ON-SITE BURNER EXEMPTION
owners and operators
that burn hazardous
waste in on-site boiler
or industrial furnace
exempt from 266.108
requirements provided:
quantity of hazardous
waste burned for a
calendar month does
not exceed limits
shown in table entitled
"Exempt Quantities for
Small Quantity Burner
Exemption" based on
266.1 06(b)(3) terrain-
adjusted effective
stack heidht: table
maximum hazardous
waste firing rate does
not exceed 1% of
total fuel requirements
on a volume basis
minimum heating
value of 5.000 Btu/lb
does not contain
F020-F023, F026
or F027
266.108(3)
266.1 08(a)(1)
266.1 08(aH2)
266.1 08(a)(3)
266.1 08(aK4)
February 21, 1991 - Page 77 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
if mixed with non-
hazardous waste,
compliance with
266.108(a) quantity
before mixing
equation for imple-
menting 266.1 08(a)(1)
quantity limits if
burning in more than
one exempt on-site
boiler or industrial
furnace
one-time signed,
written notification
requirements for small
quantity burner
exemption
maintain for at least
3 years sufficient
records documenting
quantity firing rate and
heating value limits
compliance, including
quantity burned per
calendar month and
heatina value
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 08(b)
266.1 08(c)
266.1 08(d)
266.1 08(dK1)
266.1 08(dN2)
266.1 08(d)(3)
266.108(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
LOW RISK WASTE EXEMPTION
waiver of 266.1 04( a)
ORE standard if
device is operated in
conformance with
266.109(a)(1) and
burning will not result
in unacceptable ad-
verse health effects
as per 266.109(a) (2)
procedures
266.109(3)
February 21, 1991 - Page 78 of 108
CL85.11 -
(PrinMd: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
operating
requirements for
device
procedures to demon-
strate that hazardous
waste burning will not
pose unacceptable
adverse public health
effects
conditions under
which the 266.105
particulate
matter standard is
waived
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 09(a)m
266.1 09(a)(1)(i)
266.1 09(a)(1Win
266.1 09(a)(1)(iii)
266.1 09(a)(1Miv)
266.1 09(a)(2)
266.1 09(a)(2)(i)
266.1 09(a)(2)(ii)
266.1 09(a)(2)(iii)
266.1 09(a)(2)(iii)(A)
266.1 09(a)(2)(iin(B)
266.1 09(a)(2Miv)
266.1 09(a)(2)(iv)(A)
266.1 09(a)(2)(iv)(B)
266.1 09(a)(2Kiv)(O
266.1 09(b)
266.1 09(b)(1)
266.1 09(b)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 79 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WAIVER OF DRE TRIAL BURN FOR BOILERS
boilers operating
under 266.110
requirements and that
do not burn
F020-F023, F0.26 or
F027 considered in
compliance with
266.104(a) DRE stan-
dard, and trial burn to
demonstrate DRE is
waived; when burning
hazardous waste:
"primary fuel" defined;
minimum of 50%
primary fuel firing rate,
determined on total
heat or volume input
basis
boiler load defined
and not less than 40%
minimum as-fired
heating value of
8.000 Btu/lb
conformance with
266.1 04(b)(1) carbon
monoxide standard;
boilers subject to
266.110 DRE waiver
not eligible for
266.104(c) alternative
carbon monoxide
standard
boiler must be water-
tube type that does
not feed fuel using a
stoker or stoker type
mechanism
266.110
266.110(a)
266.1 10(b)
266.110(c)
266.110(d)
266.110(e)
February 21, 1991 - Page 80 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
conditions under which
hazardous waste shall
be fired directly into
primary fuel flame
zone of combustion
chamber with an air
or steam, mechanical
or rotary cup atomiza-
tion system
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.11 Off)
266.110(f)(1)
266.1 10(f)(2)
266.1 10(f)(3)
266.11 0(f)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
STANDARDS FOR DIRECT TRANSFER
266.111 regulations
apply to boilers and
industrial furnaces
subject to 266.102 or
266.103 if direct trans-
fer of hazardous waste
from transport vehicle
to boiler or industrial
furnace without use
of storaqe unit
for 266.1 1 1 , terms
have meanings given
in 266.1 11(b)(1)
"direct transfer
equipment"
"container"
"tank systems" means
direct transfer equip-
ment when Subparts I
and J of Parts 264
and 265 are
referenced
no direct transfer of
pumpable hazardous
waste from open-top
container to boiler
or industrial furnace
direct transfer equip-
ment requirements
266.111(a)
266.1 11 (Wmintro
266.1 11(b)(1)
266.1 11(b)(1)
266.1 11(b)(2)
266.1 11(c)(1)
266.111(0(2)
February 21, 1991 - Page 81 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA,
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
direct transfer of
hazardous waste to
boiler or industrial
furnace conducted
so that it does
not result in any
266.1 11(c)(3)(i)-(vi)
situation
conditions under which
hazardous waste shall
not be placed in
direct transfer
equipment
appropriate controls
and practices to pre-
vent spills and over-
flows from direct
transfer equipment or
its secondary contain-
ment system
requirements
associated with
area where containers
are located
direct transfer
equipment must meet
following requirements:
secondary containment
requirements for new
and existinq equipment
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 11(c)(3)
266.1 11(c)(3)(i)
266.1 il(c)(3)(ii)
266.1 11(c)(3)(iii)
266.1 11(c)(3)(iv)
266.1 11(c)(3)(v)
266.1 11(c)(3)(vi)
266.1 11(c)(4)
266.1 11(c)(5)
266.1 11(c)(5)(i)
266.1 11(c)(5)(ii)
266.1 il(d)
266.1 11(d)M)
266.1 11(d)(2)
266.1 11(d)(3)
266.111(e)
266.1 11(e)(1)
266.1 11(e)(1 Hi)
266.1 11(e)(1)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
February 21, 1991 - Page 82 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
{Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for existing direct
transfer equipment
without secondary
containment, deter-
mination whether
leaking or unfit for
use; written assess-
ment reviewed and
certified by qualified,
registered professional
engineer in accor-
dance with 270.11(d)
by August 21. 1992
minimum considera-
tions for assessment
if, due to
266.1 11(e)(2)(i)&(iv)
assessment, direct
transfer equipment
found to be
leaking or unfit for
use, compliance with
265.196(a) and (b)
inspection requirements
at least once each
operating hour when
transferring hazardous
waste from container
to boiler or industrial
furnace
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 11(e)(2)(i)
266.1 11(e)(2Hin
266.1 11(eH2)(ii)(A)
266.1 11(eK2)(in(B)
266.1 11(e)(2)(iiKC)
266.1 11(eM2)(ii)(D)
266.1 11(eH2Kii)(E)
266.1 11(e)(2)(iin
266.1 11(e)(3)(i)
266.1 11(e)(3)(i)(A)
266.1 11(eM3WMB)
266.1 11(e)(3)(n(C)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 83 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
inspect cathodic pro-
tection systems to
ensure 265.195(b)
compliance
records of inspections
maintained in
operating record for at
least 3 vears
265.192 compliance
for design and
installation of new
ancillary equipment
265.196 compliance
for response to leaks
or spills
265.197 closure com-
pliance, except
265.1 97(c)(2H4)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 11(e)(3Mii)
266.1 11te)(3)(iii)
266.1 11(e)(4)
266.1 11(eM5)
266.1 11(e)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
feQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
13 REGULATION OF RESIDUES
residue derived from
burning or processing
of hazardous waste is
not excluded under
261.4(b)(4),(7)or(8)
unless device and
owner or operator
meet the following
requirements:
criteria the device
must meet:
266.112
266.112(a)
266.1 12fa)m
266.112(a)(2)
266.1 12(aH3)
February 21, 1991 - Page 84 of 108
CL85.11 -
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
demonstration by
owner or operator that
hazardous waste does
not significantly affect
residue by demon-
strating conformance
with either of two
criteria:
comparison of waste-
derived residue with
normal residue for
261, Appendix VIII
constituents; proce-
dures to be used
determination of con-
centrations of toxic.
constituents of concern
in normal residue -
based on analyses of
a minimum of 10
composite samples;
determine upper 95%
confidence level about
the mean for the
statistically-derived
concentration; when to
revise; how to
determine the upper
95% confidence level
determination of con-
centrations of toxic
constituents of concern
in waste-derived resi-
due based on analysis
of samples composited
over a period of not
more than 24 hours;
not significantly higher
if doesn't exceed
266.1 12(b)(1)(i)
normal residue con-
centration
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.1 12(b)
266.112(Wm
266.1 12(b)(1)(u
266.1 12(b)(1)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 85 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
concentration of non-
metal toxic consti-
tuents of concern in
waste derived residue
must not exceed
health-based limits
specified in 266, Ap-
pendix VII; if no limit
in Appendix VII, limit
is 0.002 mg/kg or level
of detection,
whichever is hiaher
for metal constituents,
in extract concen-
tration obtained using
261.24 TCLP not to
exceed 266,
Appendix VII limits
records to document
266.112 compliance to
be retained for 3
years; information
to be recorded
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
266.112(b)(2)(i)
266.1 12(b)(2)(ii)
266.112fc)
266.1 12(c)(1)
266.1 12(c)(2)
266.1 12(c)(2)(i)
266.1 12(c)(2)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX I TO PART 266
TIER I AND TIER II FEED RATE AND EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR METALS
Tier I and Tier II
Feed Rate and Emis-
sions Screening Limits
for Carcinogenic
Metals for Facilities
in Noncomplex Terrain
(see 56 FR 7728)
Appendix I/Table I-A
February 21, 1991 - Page 86 of 108
CL85.11 • 10/2/91
[Printed 3/18/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Tier I and Tier II
Feed Rate and Emis-
sions Screening Limits
for Noncarcino 87nic
Metals for Facilities
in Noncomplex Terrain
(see 56 FR 7229)
Tier I and Tier II
Feed Rate and Emis-
sions Screening Limits
for Noncarcinogenic
Metals for Facilities
in Complex Terrain
(see 56 FR 7729)
Tier I and Tier II
Feed Rate and Emis-
sions Screening Limits
for Carcinogenic
Metals for Facilities
in Noncomplex Terrain
(see 56 FR 7230)
Tier I and Tier II
Feed Rate and Emis-
sions Screening Limits
for Carcinogenic
Metals for Facilities
in Complex Terrain
(see 56 FR 7230)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
Appendix I/Table I-B
Appendix I/Table I-C
Appendix liable I-D
Appendix I/Table I-E
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUlV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX II TO PART 266
TIER I FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR TOTAL CHLORINE AND CHLORIDE
Tier I Feed Rate
Screening Limits for
Chlorine for Facilities
in Noncomplex and
Complex Terrain
(see 56 FR 7231)
Appendix II
February 21, 1991 - Page 87 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA Jj
STATE ANALOG IS:
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV- I MORE BROADER
ALENT I STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
APPENDIX III TO PART 266
TIER II EMISSION RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR FREE CHLORINE AND HYDROGEN
CHLORIDE
Tier I! Emissions
Screening Limits for
CI2 and HCI in Non-
complex Terrain (see
56 FR 7231-7232)
Tier II Emissions
Screening Limits for
CI2 and HCI in Com-
plex Terrain
(see 56 FR 7232)
Appendix III
Appendix III
APPENDIX IV PART 266
REFERENCE AIR CONCENTRATIONS
Constituents, CAS
Nos. and RAC
(see 56 FR 7232)
Appendix IV
APPENDIX V TO PART 266
RISK SPECIFIC DOSES
Constituents, CAS
Nos., Unit risk and
RsD (see 56 FR 7232-
7233)
Appendix V
APPENDIX VI TO PART 266
STACK PLUME RISE
flow rates and ex-
haust temperatures
(see 56 FR 7233-
7234)
Appendix VI
February 21, 1991 - Page 88 of 108
CL85.11 -
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VII TO PART 266
HEALTH-BASED LIMITS FOR EXCLUSION OF WASTE-DERIVED RESIDUES
Metals-TCLP Extract
Concentration Limits
(56 FR 7234)
Nonmetals-Residue
Concentration Limits
(see 56 FR 7234)
Appendix VII
Appendix VII
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 266
POTENTIAL PICs FOR DETERMINATION OF EXCLUSION OF WASTE-DERIVED RESIDUES
PICs Found in Stack
Effluents (see
56 FR 7235)
Appendix VIII
APPENDIX IX TO PART 266
METHODS MANUAL FOR COMPLIANCE WITH BIF REGULATIONS
14 This appendix will
be published in the
Federal Register in
the near future
Appendix IX
APPENDIX X TO PART 266
GUIDELINE ON AIR QUALITY MODELS (Revised) (1986)
14 This appendix will
be published in the
Federal Register in
the near future
Appendix X
February 21, 1991 - Page 89 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS:
PERMIT PROGRAM
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION
15 SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL
FURNACES BURNING HAZARDOUS WASTE
owners and operators
subject to 266.104-
266.107 must conduct
a trial burn and must
submit a trial bum
plan or results in
accordance with
270.66
waiver of trial burn
to demonstrate con-
formance with a
particular emission
standard under
266.104-266.107
and 270.22(a)(2)-
(a)(5)
data in lieu of a
trial burn as
270.22(a)(6) specifies
boiler owners and
operators seeking to
be permitted under
266.1 04(a)(4) and
266.110, must submit
documentation
showing boiler
compliance with
special operating
requirements at
266.110; trial burn
waived
270.22(a)(1)
270.22(a)(1)(i)
270.22(a)M)(ii)
270.22(a)(2)(i)
February 21, 1991 - Page 90 of 108
CL85.11
(Printid: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information that
must be submitted for
boilers and industrial
furnaces seeking to
be permitted under
the low risk waste
provisions of
266.1 04(a)(5) and
266.109(a) without
a trial bum
information that
must be submitted
when seeking to be
permitted under Tier
I metals feed rate
screening limits at
266.1 06(b)&(e) with-
out a trial burn
when seeking to be
permitted under the
low risk waste provi-
sions of 266.109(b)
which waives the
particulate standard,
submit documentation
supporting
270.22(a)(2)(ii) and
(a)(3) conformance
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.22(a)(2)(ii)
270.22(a)(2)(ii)(A)
270.22(a)(2)(ii)(B)
270.22(a)(2)(ii)(C)
270.22(a)(2)(ii)(D)
270.22(aH2Hii)(E)
270.22(a)(3)
270.22(aK3)(0
270.22(a)(3)(ii)
270.22(a)(3)(iM
270.22(aK3)(iv)
270.22(a)(3)(v)
270.22(a)(3Kvi)
270.22(a)(3)(vin
270.22(a)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQOW-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 91 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA.U,
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information to be
submitted when seek-
ing to be permitted
under Tier I feed rate
screening limits for
total chloride and
chlorine under
266.1 07(b)(1) and (e)
provisions without a
trial bum
owner or
operator may seek
exemption from trial
burn requirements
demonstrating
266.104-266.107
conformance, by pro-
viding information from
previous compliance
testing of the devsce
or compliance testing
or trial burns of similar
boilers or industrial
furnaces; burning
similar wastes under
similar conditions
270.66 design and op-
eration information re-
quired; conditions
under which Director
shall approve a permit
application in lieu of a
trial burn; additional
information
to be submitted
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.22(a)(5)
270.22(a)(5)(i)
270.22(a)(5)(ii)
270.22(aH5)(iii)
270.22(a)(5)(iv)
270.22(a)(5Kv)
270.22(a)(5Hvi)
270.22(aH5Mvih
270.22(a)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
16
February 21, 1991 - Page 92 of 108
CL85.11 -
(Printed: 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
for a waiver from
any trial burn:
for a waiver of the
ORE trial bum, basis
for selection of
POHCs used in other
bums which
demonstrate
266.104(a) compliance;
analysis should
specify 261,
Appendix VIII
constituents in hazar-
dous waste for which
a permit is sought
and any differences
from POHCs for which
data are provided
minimum information
to be submitted for
industrial furnaces
with organic matter
in raw materials
requesting an alter-
native HC limit under
266.1 04(f)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.22(a)(6)(i)
270.22(a)(6)(H(A)
270.22(aM6)(WB)
270.22(a)(6)(i)(C)
270.22(a)(6)(ii)
270.22(b)
270.22(b)(1)
270.22(b)(2)
270.22(b)(3)
270.22(b)(4)
270.22(bN4)M
270.22(bK4Wi)
270.22(bM5)
270.22(b)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQLW^"
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 93 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printtd: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
when seeking to be
permitted under
266.1 06(f) alternative
metals implementation
approach, submit
documentation that
ensures 266.106(c)
or (d) compliance and
how approach can be
implemented and
monitored; provide
other information as
Director finds
necessarv
describe automatic
waste feed cutoff
system, including any
ore-alarm systems
use of direct transfer
operations requires
submittal of informa-
tion supporting
266.111 conformance
demonstration of
266.112 conformance
if claim is made that
residues are excluded
from reaulation
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.22(c)
270.22(d)
270.22(6)
270.22(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
JLJ*".
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMITS
PERMIT MODIFICATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE
paragraph heading is
changed to "Newly
regulated wastes and
units"
270.42(a)
February 21, 1991 - Page 94 of 108
CL85.11 -
[Printed: 11/12/321
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
add wording at end of
paragraph regarding
the continued
management of
hazardous waste in
units newly
regulated as hazar-
dous waste
management units
insert "The unit"
before "was in
existence"; add
"or newly regulated
waste management
unit" after "charac-
terized waste"; add
"or regulating the unit"
at end of oaraaraoh
insert "The permittee"
before "submits";
insert "or unit" after
"waste"
insert The permittee"
before "is"; insert
"applicable" before
"standards"; change
"Part 265" to "Parts
265 and 266 of this
chanter"
insert "the permittee"
before "also"; remove
"permit" from before
"modification"; change
"180 days after" to
"180 days of"; add "or
subjecting the unit to
RCRA Subtitle C
management stan-
dards" to end of
paragraph
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(Q)m
270.42(ciN1Kn
270.42(Q)(1)(ii)
270.42(a)(1)(iii)
270.42(a)(1)(iv)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 95 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
17 insert "the permittee"
before "certifies";
insert "each" before
"such unit"; change
"Part 265" to
"requirements of Part
265 of this chapter
for"; add ", or
regulating the unit as
a hazardous waste
management unit"
after "hazardous";
change "clarify" to
"certify"; insert "all"
before "these require-
ments"; change "shall
lose" to "will lose"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(q)(1)M
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 96 of 108
CL85.11 •
(Printed 1'/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
change heading of L.
to read "Incinerators,
Boilers, and Industrial
Furnaces"; in L.1.&L2.
replace "a waste feed
rate limit, or an organ-
ic feed rate limit" with
"a feedstream feed
rate limit, a chlorine/
chloride feed rate limit,
a metal feed rate limit,
or an ash feed rate
limit"; in L.3. replace
"HCL" with "HCL/CL,
metals,"; in L.3.&L.4.
insert ", boiler, or in-
dustrial furnace" after
"incinerator"; in L.S.a.
insert "or maximum"
before "combustion
gas temperature" and
add "flue gas carbon
monoxide and hydro-
carbon concentration,
maximum temperature
at the inlet to the par-
ticulate matter emis-
sion control system, or
operating parameters
for the air pollution
control system" after
"chamber"; change L.6.
heading to "Burning
different wastes:"; in
L.6.a. change "inciner-
ation" to "burning"; in
L6.a.&b. change all
"to incinerate" to "to
burn"; in 7.b. change
"waste incineration" to
"waste burning"; insert
"nonhazardous waste"
in L.8. before "fuel"
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42/Appendix I
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
TKUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
•
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 97 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART F - SPECIAL FORMS OF PERMITS
PERMITS FOR BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES BURNING HAZARDOUS WASTE
new boilers and
industrial furnaces
subject to 270.66(b)-
(f); those under interim
status standards of
266.103 subject to
270.66(a)
permit for new boiler
or industrial furnace
shall specify approp-
riate conditions for
the following operating
periods:
pretrial burn period
described; Director
must establish in
Pretrial Bum Period
of permit conditions,
allowable hazardous
waste feed rates and
operating conditions;
extension of period
for up to 720 addi-
tional hours; permit
may be modified to
reflect extension as
per 270.42
submittal of statement
with Part B that
suggests operating
conditions for
266.104-266.107
compliance during
period, including
restrictions on
266.102(e) operating
requirements
270.66(a)
270.66(b)
270.66(b)(1)
270.66(b)(1)(i)
February 21, 1991 - Page 98 of 108
CL85.11 -
[PrinMd: 11/12/32]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
review of Part B
materials and specifi-
cation by Director of
requirements sufficient
to meet 266.104-
266.107 performance
standards based on
enqineerinq judgment
for duration of trial
bum, Director
establishes conditions
in permit to determine
feasibility of com-
pliance with 266.104-
266.107 standards and
to determine
adequate 266.102(e)
operating conditions;
applicants must pro-
pose a trial bum plan
as per 270.66(c) and
submit with Part B
for defined
minimum period
immediately following
trial bum, during which
submission and review
of trial burn results
and modification of
permit by Director
occurs, Director
establishes operating
requirements most
likely to ensure
compliance with
266.104-266.107
standards
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.66(bH1)(ii)
270.66(b)(2)
270.66(bN3)(H
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 99 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
submittal of statement
with Part B that
identifies operating
conditions for
266.104-266.107
compliance during
period, including
restrictions on
266.102(e) operating
requirements
review and specifi-
cation by Director of
requirements sufficient
to meet 266.104-
266.107 performance
standards based on
enaineerina iudament
for final period of
operation, Director
develops operating
requirements in
conformance with
266.102(e) and
266.104-266.107 stan-
dards; Director shall
make necessary
modifications to permit
as per 270.42 based
on trial bum results
to ensure compliance
information the trial
burn plan must
include; Director may
require supplemental
information
analysis of each
feedstream. as fired
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.66(b)(3)(ii)
270.66(b)(3)(iii)
270.66(bH4)
270.66(c)
270.66(cH1)
270.66(c)(1)(i)
270.66(c)(1)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
E'O.lllV/-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 100 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/U?T
[Printed 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
analysis of each
hazardous waste,
as fired
detailed engineering
description of boiler
or industrial furnace
detailed description
of sampling and
monitorinq procedures
detailed test schedule
for each hazardous
waste for which the
trial bum is planned
detailed test protocol
description of, and
planned operating
conditions for, any
emission control
equipment to be used
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.66(C)(2)
270.66(c)(2)(i)
270.66(c)(2)(ii)
270.66(c)(2Hiin
270.66(c)(3)
270.66(c)(3Hi)
270.66(c)(3)(ii)
270.66(c)(3)(iii)
270.66(c)(3Hiv)
270.66(c)(3)(v)
270.66(c)(3)(vi)
270.66(c)(3)(vii)
270.66(c)(3)(viii)
270.66(c)(4)
270.66(c)(5)
270.66(cK6)
270.66(0(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 101 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(PrinMd: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
procedures for rapid
stopping of hazardous
waste feed and emis-
sions control if an
equipment malfunction
other information
Director finds
necessary
trial burn conducted
to demonstrate
conformance with
266.104-266.107
standards under an
approved trial burn
olan
findings under which
the Director shall
approve a trial
burn plan
submit to Director
within 90 days of trial
burn completion a
certification that trial
bum was carried out
in accordance with
approved plan and
results of all
270.66(c) required
determinations
submit all data
collected during any
trial bum
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.66(c)(8)
270.66(0(9)
270.66(d)(1)
270.66(d)(2)
270.66(d)(2)(i)
270.66(d)(2)(iH
270.66(d)(2)(iii)
270.66(d)(2)(iv)
270.66(d)(3)
270.66(d)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 102 of 108
CL85.11 -
(Printed: 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
270.66(d) submissions
must be certified by
signature of person
authorized to sign
permit application or
270.11 report
for ORE trial burn
under 266.104(a),
Director will specify
trial POHCs; basis
for specification
determinations to be
made based on each
trial bum:
quantitative analysis
of specified materials
in the feedstreams
determinations needed
when a ORE trial bum
is required under
266.104(a)
quantitative analysis
of stack gas and a
computation showing
conformance with the
emission standard
when a trial bum is
required for chlorinated
dioxins and furans
under 266.104(e)
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.66(d)(5)
270.66(e)
270.66(f)
270.66(f)(1)
270.66(f)(2)
270.66(f)(2)(i)
270.66(f)(2)(ii)
270.66(f)(2)(iii)
270.66(f)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 103 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
quantitative analysis
of stack gas and
computations showing
conformance with
applicable emission
standards when a trial
burn is required for
paniculate matter,
metals, or HCI/CI2
under 266.105,
266.1 06(c) or (d),
or 266.107(b)(2) or (c)
quantitative analysis
of scrubber water, ash
residues, other resi-
dues and products to
estimate fate of trial
POHCs, metals, and
chlorine/chloride when
a trial burn is
required for ORE,
metals or HCI/CI2
under 266.104(a),
266.1 06(c) or (d), or
266.1 07(b)(2) or (c)
identification of
sources of fugitive
emissions and their
means of control
continuous measure-
ment of CO, oxygen,
and HC in stack aas
such other information
as Director specifies
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.66(f)(4)
270.66(f)(5)
270.66(f)(6)
270.66(W7)
270.66(0(8)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
February 21, 1991 - Page 104 of 108
CL85.11 - ^Q/?/9^
(Printed: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
to determine feasi-
bility of compliance
with 266.104-266.107
performance standards
and adequate operat-
ing conditions under
266.103, applicants of
existing devices
operated under interim
status must either
prepare and submit a
trial bum plan and
perform a trial bum
or submit 270.22(a)(6)
information; submit
trial bum results with
Part B application if
plan approved before
Part B submission;
date for submission;
requirements if sub-
mitting trial bum plan
with Part B aoolication
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.66(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART G - INTERIM STATUS
CHANGES DURING INTERIM STATUS
add new paragraph
regarding the addition
of newly regulated
units if a revised
Part A permit appli-
cation is submitted on
or before the date the
unit becomes subject
to the new require-
ments
add new paragraph
regarding the addition
of newly regulated
units under
270.72(a)(6)
270.72(a)(6)
270.72(b)(7)
February 21, 1991 - Page 105 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
[Printed: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TERMINATION OF INTERIM STATUS
18
18
insert "which [h]as
achieved interim status
prior to November 8,
1984, interim status
terminates" before "on
November 8. 1989"
insert "which [h]as
achieved interim status
prior to November 8,
1984, interim status
terminates" before "on
November 8. 1992"
270.73(f)
270.73(a)
Note that the technical corrections addressed by the August 27, 1991 (56 FR 42504; Revision
Checklist 96) notice reverse the revisions made by this checklist. The August 27, 1991
language is the same as the July 1990 CFR language. Thus, States need not adopt these
revisions as they would need to be changed back to the original CFR language when Revisi<]
Checklist 96 is applied for.
2 Note that this paragraph is designated as "266.102(d)(4)(D)" in the Federal Reoister (56 FR
7210). This is a typographical error; the correct designation is "266.102(d)(4)(iv)." See
technical correction at 56 FR 32688 (July 17, 1991; Revision Checklist 94).
g
Note that in the February 21, 1991 rule addressed by this checklist, the subparagraph
designation was not italicized. This is a typographical error. This checklist corrects the error
by italicizing the subparagraph designation. The August 27, 1991 (56 FR 42504; Revision
Checklist 96) technical correction fixes this error.
Note that the August 27, 1991 Federal Register which addressed the technical correction for this
citation has a typographical error; the reference to "266.102(e)(4)(iii)(c)( 7) and (2)" should be
"266.102(e)(4)(iii)(C)(7) and (2)."
5 Note that in the Federal Register for this rule, the subparagraph designation was not italicized.
This is a typographical error. This checklist corrects the error by italicizing the subparagraph
designation. The 56 FR 32688 (July 17, 1991; Revision Checklist 94) technical correction fixes
this error.
6 Note that the internal reference in the Federal Register (56 FR 7213) to "(c)(7)(ii)" is incorrect.
The correct reference should be "(c)(5)" and is reflected in this checklist. See the technical
correction at 56 FR 42512 (August 27, 1991; Revision Checklist 96).
February 21, 1991 - Page 106 of 108
CL85.11 • 10/591
(Printed U/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EoTIIV^
ALENT
MORE ( BROADER
STRINGENT I IN SCOPE
Note that the internal reference in the Federal Register (56 FR 7214) is to "paragraph (b)(ii)(A)."
This is a typographical error; the correct reference is to "paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)." See the
technical correction at 56 FR 32689 (July 17, 1991; Revision Checklist 94).
8 Note that the Federal Register (56 FR 7215) for this rule has a typographical error. The words
"and recorded" should be inserted after "monitored." See the technical correction at 56 FR
42512 (August 27, 1991; Revision Checklist 96).
9 Note that the internal reference in the Federal Register (56 FR 7218) is to "paragraph (1)-"
This is a typographical error; the correct reference is to "paragraph (I)." See the technical
correction at 56 FR 32689 (July 17, 1991; Revision Checklist 94).
10 Note that the internal reference in the Federal Register (56 FR 7220) is to "paragraph (a)."
This is a typographical error; the correct reference is to "paragraph (a)(1)." See the technical
correction at 56 FR 32689 (July 17, 1991; Revision Checklist 94). Also, "tetrra-" should be
"tetra-."
11 In the Federal Register for this rule, the designation for this subparagraph is 266.104(g)2. This
is a typographical error; the correct designation is 266.104(g)(2). This checklist reflects the
correct designation. See the technical correction at 56 FR 32689 (July 17, 1991).
12 In the Federal Register for this rule, the designation for these subparagraphs is 266.107(d)(i)
and 266.107(d)(ii) (see 56 FR 7225). This is a typographical error. The subparagraphs should
be designated 266.107(d)(1) and 266.107(d)(2). This checklist reflects the correct designations.
See technical corrections at 56 FR 32690 (July 17, 1991).
13 In the Federal Register for this rule, the section designation for regulation of residues is
266.122 (see 56 FR 7227). This is a typographical error and the section should be designated
266.112. This checklist reflects the correct section number.
14 See the July 17, 1991 (56 FR 32688; Revision Checklist 94) notice. Appendices IX and X are
found on pp. 56 FR 32692 and 56 FR 32796, respectively.
15 Note that this is the same section of code which contained the specific Part B information
requirements for the Wood Preserving listing (55 FR 50450). Thus, the Part B boilers/industrial
furnace requirements were added so that the Part B information requirements for drip pads
were inadvertently removed by this present final rule. On July 1, 1991 (56 f_R 30192, Revision
Checklist 92) a technical correction was published moving the wood preserving requirements to
270.26.
16 Note that 270.22(a)(5) has a typographical error. Subparagraph "(iv)" is incorrectly numbered
as "(vi)." The correct number has been used in this checklist.
February 21, 1991 - Page 107 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
(Printed: 11/12f92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA,
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 85: Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
17
18
The paragraph following 270.42(g)(1)(v) in Federal code, i.e., 270.42(g)(2), is included in the
Federal Register for this rule (56 FR 7237). However, no changes were made to the
paragraph by this rule, so it has not been included in this revision checklist.
Note that the Federal Register (56 FR 7239) for this rule has a typographical error. The word
"as" after "which" should be "has." This checklist corrects that error. See technical correction
at 56 FR 32692 (July 17, 1991).
February 21, 1991 - Page 108 of 108
CL85.11 - 10/2/91
|Print»d: 11/12/88)
-------
FK
Thursday
February 21, 1991
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 260, et al.
Burning of Hazardous Waste In Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces; Final Rule
-------
7134 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261,264,265,266,
270, and 271
[EPA/OSW-FR-91-012; SWH-FRL-3M5-6]
RIN2050-AA72
Burning of Hazardous Waste In Bolters and
Industrial Furnaces
AQINCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Under this final rule, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is expanding controls on hazardous
waste combustion to regulate air
emissions from the burning of hazardous
waste in boilers and industrial furnaces.
Currently, such burning is exempt from
regulation. EPA is promulgating this
final rule after considering public
comment on rules proposed on May 6,
1987, plus the comments on EPA's
supplemental notices of October 26.1989
and April 27.1990.
These rules control emissions of toxic
organic compounds, toxic metals,
hydrogen chloride, chlorine gas, and
paniculate matter from boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste. In addition the rules subject
owners and operators of these devices
to the general facility standards
applicable to hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. Further, today's final rule
subjects hazardous waste storage units
at regulated burner facilities to part 264
permit standards. Burner storage
operations at existing facilities are
generally now subject only to interim
status standards under part 265.
Finally, today's rule takes final action
on two pending petitions for rulemaking:
(1) based on a petition by Dow Chemical
Company. EPA is designating halogen
acid furnaces as industrial furnaces
under § 260.10: and (2) based on a
petition by the American Iron and Steel
Institute, EPA is classifying coke and
coal tar fuels produced by recycling coal
tar decanter sludge, EPA Hazardous
Waste No. KO87, as products rather
than solid waste. The rule also makes
several technical corrections to
regulations dealing with loss of interim
status for facilities that achieved interim
status as of November 7,1984.
EFFECTIVE DATE This final rule is
effective on August 21.1991. Technical
corrections to 1270.73 are effective on
publication.
The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of August 21.
1991.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket
Numbers F-87-BBFP-FFFFF and F-89-
BBSP-FFFFF. and is located in the EPA
RCRA Docket room 2427.401M Street
SW., Washington. DC 20460. The docket
is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to
4 p.m.. Monday through Friday, except
on Federal holidays. The public must
make an appointment to review docket
materials by calling (202) 475-4327. The
public may copy up to 100 pages from
the docket at no charge. Additional
copies cost $.15 per page.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline at: (800) 424-9348 (toll-
free) or (703) 920-9810 locally. For
information on specific aspects of this
final rule, contact Shiva Garg, Office of
Solid Waste (OS-322W). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460, (703)
308-8460.
EPA is planning to conduct six two-
day implementation workshops
beginning in mid February in the
following cities: San Francisco, CA;
Dallas. TX: Kansas City. KS; Atlanta,
GA: Chicago, IL; and Philadelphia. PA.
The purpose of the sessions is to explain
responsibilities of owner/operators
burning hazardous waste under this
rule. The first day will be open only to
government representatives involved in
implementation, compliance, and
enforcement of these regulations. The
second day is open to the public.
Preregistration is required to assure a
reservation. Same day registration will
be allowed as space is available.
Interested parties should call 919-549-
0722 to obtain further information and
get on the mailing list for notices.
SUPPLEMENTARV INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
Part One: Background
I. Legal Authority.
II. Overview of the Final Rule.
A. Controls for Emisiions of Organic
Compounds.
B. Controls for Emissions of Toxic Metals.
C. Controls for Emissions of Hydrogen
Chloride and Chlorine Gas.
D. Emission Standard for Particulate
Matter.
E. Permitting Procedures.
P. Controls During Interim Status.
C. Units Exempt from Air Emissions
Standards.
H. Pollution Prevention Impacts.
III. Relationship to Other Rules.
A. Regulations to be Promulgated Under
the New Clean Air Act
B. April 27.1990 Proposed Incinerator
Amendments.
C. July 28.1990 Proposed Amendment to
Definition of Wastewater Treatment Unit
to Exempt Sludge Dryers.
D. Land Disposal Restriction Standards.
Part Two: Devices Subject to Regulation-
I. Boilers.
IL Industrial Furnaces.
A. Cement Kilns.
B. Light-Weight Aggregate Kilns.
C. Halogen Acid Furnaces.
1. Current Practices.
2. Designation of HAFs as Industrial
Furnaces.
D. Smelting. Melting, and Refining
Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste to
Recover Metals.
Part Three: Standard* for Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces Burning Hazardous
Waste
I. Emission Standard for Particulate Matter.
A. Basis for Final Rule.
1. Alternatives Considered.
2. Basis for Standard.
B.'Interim Status Compliance Procedures.
C. Implementation.
II. Controls for Emissions of Toxic Organic
Compounds.
A. ORE Standard.
1. Selection of POHCs for ORE Testing.
2. Use of POHC Surrogates.
3. Waiver of DRE Trail Bum for Boilers
Operating Under the Special Operating
Requirements.
B. PIC Controls.
1. Use of a CO Limit to Control PICs.
2. Tier I PIC Controls: 100 ppmv CO limit
3. Tier II PIC Controls: Limits on CO and
HC.
4. Special Requirements for Furnaces.
5. Special Considerations for Cement Kilns.
C Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff
Requirements.
D. CEM Requirements for PIC Controls.
E. Control of Dioxin and Furnace
Emissions.
in. Risk Assessment Procedures.
A. Health Effects Data.
1. Carcinogens.
2. Noncarcinogens.
B. Air Dispersion Modeling.
1. Option for Site-Specific Modeling.
2. Terrain-Adjusted Effective Stack Height
3. Conservatism in Screening Limits.
4. GEP Stack Height
5. Plume Rise Table.
6. Compliance by Manipulating Effective
Stack Height
7. Effect of HC1 Emissions on Acid Rain.
8. Building Wake Effects.
C Consideration of Indirect Exposure «iid
Environmental Impacts.
1. Indirect Exposure.
2. Non-human Health Related
Environmental Impacts.
D. Acceptable Risk Level for Carcinogens.
E. Use of MEI and Consideration of
Aggregate Risk!
F. Risk Assessment Assumptions.
IV. Controls for Emissions of Toxic Metals.
A. Background Information.
1. Metals Standards under Other Statutes.
2.1987 Proposed Rule.
3.1989 Supplement to Proposed Rule.
a How the Standards Work.
1. Tier ID Standards.
2. Tier n Standards.
3. Tier I Standards.
C Implementation.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7135
1. Tier I Implementation.
2. Tier II Implementation.
3. Tier II! Implementation.
4. Special Requirements for Furnaces that
Recycle Collected Paniculate Matter.
5. Trial Bums.
8. Monitoring and Analysis Requirements.
D. Interim Status Compliance
Requirements.
V. Controls for Emissions of Hydrogen
Chloride and Chlorine Gas.
A. Background Information.
B. Response to Comments.
1. Short-Term HC1 RACi.
2. Need for CU Controls.
3. HC1 Emission Test Procedures.
4. Technology-Based HC1 Controls.
C. Implementation.
1. Emissions Testing.
2. Waste Analysis.
3. Interim Status Compliance
Requirements.
VI. Nontechnical Requirements.
VII. Interim Status Standards.
A. Certification Schedule.
1. Certification of Precompliance.
2. Certification of Compliance.
3. Recertification.
4. Failure to Comply with the Certification
Schedule.
5. Development of the Certification
Schedule.
B. Limits on Operating Parameters.
C. Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff.
D. Sham Recycling Policy.
E. Submittal of Part B Applications.
F. ORE Testing.
C. Chlorinated Oioxins and Furans.
• H. Special Requirements for Furnaces.
1. Special Metals Controls for Furnaces that
Recycle Collected Paniculate Matter.
I. Recordkeeping.
VIII. Implementation of Today's Rule.
A. Newly Regulated Facilities.
1. Definition of "In Existence".
2. Section 3010 Notification.
3. Part A Penr.it Applicatien.
B. Interim Status Facilities.
C. Permitted facilities.
1. Amendment to { 270.42(g).
2. Procedures to Modify Permits.
D. Addition of Storage Units at Direct
Transfer Facilities That Obtain Interim
Status.
1. Unauthorized States.
2. Authorized States.
E. Compliance with BIF versus Incinerator
Rules.
IX. Permit Procedures.
A. Part B Information.
B. Special Forms of Permits.
1. Permits for New Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces.
2. Permit Procedures for Interim Status
Facilities.
X. Exemption of Small Quantity Burners.
A. Response to Comments.
B. Basis fcr Today's Rule.
1. Composition of Hazardous Waste
Stream.
2. Toxicity of Hazardous Constituents.
3. Destruction Efficiency.
4. Assumptions Regarding Metals and
Chlorine in Waste Fuels.
C. How the Exemption is Implemented.
1. Use of Terrain-Adjusted Effective Stack
Height.
2. Multiple Stacks.
D. Wastes Ineligible for Exemption.
E. Exemption of Associated Storage.
F. Notification and Recordkeeping
Requirements.
XI. Exemption of Low Risk Waste from DRE
Standard and Paniculate Matter
Emissions Standard.
A. Exemption from Compliance with the
DRE Standard.
B. Exemption from Compliance with the
Paniculate Standard.
C. Eligibility Requirements.
D. How the Low-Risk Waste Exemption
Works.
1. Constituents of Concern.
2. Estimation of Worst-Case Emissions.
3. Dispersion Modeling.
4. Acceptable Ambient Levels.
S. Constituents with Inadequate Health
Effects Data.
XII. Storage Standards.
A. Permit Standards for Storage.
B. Consideration of Requirement for Liquid
Waste Fuel Blending Tanks.
C. Standards for Direct Transfer
Operations.
1. General Operating Requirements.
2. Inspections and Recordkeeping.
3. Equipment Integrity.
4. Containment and Detection of Releases.
5. Response to Leaks or Spills.
8. Design and Installation of New
Equipment.
7. Closure.
XIII. Applicability of the Bevill Exclusion to
Combustion Residues When Burning
Hazardous Waste.
A. Basis for Applying the Bevill Exclusion
to Derived-From Residues.
B. Evolution of Interpretations.
C. Case-by-Case Determinations.
1. Eligible Devices.
2. Two-Part Test.
D. Recordkeeping.
E. Other Considerations.
1. Generic Determinations.
2. Burning for Destruction.
Part Four'Miscellaneous Provisions
I. Regulation of Carbon Regeneration Units.
A. Basis for Regulating Carbon
Regenerating Units as Thermal
Treatment Units.
B. Definition of Carbon Regeneration Unit
and Revised Definition of Incinerator.
C. Units in Existence on the Effective Date
are Eligible for Interim Status.
II. Regulation of Sludge Dryers.
A. July 1990 Proposal.
B. Summary of Public Comments.
III. Classification of Coke and By-Product
Coal Tar.
A. AISI Petition.
B. Process Description.
C. Basis for Approval of the AISI Petition.
IV. Regulation of Landfill Gas.
V. Definitions of Infrared and Plasma Arc
Incinerators.
Part Five: Administrative. Economic, and
Environmental Impacts, and List of
Subjects
I. State Authority.
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States.
B. Effect on State Authorizations.
II. Regulatory Impacts.
A. Cost Analysis.
1. Background.
2. Revised Cost Analysis.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act.
III. List of Subjects.
Appendices.
Part Onr Background
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are promulgated
under authority of sections 1006, 2002,
3001 through 3007, 3010, and 7004 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as
amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act Amendments of
1980. and the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984,42 U.S.C.
6905. 6912. 6921 through 6927, 6930. and
0974.
II. Overview of the Final Rule
A. Controls for Emissions of Organic
Compounds
Today's rule requires boilers And
industrial furnances to comply with the
same destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) standard currently applicable to
hazardous waste incinerators: 99.9999%
DRE of dioxin-listed waste, and 99.99%
DRE for all other hazardous wastes. In
addition, the rule controls emissions of
products of incomplete combustion
(PICs) by limiting flue gas
concentrations of carbon monoxide
(CO), and'where applicable.
hydrocarbons (HC) to ensure that the
device is operated under good
combustion conditions. Finally.
emissions testing and health-risk
assessment is required for chlorinated
dioxins and furans for facilities meeting
specified criteria where the potential for
significant concentrations may exist.
B. Controls for Emissions of Toxic
Metals
The rules establish emission limits for
10 toxic metals listed in appendix VIII of
40 CFR part 261 based on projected
inhalation health risks to a hypothetical
maximum exposed individual (MEI). The
standards for the carcinogenic metals
(arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and
chromium) limit the increased lifetime
cancer risk to the MEI to a maximum of
1 in 100.000. The risk from the four
carcinogens must be summed to ensure
that the combined risk is no greater than
1 in 100.000. The standards for the
noncarcinogenic metals (antimony.
barium, lead, mercury, silver, and
thallium) are based on Reference Doses
(RfDs) below which adverse health
effects have not been observed.
-------
.7338 Jdbmil &*&ti»T / Vol. 56. Wo. .35 ./ Thursday. Febiuary '21, 1991 / Roles *nd .-Regulations
The standards are implemented
through a three-tiered approach.
Compliance with any tier'is •acceptable.
The tiers are strutted -to allow-higher
emission rates (and feed rates) as-the
owner or operator elects to conduct
more site-specific testing and analyses
(e.g., emissions testmg,.dispersion
modeling). Thus, the feed rate limits
under each of the tiers are derived
based on differentdevels at.itte-opECific
inrbTmatioiLrekted:to:racility .design
and surrounding -terrain. Under Tier J,
the 'Agency has provided very
conservative-waste feed rate limits in
"reference" tables as a function of
effective stack height-and terrain and
land use in the vicinity of the stack and
assumed reasonable, worst-case
dispersion. The owner or operator
demonstrates compliance by waste
analysis, not emissions testing or
dispersion modeling. Consequently, 1he
Tier I feed rate limits are based on an
assumed reasonable, wont-case
dispersion scenario, and an assumption
that all metals fed to .the device are
emitted (Le., no partitioning to&ottom
ash or product and no removal by an air
pollution control «yatem (APCS)).
Under Tiflr.JI..the tjwnw or operator
conducts emissions testing {bul-nnt
dopanian-modeling) to.getrredit far
partitioning to-bottom aahiorpraduct
and APCB removal efficiency. Thus, the
Agency has developed conservative
emission rate limits in reference tables,
again as a function of effective stack
height and terrain and land use in the
vicinity of the stack. The Agency also
assumed reasonable, worst-case
dispersion-under Tier II.
Under Tter.nL.rhe owner OT operator
would conduct emissions testing and
site-specific dispersion modeling to
demonstrate that the actual (measured)
emissions do not exceed acceptable
levels considering actual (predicted)
dispersion.
The standards are implemented
through limits-on specified .operating
parameters, including hazardous waste
feed.tate and metals composition, ieed
rate of metals Irom all feed-Streams,
combustion chamber temperature, and
APCS-specific.parameters.
C. Controls for Emissions of Hydrogen
Chloride and Chlorine Gas
The rule* control emissions of
hydrogen chloride (HCl) and free
chlorine (Cl«) underthe same general
approach as that used formetals. The
owner and operator must comply with
and implement the HCl and Ck controls
in the same-manner as for metal*.
D. Emission Standards for Particulate
Matter
The ruleaiimit pazticulate:maiter (EM)
emissions of 0.08 gr/dscf. corrected to 7
percent oxygen (Ox). This is the same
standard-that currently applies to
hazardous waste incinerators and is
intended to supplement the risk-baaed
metals controls. (Metals emissions are
generally controlled by limiting feed
rates of metals and controlling PM.)
Compliance with the standard-is
demonstrated by emissions testing,-and
the standard is implemented ;by
operating bmrts m-the:permit -on
parameters including: ash content of
feed.streams, feed-rate of specific leed
streams, and air pollution control
system operating parameters. All boilers
and industrial furnacesmuatcomply
with the standard; inwever, cement and
aggregate kilns need not monitor the ash
feed rate of all feed-streams to
demonstrate compliance wim-the
standard given that paniculate matter
from these devices is generated
primarily from raw materials..Instead.
the rule provides that these device*
must comply with the operating limits
on the participate matter control system
to ensure continued operation at level*
achieved during the compliance test
(under-interim status) or-trial bum
(under the.parlB permit application).
E. Permitting Procedures
The final.rule requires similar
permitting procedures for regulated -Bffs
that apply to hazardous waste
incinerators. For example, owners and
operators are required to-submit* part B
permit application for evaluation in
order to be eligible-for an operating
permit Permit applications will be
called on a schedule considering .the
relative hazard to human health and
enviroment the facility poses compared
to other storage, treatment and disposal
facilities within the Director'* purview.
F. ControlJJuring Interim Status
Today's final rule requires boilers and
industrial furnaces-that have interim
status to comply with substantive
emissions controls for metals. HCL CU.
particulates, and CO (and. where
applicable. HC and dioxins and furans).
Owners and operators must certify
compliance with the emissions controls
under a prescribed schedule, establish
limits on prescribed operating
parameters, and operate within those
limits throughout interim status.
G. Units Exempt from Air Emissions
Standards
The rule conditionally exempts irom
regulation the following devices: (1)
Boilers and industrial himaae* that'burn
small quantities -of Hazardous -waste fuel)
(i.e., die small quantity burner
exemption), and,that operate the device
under prescribed conditions; (2)
smelting, melting, and refining Jurnaces
that process .-hazardous waste solely for
the purpose of metal reclamation and
not partially for destruction orenergy
recovery; and (3) coke ovens itthe only
hazardous waste they process is K087.
The small quantity:bumer
exemption—as provided in section
3004(q)(2)(B)—is « risk-based exemption
specifically-alluded to in the •statute. The
exemption is provided only to
hazardous waste fuels generated on-aite,
and is conditioned ana number .of
requirements, including a one-time
notification and recordkeeping.
The Agency is also providing a
temporary exemption for metal
reclamation -furnaces from today's
burner standards -until we determine
haw beat to apply rules designed lor
combusion process to noncombusion.
metal reclamation operation*..(It.should
be noted that section 3004(q) requires
EPA to issue niles controlling air
emissions from-devices burning
hazardous waste for energy-recovery fry
a specified date. Section 3004(q).does
not apply to devices burning .hazatdouj
wast* for the «ole purpose of material '
lenovery. Although EPA has aumority to
issue suchTegulations, -the section
3004(q) deadline does not apply). To
distinguish between waste that are
processed solely for metal reclamation
rather than (partial) destruction, .the
final rule considered (.hazardous waste
processed by a smelting, melting..or
refining furnace with a total
concentration of appendix VULipext 281
toxic organic constituents exceeding 500
ppm to be burned at least partially for
treatment cr-destruction. To distinguish
between processing for material
recovery and burning for energy
recovery, the.final rule considers*
hazardous waste processed by a metal
reclamation furnace .with a -heating
value exceeding 5,000 Btu/lb to be
burned at least partially for energy
recovery. Metals reclamation furnaces
claiming the exemption must notify the
Agency, sample and analyze their
hazardous wastes to document
compliance with the condition* of the
exemption, and iceep .records of such
documentation.
Coke ovens are exempt from today's
rule if the only-hazardous -waste they
'process is K087 a*.an ingredient to
produce coke. Given .that K087 is for
practical purpos**-ju*U£e other
material* uetdio produoe coke and
come* from the same process asihese
-------
Federal RegUter / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7137
other materials, it would be anomalous
to assert RCRA control over the coking
process.
H. Pollution Prevention Impacts
This rule provides an incentive to
reduce the generation of metal and
chlorine-bearing hazardous waste at the
source given that the metals and HC1
emissions controls will be implemented
by additional requirements attendant to
the disposal of those wastes, i.e.. feed
rate limits for individual metals and
total chlorine. These requirements are,
in essence, tied to the economics of
disposing of given volumes of waste
since feed rates depend, in part, on the
volume of waste the facility operator
needs to burn. Thus, the metals and HC1
controls do not simply require a percent
reduction in emissions, irrespective of
the volume and rate of incoming waste
streams. Rather, the controls are health-
based and, thus, provide limits on
emissions rates of metals and HG that
would be implemented by feed rate
limits.
Waste generators who send their
waste to industrial furnaces such as
cement kilns and light-weight aggregate
kilns that act as commercial waste
management facilities will have the
incentive to reduce the generation of
metal and chlorine-bearing wastes
because waste management fees are
likely to increase for such waste given
that the burner has a fixed metal and
chlorine feed rate allotment (due to
prescribed feed rates and facility
operating conditions). Wastes with
extremely high metals content may no
longer be acceptable for burning in
many cases unless the waste generator
reduces the metals content of the waste.
Any alternative for the disposal of such
wastes may be unavailable or the costs
of such treatment may be high enough to
create the incentive to reduce waste
generation rates at the source. This is a
typical scenario for pollution prevention
measures to be undertaken by waste
generators.
Similarly, generators who bum their
wastes on site also have the incentive to
reduce the generation of metal and
chlorine-bearing wastes given that the
rule will provide a fixed feed rate
allotment for their boiler or industrial
furnace.
IU. Relationship to Other Rules
A. Regulations to be Promulgated Under
the New Clean Air Act
Title in of the recent Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, amending section
112 of the Act dealing with hazardous
air pollutants, potentially addresses
many of the same sources that would be
regulated under today's rule. That
section requires the Agency to develop a
list of major and area sources of
hazardous air pollutants (a major source
is a stationary source that has the
potential to emit up to 10 tons per year
of a hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons
per year of a combination of such
pollutants, and area sources are other
stationary sources emitting hazardous
air pollutants), and to develop
technology-based controls for such
sources over specified time periods. See
Clean Air Act amended sections 112(c),
and (d). Additional controls shall be
imposed within eight years after
promulgation of each of these
technology-based standards, if such
controls are needed to protect public
health with an ample margin of safety,
or to prevent adverse environmental
effect (Cost energy, and other relevant
factors must be considered in
determining whether regulation is
appropriate in the case of environmental
effects.) In addition, if the technology-
based standards for carcinogens do not
reduce the lifetime excess cancer risk
for the most exposed individual to less
than one a million (10-6), then EPA must
promulgate health-based standards. See
amended section 112(f)(2)(A).
It is premature for the Agency to
attempt to provide a definitive opinion '
on the relationship of these provisions to
today's rule. Sources covered by the
present rule may not ultimately be
required to be further regulated under
amended section 112, In this regard,
amended section 112(n)(7) provides that
if sources' air emissions are regulated
under subtitle C, "the Administrator
shall take into account any regulation*
of such emissions * * * and shall to the
maximum extent practicable and
consistent with the provisions of this
section, ensure that the requirements of
such subtitle and this section are
consistent" Thus, at a minimum,
Congress was concerned about the
potential for duplicative regulation and
urged the Agency to guard against it
Since the Agency regards today's rules
as protective (based on present
knowledge), it may be possible to avoid
further air emissions regulation. (EPA
notes, however, that these sources will
likely be listed as major sources, and the
Agency will study whether further
emissions controls are required in the
course of implementing amended section
112.)
B. April 27.1990 Proposed Incinerator
Amendments
On April 27.1990 (55 FR17862). EPA
proposed amendments to the existing
hazardous waste incinerator standard*
of subpart O. part 264 to make the
incinerator standards conform to the
emissions standards being promulgated
today for boilers and industrial furnaces
burning hazardous waste. The proposed
rule would add emission standards for
products of incomplete combustion (i.e..
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon
limits), metals, and hydrogen chloride
and chlorine gas.
In the proposed rule for incinerators.
EPA also proposed to revise or to add
definitions for a number of thermal
treatment devices: Industrial furnace,
incinerator, plasma arc and infrared
incinerators. Those definitions are being
promulgated in today's rule. In addition,
EPA proposed in the incinerator
rulemaking to clarify the regulatory
status of carbon regeneration units.
Those clarifications are also
promulgated in today's final rule.
Finally, EPA proposed to revise the
definition of principal organic hazardous
constituents (POHCa) used to
demonstrate destruction and removal
efficiency (ORE). The revised definition
would allow the Director on a case-by-
case basis to approve as POHCs
compounds that are neither constituents
in the hazardous waste nor organic.
That revised definition of POHC is
finalized in today's rule as a part of the
ORE standard to control organic
emissions from boilers and industrial
furnaces.
C. July 18,1990 Proposed Amendment to
Definition of Wastewater Treatment
Unit to Exempt Sludge Dryers
On July 18,1990 (see 55 FR 29280),
EPA proposed to clarify the regulatory
status of sludge dryers to make it clear
that sludge dryers that meet the
definition of a tank and that were a part
of a wastewater treatment unit wen
exempt from RCRA regulation even if
they heretofore met the definition of an
incinerator. Today's final rule
promulgates a definition of sludge dryer
and revises the definition of incinerator
to explicitly exclude sludge dryers. See
Part Four, section II of today's preamble.
D. Land Disposal Restriction Standards
In the May 8,1987 proposal the
Agency indicated that once the present
rules became final the Agency would
amend certain of the land disposal
restriction standards that specified
incineration as • treatment standard (at
that time, the standard for HOCs under
the California list rule), to also include
burning in boilers and industrial
furnaces. See 52 FR at 17021. Since that
time, the issue has become more
involved. In particular, significant issues
regarding the relationship of the Bevill
amendment and land disposal
-------
JIM Federal RjgUter / Vol. 56. .No. .35 / Thursday. February .21. .1981 / Rules and Regulations
restrictions exist (which the Agency in
fact-referenced hi therulemaking record
tothe-California lisrrule when
considering this issue). The Agency
believes it inappropriate to try and
resolve these issues inthisproceeding,
given thetima constraints created by the
District.Court's order.and the fact.that
this rulemaking does not deal
principally with issues.relating to the
laud diipuiul'resLricliuns piugimui. The
Agency-consequentry-phnts-to address
these questions nva-htter proceeding
and'tnttofhialize the May 1987
proposal •afthis'time.
IKK DmtsM Subject to Regulation
L Boilers
EPA. defines a .boiler jn j 2BD-1D as. an
enclosed device using-controlledJQame •
combustion and. having thi> following
characteristics: (1) The combustion
chamber And primary, energy recovery
section must be of IntegraK-design: (2)
thermal-recovery jafficienoy must be .at
leutflD percent; and.'(3)«tJaast 75
perqent df the recovered energy must'be
"exported".(L«* not usedtor.internal
uses such as preheating of combustion
air or fuel, or driving .combustion air
fans or feed.water pumps).
Today's'final rule applies to. aU'botless
burning hazardous waste tor any
purpose-energy recovery or
destruction/fWe note, 'however, that an
existing boiler may not bum hazardous
«MS*rfmcdHatruction:(ijB^ jwHSte that is
standards.)
NoninduStrial'hoilers are currently
prohibtted'.from burning hazardous
waste unless they axe operated in
confonnance with the incinerator
standards.of subparTO of partzm or
285/Onthe effective date.oftoday's
rule.'however, noninflustriatbdilen
burning hazardous waste will he subject
to these boiler and industrial furnace
rules. We note that nonindustrial boilers
generally cannot bum hazardous waste
until theyrecehre an.operating .permit
under today's rule (unless they are
already operating:nnderrhfr incinerator
standards). This is herq^m the
prohibition is not rescinded until the
effective date of the rule,.and a facility
would have to be "in existence" with
respect to hazardous waste .burning on
that date-to be eligible for interim status.
EPA believes that approximately 925
boilers hum. hazardous waste fuels.
Approximately 000 ofthese boilers bum
very small quantities-of hazardous
waste and will'be conditionally exempt
under the small quantity-burner
provision of today's rule. See 1766.106.
(We note-that these boilers-burn less
than one.percent of the total hazardous
waste currently being turned miwllers
and indusrriaTfurnacesO'EPA also
believer thai approximately '200'boilers
will stop-burning hazardous waste
because they bum quantities exceeding
the small'quantityrhumer exemption but
do-noffaumenough waste to justify the
cost of complying with today's rule.
Thu8,,agproximatelyl25 boilers will
continue to burn .hazardous waste, and
will be subject .to the interim status and
permit standards pmvided'byji 268102
and 2B8n03-of today's rule.
Under today'ssBwsedtiefinrtion, -EPA
defines an-industrial furnace in { 260.10
as those1 designated •devices that -are -an
l ot*a manufacturing
process and-that- use thermal treatment
to recovermatehais-or energy. With the
addition ofnalogen -acid furnaces by
today's rule, the Agency ims-designated
12 devrcCT-ai-industrialfamaces:
'Cement kilns; hmvkilnsraggregate'kihis
(indluding-Uglit-weight-aggrejtate kiha
v~" ~ • \J —o~" " '"•<*••*' *»^^»<^y**w •»«••••
and aggregate drying-kibMinted-in-the
aspnaltic'Concrete-mdustryji-phosphBte
kiha: coke-ovens; •blast-furnaces;
melting.-jnerting, and-re&ung-fumaces;
tjlaiiiuni'dioxtde -chloride-process
oxidation rewctorBrmethane-refornung
nirnacesi-putping-liquor recuvery
furnaces; and cuuibusliuii-devices-used
ill iiiftjeuu very t)f' sulfurvahiex fr'm>
spent-suffuric-Bcid. Tbe-defmition also
includes criteria •and-precedares -for
designating additional devices as
industrial -himaces.
Any industrial furnace •burning-or
processing ray'.hazardous waste-forany
purpose-energy recovery, material
recovery, Df-.deitruction—is subjectto
todayVrule.-with certain-exceptions.
Fumacerfjflce boilers) bnmmg-small
quantities xrf-faazatdonr waste-fuel ve
exempt from regulathm under< 206:108.
coke ovens are exempt-from regulation
if the only-hazardous waste they bum is
Hazardous Waste No. K087. and
regulation trf wnelters processing
hazardous waste-solely for material
recovery is deferred (see discussion in
section IID).
The-Agency believes that
approximately 75 industrial furnaces
hum over one-million tons of hazardous
waste annually. The regulated universe
appears to comprise approximately 40
cementldlns. 18 light-weight aggregate
kilns. andlS halogen acid furnaces.
Each of these types of furnaces is
described.below.
A. Cement Kilns
Cement kilns are-horizontal inclined
rotating cylinders, refractory lined and
internally fired, to calcine a blend of
BOX limestone .and 20% shale to produce
Portland cement There ht a wet process
and a dry process for producing cement.
In the wet process, the limestone and
shale aregmmnl-WBtiand-fedintoIhe
kiln in a. slurry. In the dry .process, raw
materials ate ground dry. Wet process
Icilna aro longer than Ary proCCSS kiln«-in
order.to facilitate water evaporation
from the wetf aw material. WetJcilns
can.be. more than *50 feet in length. Dcy
kims.are.more thermally efficient and
frequently use preheaters or
prAcaloineis .to -begin . there alcining
process.befbre thfi.raw nratBrial.w fed
into the kirn.
Combustion gases and raw materials
move caunterflaw in.kiha. The.-kibi is
incUnad.fand;rawinatemls ate led onto
the.imper end -while fuels aee-normaUy
feddnto the lowerend. .Combustion
gaaBB.tma mavtap theikimxnuntertD
thejflnwraf unvmmtexials. Theiaw
materahgjfltinuijiBesiveJyAatter as
raw
and fuse at temperatures betweeaZ2BO
and 2.700 Ttto form the- cUnker-ptoduct.
Clinker:isrthen.-cool«d..ground,and
mixed .with:onier materials *uch as
gypsum:^form Portland cement
Combustion-gasn leaving the -Win
typicaQycontainfram-6-to 30% of the
feed spMs-afrduat'Particulate
emissions-are typicallyTontrolled with
electruetaUf preciprtators orfabric
filters-(baghomres), and are often
recycled-to'the klui'feed system.
Dry kilns with a preheater or
precalciner often use.a by-pass duct to
remove from 5 to 30% of the kim off-
gases from the main. duct. The by-pass
gas is pa«sed;through a separate air
pollution control system to remove
particulate matter. By-pass.dust is not
reintroduced into the kiln system to
avoid a build-up of metal salts that can
affect product quality.
Some cement kilns .bum.hazaidous
waste fuels to replace.from 25 to.75% of
normal fossil fuels. Most kilns bum
liquid waate,fuals but several burn small
(e^:six«allon) containers of viscous or
solid hazardous\waste fuels-Containers
have been fired into the upper. -raw
material end of theMn and at the
midpoint of the kiln.
Several cement companies have also
expressed an interest in using solid
hazardourwsnte such as contaminated
soils as «n ingredient to produce
cement Cement kilns that bum
hazardous waste as an ingredient are
regulated by today's rule.1 Under
• SM4iiMiMtoo in (MUOD.VUH otPatt Thra*
tht text
-------
Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1901 / Rules and Regulation* 7139
today'* rule, a facility may bum (or
proceis) hazardous watte solely as a
bona fide ingredient during interim
status beginning with the effective date
of the rule. If a waste is burned partially
for destruction or energy recovery,
however, it is not burned solely as an
ingredient and special restrictions apply
during interim status (see discussion
below). EPA considers a waste to be
burned at least partially for destruction
if it contains a total of 500 ppm or more
by weight of nonmetal hazardous
constituents listed in appendix VIII, part
261. Further. EPA considers a waste to
be burned at least partially for energy
recovery if it has a heating value of 5,000
Btu/lb or more.
Today's rule does not allow burning of
a waste for the purpose of destruction
during interim status prior to
certification of compliance (see
§ 266.103(c)) with all applicable
emission standards. Further, the rule
applies special requirements during
interim status on owners/operators who
feed hazardous waste into a kiln system
at any location other than the "hot" end
where product is discharged. Hazardous
waste burned (processed) solely as an
ingredient however, is not subject to the
special requirements because emissions
from such burning would not pose an
adverse effect on human health and the
environment*
B. Ught-Weight Aggregate Kilnt
Light-weight aggregate (LWA)
describes a special use aggregate with a
specific gravity much less than sand and
gravel which is used to produce
insulation and nonstructural and light-
weight concrete. LWA is produced much
like cement but the feedstocks are
special clays, pumice, scoria, shale, or
slate.
The LWA kiln is configured much like
a cement kiln. The raw material is
crushed and introduced at the upper end
of a rotary kiln. In passing through the
kiln, the materials reach temperatures of
1.900 to 2.100'F. Heat is provided by a
burner at the lower end of the kiln
where clinker is discharged.
LWA kilns are also major sources of
paniculate emissions and are equipped
with wet scrubbers, fabric filters, or
electrosatic precipitators. Wet scrubbers
dominated the industry until recently.
Many facilities are now converting to
dry systems to reduce the cost of residue
* This i« because aonawUl toxic constituents will
not be present la the waste at fifniflcant level* (La,
leu than 100 ppm) and metal emissions will b«
adequately controlled under today's rule by the air
pollution control lyttam irrespective of when the
watte la fed talo the kite system.
management by recycling the collected
dust into the kiln.
LWA kilns that bum hazardous waste
fuel typically bum 100% liquid
hazardous waste fuels.
C. Halogen Acid Furnaces
The Dow Chemical Company (DOW)
filed a rulemaking petition with EPA on
March 31,1986, in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 280.20, requesting
that EPA designate their halogen acid
furnaces (HAFs) as industrial furnaces.
HAFs are typically modified firetube
boilers that process secondary waste
streams containing 20 to 70 percent
chlorine or bromine to produce a
halogen acid product by scrubbing acid
from the combustion gases. Currently
HAFs that produce steam meet the
definition of a boiler while HAFs that do
not generate steam meet the definition
of an incinerator even though they use
hazardous waste as a fuel and as an
ingredient to produce halogen add
product Today's rule designates HAFs
that do not generate steam as an .
industrial furnace for the reasons given
below.
DOW petitioned the Agency to
designate their HAFs as industrial
furnaces after the Agency changed the
definition of incinerator in 1985 from a
"purpose of burning test" to a "design
test" and developed new classifications
for boilers and industrial furnaces. The
Agency inadvertently did not designate
HAFs as industrial furnaces at the time
which potentially left certain HAFs
operating not in compliance with the
incinerator standards promulgated in
1981. Although HAFs (prior to today's
rule) technically meet the definition of
incinerator, the Agency has indicated its
intention since receiving the DOW
petition to correct the problem and to
properly designate HAFs as industrial
furnaces.
On May 6.1987 (52 FR17033), EPA
proposed to grant this petition and to
add halogen acid furnaces (HAFs) to the
list of devices that are designated as
industrial furnaces under 40 CFR 260.10.
On April 27.1990 (55 FR 17917), the
Agency proposed changes to the
proposed designation of HAFs as
industrial furnaces. With modifications
based on additional information and
comments, today's rule adds HAFs to
the list of devices that are included in -
the definition of an industrial furnace
under 260.10.
In today's rule. EPA is defining an
"industrial furnace" in 260.10 as an
enclosed device that uses thermal
treatment to recover (or produce)
materials or energy as an integral
component of a manufacturing process.1
EPA has previously designated 11
devices as industrial furnaces: (1)
Cement kiln* (2) lime kilns: (3)
aggregate kilns (including light-weight
aggregate kilns and aggregate drying
kfini used in the asphaltic concrete
industry); (4) phosphate kirns; (5) coke
ovens; (6) blast furnaces; (7) smelting,
melting, and refining furnaces; (8)
titanium dioxide chloride process
oxidation reactors; (9) methane
reforming furnaces; (10) pulping liquor
recovery furnaces; and (11) combustion
devices used to recover sulfur values
from spent sulfuric acid.
The industrial furnace definition in
260.10 also provides criteria and
procedures for adding devices to the list.
A device may be defined as an
industrial furnace if it meets one or more
of the following criteria: (1) The device
is designed and used primarily to
recover material products: (2) the device
is used to bum or reduce raw materials
to make material products; (3) the device
is used to bum or reduce secondary
materials as effective substitutes for raw
materials in processes that use raw
materials as principal feedstocks; or (4)
the device is used to burn or reduce
secondary materials as ingredients in
industrial processes to manufacture
material products.
As explained below, the basis for
designating HAFs as industrial furnaces
under i 280.10 is that HAFs are integral
components of a manufacturing process.
they recover materials and energy, and
they meet two of the criteria (1 and 4)
described above for classifying a device
as an industrial furnace.
1. Current Practices
Information available to EPA
indicates that at least 3 companies in
the United States operate at least 30
devices that may be halogen acid
furnaces. These devices typically
process chlorinated or brominated
• secondary materials with 20 to 70
percent halogen content (by weight) to
produce an acid product either
hydrogen chloride (HC1) or hydrogen
bromide (HBr), both of which have e
halogen content that ranges from 3 to
• This definition of industrial furnace is the
revised definition aa noticed OB April V. 1980 (SS FR
17SSS). The previous definition read "an enclosed
device using controlled Oaaa oombMtion to recover
materials or energy aa an integral component of a
maswiactnrag process " Public comments on the
piopoaal an rllsruaaarl ta the Coatmant Response
n^mmum fa the B1F Rsejulabons. EPA lavisad the
definition to inctade nonflama devtcea JU. by
istsiTuaj to thamal treaBaeeit) bacauaa conMUed-
flame devtoee end nonflaaMdevtose can have the
saBS) aasiaalOBa •*»** posa> ***** aama aasard to human
health and the environment
-------
7140 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
greater than 25 percent (by weight).
These secondary materials typically
hr.v-- as-fired heating values of
a.. ximately 9,000 Btu/lb and are
tyr Jly produced on site.
Some of the HAFs currently in use are
modified firetube boilers that generate
and export steam. These KAFs meet the
definition of a boiler under S 260.10. and.
thus, will be regulated as boilers. The
remaining HAFs. although modified
firetube boilers, do not generate steam
and thus do not meet EPA's definition of
a boiler. Today's rule classifies these
nonboiler HAFs as industrial furnaces.
For the remainder of this discussion, the
term "HAF" refers to these nonbciler
HAFs.
2. Designation of HAFs as Industrial
Furnaces
o. Dow's Petition. On March 31.1986,
the Dow Chemical Company (DOW)
filed a rulemaking petition with EPA in
accordance wilh the provisions of 40
CFR 260.20, requesting that HAFs at
Dow Chemical be designated as
industrial furnaces. EPA proposed to
grant this petition in the May 6,1987
proposal. Today's rule includes HAFs in
the definition of an industrial furnace
under § 260.10. Further background
discussion on DOW's petition is
contained in the May 6,1987 proposed
rule.
b. May 1987 and April 1990 Proposed
Rules. EPA proposed to designate HAFs
as industrial furnaces for the reasons
discussed in the May 6,1987 proposed
rule. To ensure that a particular device
was an industrial furnace involved in
bonafide production of acid * as an
integral component of a manufacturing
process, and was not an incinerator
equipped with hologen emissions
removal devices, the 1987 proposed HAF
definition required that: (1) The furnace
by located on site at a chemical
production facility; (2) the waste fed to
the device be halogenated: and (3) the
acid product from the device contain at
least 6 percent halogen acid.
Based on comments received on the
1987 proposal and on further
consideration by the Agency, EPA
proposed revisions to the HAF definition
in the April 1990 notice. These revisions
were proposed for two reasons: (1) To
• Th« Agency'a concern ia that device* capturing
tomt HC1 in toubbtr •fflucnt not automatically be
claaeifiad as HAFt if thty find • way to utiltia tha
•crabber affluent Tha HQ contant of tha affluent
from wet acrubber* uaed to control HCI amiaaiona
from the incineration of chlorine-bearing waate ia
normally on the order of 1 percent of leaa. EPA doea
not cona'dar auch low HCI content acrubber water a
bono fid* product for purpoaaa of dealgnation at an
induatrial furnace even if tha acrubber water ia
beneficially uaed in a manner that tpeofically
relatea to ita HO contant
better clarify the differences between
HAFs and incinerators equipped with
wet scrubbers to control halogen acid
emissions, and (2) to better reflect
industry practice.
To ensure that a particular device is
an integral component of a chemical
manufacturing process, the April 1990
proposal included requirements that at
least SO percent of the acid product be
used on site and that any off-site waste
fed to '.he HAF be generated by a SIC
2C1 (inorganic chemicals) or SIC 286
(organic chemicals) process. To ensure
that the waste is burned as a bona fide
ingredient to produce the halogen acid
product, the April 1990 proposal also
required that each waste fed to the HAF
have an "as-generated" halogen content
of at least 20 percent. In addition, to
better reflect industry practice, the 1990
proposal required that the acid product
have a halogen acid content of 3 percent
rather than 6 percent, an amount that
still clearly distinguished the HAF acid
product from incinerator scrubber water,
which has an acid content of well below
1 percent. Finally, EPA proposed in
April 1990 to list hazardous waste fed to
a HAF as inherently waste-like to
ensure that halogenated waste fed to a
HAF (and the HAF itself) would be
subject to regulation. This would
preclude a claim that the secondary
materials were used as ingredients to
make a product, and, thus, not a solid
waste under { 261.2(e)(l)(i).
c. Summary of Public Comments.
Commenters on the 1987 and 1990
proposed rules objected to the
requirements that 50 percent of the acid
product be used on site and that any off-
site waste feed be limited to SIC 281 or
286 processes. The commenters argued
that minimum specifications on the
halogen content of the feed and/or the
acid content of the HAF product are
sufficient to distinguish bonafide HAF
operations from incinerator operations.
and that the requirement that a
substantial portion of the product be
used on site serves only to limit the
legitimate treatment of halogenated
wastes and the sale of bona fide HAF
products without being necessary to
protect human health and the
environment
After consideration of these
commenters' concerns, the Agency
believes that both the proposed off-site
restriction for waste fed to HAFs and
the proposed on-site acid product use
restriction are indeed unnecessary to
ensure that HAFs are integral
components of manufacturing processes.
The Agency agrees with the commenters
that the requirements specifying the
minimum halogen content of the watte
feed and the minimum halogen acid
concentration of the HAF product are
sufficient to ensure that HAFs are
integral components of a manufacturing
process (i.e., the process of halogen acid
production). EPA is not adopting these
proposed conditions given that air
emissions from HAFs will be regulated
under today's rule, that these proposed
conditions were directed at how to
classify these devices rather than how
to ensure their safe operation, and that
HAF operations (as properly controlled)
are environmentally advantageous in
that they utilize acid values rather than
dispose them and therefore should not
needlessly be discouraged. Today's rule.
therefore, does not restrict the use of
HAF waste feeds generated off site or
require that any percentage of the acid
product be used on site.
In today's rule, the Agency considers
a bona fide HAF operation as one in
which a secondary material with a
minimum as-generated halogen content
of 20 percent by weight is processed into
an acid product with a minimum
halogen content of 3 percent by weight.
The acid product must be used in a
manufacturing process either on site or
off site. The Agency maintains that this
approach will allow the legitimate
processing of highly halogenated
secondary materials into usable
products but will still clearly distinguis
HAF product acid from incinerator
halogen acid scrubber water.
Upon review of other comments
submitted on the 1987 and 1990
proposed rules, the Agency has
identified several issues pertaining to
HAFs that require clarification in the
regulations. Specifically, these issues
concern: (1) The regulation of chlorine
emissions from HAFs. (2) the operation -
of HAFs under the special operating
requirements (SOR) exemption for
boilers, and (3) the designation of
hazardous waste fed to HAFs as
inherently waste-like material.
One commenter to the 1987 proposed
rule requested that the Agency clarify its
position on limiting inorganic halide
salts in feedstocks to boilers and
industrial furnaces. The Agency has
established limits on emissions of HCI
and Cli from industrial furnaces, and a
HAF operator, like any other industrial
furnace operator, must comply with
these HCI and Cb emission standards.
To demonstrate compliance under the
Tier I feed rate screening limits, a HAF
operator must include inorganic chlorine
as part of the total chlorine fed to the
device. The Agency believes that this
requirement is justified because recenj
testing indicates that even thermally 1
stable compounds such as NaCl are
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7141
converted with high efficiency to HC1
under laboratory conditions that
simulate incineration.'
Another commentex to the 1987
proposal stated that HAFs are unjustly
excluded from the automatic waiver of a
trial burn to demonstrate 99.99%
destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) when operated under the special
operating requirements (SORs). The
Agency acknowledges the commenter's
concern, but notes that all industrial
furnaces, including HAFs, are ineligible
for the automatic ORE trial bum waiver.
The Agency stated in the preamble to
the 1987 proposal that modified boilers
that produce and export steam (and thus
meet EPA's definition of boiler in
§ 260.10) would be regulated as boilers.
In such a case, the unit may be eligible
for the automatic waiver of the ORE trial
bum, which applies only to boilers. Any
halogen acid furnace that is a modified
fire-tube boiler not meeting the
definition of a boiler in 1260.10.
however, would not be eligible for the
automatic waiver. The Agency's reasons
for applying the automatic ORE trial
'jura waiver only to boilers are
discussed further in Section II.C.2.d of
this preamble.
Several commenters expressed
concern that the April 27,1990 proposal
required a minimum heating value of
5,000 Btu/lb for secondary materials fed
to HAFs. Today's final rule does not
require a minimum heating value on
secondary materials fed to HAFs.
Although the Agency understands that
most wastes burned in HAFs have a
heating value greater than 5,000 Btu/lb
and. so. that HAFs are engaged in
energy recovery as well as materials
recovery, not all wastes meeting the
minimum halogen limit also have a
heating value normally associated with
energy recovery. The Agency believes
that HAFs need not be required to
recover both material and energy values
from every hazardous waste fed to the
device to meet the definition of an
industrial furnace, and that the
regulations adopted today for HAFs
ensure that they will be operated in a
protective manner even if energy values
are not recovered.
Commenter's misconceptions
regarding a minimum heating value for
secondary materials may have arisen
from the Agency's proposal pursuant to
§ 261.2(d)(2) to list hazardous waste fed
to HAFs as inherently waste-like
material. In today's rule, the Agency is
listing as inherently waste-like any
secondary material fed to HAFs that is
* U.S-EFA. Laboratory Method to Eatlmtte
Hydrafta Chlortd* Emiuioo Potential Befott
IncintrtUoo of • Wutt. Ftbruuy ItBO.
identified or listed as a hazardous waste
under 40 CFR part 261. subparts C and
D. Without such materials being
designated as inherently waste-like,
HAFs burning hazardous wastes solely
as ingredients (i.e., wastes that have low
heating value and therefore, are not
burned partially for energy recovery) to
produce an acid product might not be
regulated because the material they are
burning might not be a solid waste
pursuant to }261-2(e)(l)(i). However.
HAFs that burn hazardous wastes with
high heating values (i.e.. greater than
5.000 Btu/lb). would be subject to
today's rule even without listing them as
inherently waste-like because these
wastes are considered under
S 261.2(e)(2)(ii) to be burned et least
partially for energy recovery. For
reasons discussed in the April 27.1990
proposed rule (55 FR17892), the Agency
believes that such an inconsistent result
would not provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment
(the wastes burned by HAFs are some
of the most toxic generated and
regulation of emissions from burning
these wastes certainly is needed to
protect human health and the
environment). Moreover, there are
significant elements of treatment
associated with burning in HAFs: toxic
organic compounds are destroyed rather
than recovered, and the burning if
conducted improperly could become
part of the waste disposal problem.
Because the materials burned in HAFs
meet the criteria of 12812(d) for
inherently waste-likely materials, EPA
today is adding to the list of inherently
waste-like materials under 1261.(d)(2)
secondary materials fed to HAFs that
are listed or identified as hazardous
waste under subparts C or D of part 261.
While HAFs will not be precluded from
burning secondary materials with low
heating values, today's listing will
prevent the HAFs that burn this material
and the material itself from being
unregulated. As a result in all cases,
hazardous waste fed to HAFs, and the
HAFs themselves, will be subject to
hazardous waste regulations under
today's final rule.
d. Basis for Designating HAFs as
Industrial Furnaces. EPA has defined an
industrial furnace in 1260.10 as any of
the specifically-designated enclosed
devices that are integral components of
a manufacturing process and that use
thermal treatment to accomplish
recovery of materials or energy. To date.
11 types of devices have been
designated as industrial furnaces. The
industrial furnace definition also
provides criteria for adding devices to
the list As discussed above, these
criteria include: (1) The design and use
of the device primarily to accomplish
recovery of material products; (2) the
use of the device to burn or reduce raw
materials to make a material product (3)
the use of the device to burn or reduce
secondary materials as effective
substitutes for raw materials in
processes using raw materials as
principal feedstocks; and (4) the use of
the device to bum or reduce secondary
materials as ingredients in an industrial
process to make a material product. As
explained below, HAFs, meet the
definition of an industrial furnace as
well as two of the above criteria, (1) and
(4), for designating additional devices as
industrial furnaces.
HAFi an Integral Components of a
Manufacturing Process. HAFs are
commonly located on-site at large scale
chemical manufacturing processes that
reclaim primarily secondary materials
generated on-«ite and that typically use
the halogen acid product on-site. In
these cases, the Agency believes the
device should clearly be considered an
integral component of the manufacturing
process and. thus, eligible for
designation as an industrial furnace.
The situation is less clear when the
device receives halogen-bearing
secondary materials from off-site or if
the halogen acid product is sent off-site.
In these situations, the Agency believes,
nonetheless, that the device should be
considered an integral component of a
manufacturing process and. thus.
eligible for consideration as an
industrial furnace provided that the
device is located on the site of a
manufacturing process and that the
halogen acid product is used by a
manufacturing process.
HAFs Recover Material* and Energy.
EPA believes that HAFs recover
materials and energy to produce a bona
fide product Production of halogen acid
(a 3 to 20 percent halogen acid solution)
from the combustion of chlorine-bearing
secondary materials constitutes
materials recovery in the context of the .
designation of HAFs as industrial
furnaces. HAFs can also be considered
to bum secondary material as
ingredients in an industrial process to
make a material product (i.e.. the
product halogen acid). As discussed
above, chlorine-bearing secondary
materials an burned to produce the
halogen add product for nee in a
manufacturing operation.
HAFs alto recover energy. Moat
halogen-bearing secondary materials
reclaimed in HAFs are burned partially
for energy recovery because substantial.
usable heat energy is released by the
materials during combustion. The
-------
7142 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
in srials typically have an as-Bred
hr . -jng value of approximately 9.000
*•• Ib, and the heat released results in
• . lermal degradation of chlorinated
v me compounds to form HCL
ough under definitions in 260.10.
. gy recovery in a boiler is
, racterizcd by the recovery and
*.: port of energy, energy recovery in an
industrial furnace need not involve any
export of energy. Rather, energy
recovery in an industrial furnace is
based on the burning of materials with
substantial heating values (greater than
5.000 Btu/lb) in a manner that results in
the release of substantial usable heat
energy. See 50 FR 49171-49174
(November 29.1985).8
HAFs Meet Industrial Furnace
Criteria. The Agency beleives that
HAFs meet two of the above criteria
(i.e., criteria (1) and (4)) for designating
devices as industrial furnaces. EPA
believes that restrictions on the halogen
content of waste streams fed to HAFs
and on the halogen content of the acid
product ensure that the HAF is: (a)
Designed primarily to recover halogen
acid (and so is not engaged in
incineration); and (b) used to burn
secondary materials as ingredients in
the process of halogen acid production
to produce a material product (i.e., the
product halogen acid).
Addition of HAFs to List of Industrial
Furnaces. EPA believes that HAFs are
integral components of a manufacturing
process and that they are designed and
operated to recover materials and
energy. For these reasons EPA is today
adding to the list of devices designated
as industrial furnaces under J 260.10
HAFs defined as furnaces that: (1) Are
located at the site of a manufacturing
process; and (2) process hazardous
wastes with a minimum as-generated
halogen content of 20 percent by weight
to produce an acid product with a
minimum halogen content of 3 percent
by weight and where the acid product is
used in a manufacturing process.
e Interim Status for HAFs. HAFs that
are in existence on the effective date of
today's rule are eligible for interim
status like other boilers and industrial
furnaces burning for energy or material
recovery. Although certain HAFs may
technically have met the amended
definition of incinerator, EPA believes
that there was legitimate confusion as to
such unit's operating status. These
devices would not have been
incinerators under the original 1980
* Wt note •• discussed previously In the text that
although «U hasardoui wastee fed to • HAF must
have an as-generated halogen content of it lee*t
20%. all tucfa wastes need not hive i heating value
ofMOOBbi/lb.
definition of incinerator because their
primary purpose was not destruction of
waste. When EPA amended that
definition in 1985 to adopt a definition
based on the unit's design rather than its
operating purpose, the Agency did not
intend to regulate HAFs as incinerators
and noted that the regulatory change
was not intended to (or expected to)
affect the number and identity of
regulated incinerator units. See 50 FR
625 (Jan. 4,1985). Moreover, given that
many HAFs met the definition of boiler,
it would have been anomalous and
unintended for some HAFs to be subject
to full regulation and others to be
unregulated (until the present rules were
adopted). Given these circumstances,
the Agency is rinding pursuant to
§ 270.10(e)(2) that there was substantial
confusion as to which HAF owners and
operators were required to submit a part
A application and that this confusion is
attributable to ambiguities in the subtitle
C rules. Accordingly, such owners and
operators may submit part A
applications by the effective date of
today's regulation.
We note that this policy on interim
status eligibility date does not apply to
other devices that are currently subject
to regulation as an incinerator but claim
to be an industrial furnace subject to the
BIF rule and its interim status eligibility
date. An example is an aggregate kiln
that currently burns hazardous waste
for the purpose of treatment
(destruction) and. so, is subject to the
incinerator standards of subpart O.
parts 264 and 265. There is no ambiguity
about the regulatory status of such a
device given that the Agency clearly
intended for such burning to be subject
to the incinerator standards, and the
Agency's rules have always so stated.
Thus, the date for interim status
eligibility for such facilities is the 1981
date for incinerator interim status.
D. Smelting. Melting, and Refining
Furnaces Burning Hazardous Waste to
Recover Metals
In the October 1989 supplement to the
proposed rule, EPA solicited further
comment on an appropriate regulatory
regime for smelting furnaces burning
hazardous waste for the exclusive
purpose of material recovery. See 54 FR
43733. This issue was closely connected
with the question of jurisdictional
limitations on the Agency's authority to
regulate industrial furnaces burning
secondary materials for material
recovery, discussed under the rubric of
indigenous wastes. Id. at 43731-32. The
Agency noted generally that where it
did not perceive jurisdictional
limitations on its authority, it regarded
regulation of organic emissions from
smelting furnaces as unnecessary given
the normal absence of organics in the
material fed to the unit We also
indicated concern at the prospect of
regulating emissions of metals that were
hot attributable to the processing of
hazardous waste, and accordingly
solicited comment as to a means of
determining when burning of hazardous
waste resulted in emissions in excess of
those from processing other materials in
the device. Id. at 43733. With respect to
a test for determining-when wastes are
indigenous, the Agency reproposed a
fairly broad test that would have had
the effect of excluding many wastes and
devices from the Agency1.! jurisdiction,
but would have distinguished between
wastes being burned for the purpose of
conventional treatment, and for the
purpose of material recovery treatment.
These proposals proved extremely
controversial. Perhaps more importantly,
after the proposal was issued, the
question of indigenous waste was the
partial subject of the District of
Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals'
decision API v. EPA. 906 F. 2d 728 (DtC.
Cir. 1990). In that decision, the court
stated that the Agency had been overly
restrictive in interpreting the
jurisdictional limitations imposed by the
statutory definition of solid waste based
upon the court's earlier opinion in
American Mining Congress v. EPA, 8241
F. 2d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987). That earlier
opinion, the court held, is limited to
situations involving continuous
recycling processes that are not part of
the waste disposal problem, and
certainly does not mandate the type of
indigenous principle that the Agency
discussed in the 1989 notice. 908 F. 2d at
740-41. The court accordingly remanded
and directed the Agency to rethink
whether any type of indigenous
principle is warranted given the court's
clarification of its earlier opinion.7 Id. at
741.
The court's opinion, as well as the
many comments on this issue, raise
complex issues that EPA has not yet
resolved. (In this regard, the Agency
notes that the mandate in section
3004(q) to regulate facilities burning
hazardous waste for energy recovery as
may be necessary to protect human
health and the environment does not
' Technically, the court remanded the Agency'*
derision not to formally adopt a treatment ataadard
under the land disposal restrictions program far the
rettdue from processing a waste the Agency had
indicated would be Indigenous to a particular type
of metal recovery furnace. Id. at 740. £PA hai line*
indicated, in motions filed with the court that it
viewa the Interim treatment standard baaed on
•UbUliatioa as applying in all cases where the I
residue remains a hazardous waste.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
apply to devices burning for the purpose
of material recovery. H. Rep. No. 198,
98th Cong.. 1st Sess. 40. and so the
court-ordered December 31.1990
issuance date does not apply.) In
particular, the Agency is presently
studying the question of jurisdiction as
part of a comprehensive effort to
determine if the Agency's rules on
recycling should be amended (either as
a regulatory matter or as part of RCRA
reauthorization). In the interim.
however, the Agency does not believe it
prudent to apply regulations to a whole
potential class of devices and wastes
that the Agency has not fully evaluated
(since these situations would have been
excluded from regulation under the
proposal). See provision for conditional
deferral of smelting, melting, and
refining furnaces under { 266.100(c). In
addition, because EPA has placed most
of its efforts into issuing the mandated
portion of these regulations as soon as
possible, the Agency has not resolved
the questions of how to regulate raised
in the 1989 notice even for the class of
smelting furnaces where authority
would have existed under the proposed
view of indigenous waste. The issue of
whether material recovery is a form of
"treatment" is also presently submitted
for decision to a panel of the DC Circuit
in Shell Oil v. EPA (No. 80-1532). and
the Agency believes it prudent to await
the court's ruling.
Another reason for deferring
regulation of these devices is that the
Agency wishes to study further whether
regulation under the Clean Air Act may
be more appropriate than RCRA
regulation. Smelting, melting, and
refining furnaces have been traditional
subjects of Clean Air Act regulation.
and with the advent of amended section
112 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, technology-based controls on toxic
air emissions are likely to apply to these
devices. Given that in many instances
the principal risks potentially posed by
air emissions from these devices would
come from the nonhazardous waste
portion of feed (see 54 FR at 43733). and
that Clean Air Act regulation may result
in control of individual toxics, the
Agency believe* that further study of the
most appropriate means of regulation is
warranted. (The Agency specifically
requests information on other devices
that may bum hazardous waste solely
for metal recovery. EPA will use such
information to consider whether the
deferral for smelting, melting, and
refining furnaces should be broadened
provided that the principles stated here
apply to the other devices as well.)
At the same time, EPA is concerned
that this deferral not become a license
for sham recycling activities, or for
operations motivated by conventional
treatment objectives rather than
recovery purposes. Accordingly, the
Agency has crafted this deferral
narrowly. First only smelting, melting,
and refining furnaces (as used in the
§ 280.10 definition of "industrial
furnace") burning hazardous waste
solely to recover metals would be
eligible for this deferral. In the unlikely
event that one of these devices would be
used to recover organics or nonmetal
inorganics. EPA believes that
substantial amounts of organics would
be destroyed showing that the purpose
of the activity was either conventional
treatment or energy recovery. (The
Agency notes specifically that it intends
to include as a smelting, melting, or
recovery furnace the types of high
temperature metal recovery devices
used as the basis for the land disposal
prohibition treatment standard for
waste KO61. and other similar devices.)
Second, sham recovery operations
would be viewed as conventional
treatment operations and would require
a permit to control emissions. Although
it is difficult to quantify When
operations are sham, two fundamental
notions are that any waste involved
must contain economically viable
amounts of metals to recover (the best
objective measure would be the same or
greater levels of metal as in normal
nonhazardous feed stocks), and that the
person recovering the metal be in the
business of producing metals for public
sale (whether to an ultimate user or for
further processing or manufacture). See
also S3 FR at 522 (Jan. 8.1988). The
limitations on Btu level and levels on
toxic organics discussed below are
further efforts to ensure that only bona
fide metal recovery activities be
deferred from emissions regulation at
this time.
Third, today's regulations are deferred
only when these devices bum (process)
hazardous waste exclusively for metal
recovery and not partially for
destruction or energy recovery as well.
To implement this policy, today's rule
provides that a waste with • heating
value of 5.000 Btu/lb or more (either as-
generated or as-fired) is burned (at least
partially) as a fuel. The heating value
limit is based on the Agency's long
standing sham recycling policy (48 FR
11157 (March 18,1983)) that wastes with
a heating value of 5.000 Btu/lb or more
are considered to be fuels. See also 50
FR at 49171-173 (Nov. 29.1985) (partial
burning for energy recovery is covered
by section 3004(q) and Btu-rich wastes
are burned at least partially for that
purpose).
Finally, only wastes that contain less
than 500 ppm total toxic organic
constituents listed in appendix VIII. part
261, will be considered to recover
metals. EPA believes that it is important
to have an objective measure to
determine when burning is for metal
recovery, and that a 500 ppm level is
within the zone of reasonable values
that the Agency could select for this
purpose. As noted in the supplemental
proposal in a closely related context, a
500 ppm level for total toxic organic
constituents reasonably distinguishes
wastes destined for material recovery
from wastes burned for nonrecovery
purposes because: (1) It represents a
concentration of material far exceeding
trace levels (generally measured in
single digit parts per million (ppm) or
tens of ppm); (2) this level of hazardous
constituents could create an incremental
health risk if burned inefficiently, or
with inadequate emission controls; and
(3) this level is high enough to indicate
that an objective of burning is waste
treatment—destroying nontrace level
organics—as opposed to material
recovery. (The Agency's earlier proposal
dealt with the question of when a waste
might be considered to be indigenous to
an industrial furnace burning for
material recovery, and considered the
issue of whether these devices were
burning for a material recovery purpose,
and proposed the 500 ppm level adopted
in this rule as a means of objectively
ascertaining that purpose. 54 FR 43731.)
In order to be informed of persons
claiming this deferral, and in order to
decrease potential abuse of the deferral.
the Agency is requiring that all persons
notify the Agency if they assert that
their smelting, melting, or refining
furnaces are deferred from regulation
when burning hazardous wastes
because the purpose of the activity is
metal recovery. In addition, all such
persons have to keep records
documenting the basis for the claim (i.e..
that the wastes meet the Btu and total
toxic organic constituent thresholds, the
wastes contain recoverable levels of
metals, and the device is indeed
engaged in producing a metal product
for public use). Sampling and analysis
procedures specified in SW-846 must be
used to make these determinations.
These conditions are consistent with
existing I 281.2(f) which requires that all
persons claiming to be exempt or
excluded from regulation because of a
recycling activity to have the burden of
proof demonstrating that they are
entitled to the exemption or exclusion.
In addition, the Agency notes that a
consistent recommendation of state and
regional officials at the Agency's recent
-------
7141 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February n, Ifltl ( Rotes and
pub: -> actings on the regulatory
deft;: i of solid waste was to provide
notin; - on and recordkeeping so that
regula! •.ry officials know that a person
is operating in an exempt status in order
to'verify their claim. The Agency is
acting on these recommendations in this
rule.
Tne Agency also notes that the
de • j from rule could apply to the
re •"+ from metal recovery if metals
a • ig recovered from listed
hi -;i)us wastes. EPA believes this to
bt • aiicit from the remand in API v.
El jscussed earlier. The Court
inc. >;ed that the Agency's explanation
for not establishing a treatment
standard for the slag residue from
processing waste K061 was erroneous,
and remanded the case to the Agency to
reconsider its explanation. 900 P. 2d at
74
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7145
standard for MWls also served as a
^surrogate to control emissions of toxic
petals. 54 FR 52219. In contrast today's
rule has separate emission standards for
each toxic metal.) We are not prepared
to do that at this time, however, because
we have not conducted the studies to
establish an appropriate PM standard
that represents best demonstrated
technology (BUT). Although many
boilers and industrial furnaces may be
able to achieve a PM standard lower
than 0.08 gr/dscf (in fact the PM NSPS
for specific types of BBFs is lower than
0.08 gr/dscf), we are not certain that all
BIFs can meet a standard of 0.015 gr/
dscf. This is because some industrial
furnaces have a very high (uncontrolled)
particulate loading due to entrained
particles of raw materials. Examples are
cement kilns and light-weight aggregate
. kilns. Hence, a single PM standard of
0.015 gr/dscf cannot now be
promulgated.
The Agency firmly believes that the
0.08 gr/dscf PM standard, when used as
a supplement to the risk-based metal
controls provided by today's rule,
provides protection of human health and
the environment Given that hazardous
waste burned in BIFs could contain
virtually unlimited concentrations of
toxic metals, the Agency believes that
Iriak-based standards are needed to
supplement the PM standard for
hazardous waste burning irrespective of
whether the PM standard represents
best-demonstrated technology. Even
under a PM standard as low as 0.015
gr/dscf, a large fraction of the PM
emitted from a hazardous waste
combustion device could be comprised
of toxic metals that could result in
substantial health risk.
Nonetheless, the Agency will consider
if additional PM controls are warranted
to control emissions of toxic metals. In
that evaluation, the Agency will
consider whether the additional
controls, if any, should be promulgated
in the future under the new Clean Air
Act See discussion in section IILA of
part One of this preamble. Finally, we
note that permit writers also could
impose a lower PM standard where
facts warrant pursuant to the omnibus
permit authority in section 3005(c)(3).»
• EPA ootM that pmil wtttm dxxwlnf to
invak* tht ~-j*— pmrit Mthorlty of
I ttUgbXZ) to add eondittOM to • RCRA ptmit
muMihowthatMcfacoaditioMutiMCMMnrto
moon pratKttoa of faB« hotlth tod tbt
•nvimuMBt wd mm* pravVW tapport tat th*
condition* to faMmtod potto ud Mctpt and
rwpood to eooMM. In •ddlttoa permit writm
muit (nrtfjr In (fa* •dMtaicMtto ncofd rapportinf
Uw pnnit uqr doditoM bMd on omnibui
•utfaority.
A. Basis for Final Rule
Particulate matter (PM) is controlled
from combustion sources to limit
emissions of toxic metals and PM per se
(i.e.. because of human health and
ecological impacts associated with PM
that does not contain toxic metals). In
the May 6,1987 proposed rule, EPA
suggested that a PM emission standard
was not needed for boilers and
industrial furnaces because the risk-
based metals controls provide adequate
control of metals emissions. The Agency
reasoned that a standard intended to
control PM per se would be more
appropriately applied to these sources
under authority of the Clean Air Act
rather than RCRA.
EPA received numerous comments on
the May 8,1987 proposed rule suggesting
the need for a particulate standard for
boilers and furnaces burning hazardous
waste. Many commenters believed that
notwithstanding the risk-based metals
controls, unregulated PM emissions with
adsorbed toxic metals and organic
compounds could pose a significant
heath risk. In addition, three
commenters suggested that EPA address
the issue of particulate control during
soot-blowing cycles when levels of
particulate emissions are 4 to 7.2 times
the level of emissions under normal
operation. The Agency carefully
considered these comments and
subsequently determined that the risk-
based metals standards should be
supplemented with a PM standard to
provide a common measure of control
for metals. This decision was based in
part on a consideration of commenters'
concerns about the limitations of risk-
based metals standards. See 54 FR
43720-21. Hence, the Agency
subsequently proposed a particulate
emissions standard of 0.08 gr/dscf
(grains/dry standard cubic foot)
corrected to 7% oxygen in the October
26.1989 supplement to the proposed
rule. The standard would be applicable
to all boilers and industrial furnaces not
governed by a more stringent (NSPS or
SIP) standard.
1. Alternatives Considered. In
selecting the standard for boilers and
industrial furnaces, the Agency
considered the following alternatives:
(1) Apply the current NSPS standard for
steam generators burning waste: (2)
apply the applicable NSPS: or (3) apply
the existing hazardous waste incinerator
standard. These options are discussed in
the 1989 supplemental notice (54 FR
43720).
Many commenters supported the
proposed particulate standard of 0.08
gr/dscf. Several commenters, however,
opposed this limit arguing against
imposing a standard appropriate for
incinerators on boilers and furnaces.
Still other commenters suggested mat
the 0.08 gr/dscf limit did not go far
enough in protecting the public health.
These respondents argued for a lower
limit comparable to that the Agency
proposed for municipal waste
incinerators.
The Agency continues to believe that
the 0.08 gr/dscf PM standard, when used
as a supplement to the risk-based metal
controls provided by today's rule,
provides substantial protection of
human health and the environment
2. Basis for Standard. Today's rule
promulgates the proposed particulate
emission limit of 0.08 gr/dscf because,
as a supplement to the risk-based metals
controls, it provides a common measure
of protection from particulate emissions
from boilers, industrial furnaces, and
incinerators burning hazardous waste.
In addition to providing control of
particulate metals and adsorbed organic
compounds, the 0.08 gr/dscf standard
should also ensure that the Clean Air
Act's National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for particulates is
achieved in most cases. An analysis of
existing sites shows that emissions of
particulates at 0.08 gr/dscf could result
in MEI levels of up to 30% of the
maximum daily PM«o (particulate matter
under 10 microns) NAAQS (150 mg/m*).
If background particulate levels at a site
are high (i.e., the site is in a attainment
area), particulate emissions from the
device should also be addressed as part
of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
(as they are now for hazardous waste
incinerators in particulate non-
attainment areas). Therefore, although
the 0.08 gr/dscf standard may not
ensure compliance with the NAAQS in
every situation, this issue will be
addressed by the SIP since the facility
would be. by definition, in a non-
attainment area for particulate
emissions.
B. Interim Status Compliance
Procedures
Facilities operating under interim
status must comply with the PM
emission standard. By the effective date
of the rule, owners/operators must
submit a certification of precompliance
that documents their use of engineering
judgment to show that considering feed
rates of ash from all feed streams,
partitioning of ash to bottom ash or
product and the PM removal efficiency
of the air pollution control system
(APCS), PM emissions are not likely to
exceed the 0.06 gr/dscf limit Owners
and operators must also establish and
provide with the precompliance
-------
7146 Fsdsai Register / Vol. 58. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rales and Regulations
astion limits on feed rates of ash
sd stream* consistent with, those
Determine that emissions of
e matter an not likely to
ce
in
use-
par
ex' le standard. The facility may
nc ad these feed rate* during
in ttatua (ooleas amanded by a
re . certification of precompliance).
Ft- .r, within 18 months (unless
extended) of promulgation, owners/
on- on must conduct emissions
and certify that emissions do not
> me limit See section VII in part
f this preamble for more
in *tion.
C. Cementation
"men/operators must demonstrate
co: - liance with the PM standard using
N* -ds 1-5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A - compliance test for certification
d\ ,(interim status and the trial bum
fc Adlities applying for a RCRA
operating permit must be representative
of worst-case operating conditions with
respect to particulate emissions that will
occur during operation of the facility
(i.e., because limits on operating
conditions applicable for the MmiAin«faf
of interim status will be based on
operating i*nmtiH«nf during the
compliance- test).
The-PM standard is implemented by
limiting the feed rate of esfa. from all feed
streams (Le, hazardous waste, other
fuels* raw materials) and by limita on
APCS-apetific operating parameters.
The limits are established during interim
status based on the compliance test and
in the operating permit based on the
trial bum.
The final rule gives special
consideration to cement and light-
weight aggregate kilns because their raw
material feed streams contain the vast
majority of the ash input and resulting
PM. Therefore, owners/operators of
cement kilns and light-weight aggregate
kiln* are not required to monitor ash
fee:-; <-ates of feed streams. We
en- *size. however, that cement kilns
an. ightweight aggregate kilns, like all
BD-*. are still required to demonstrate
confonnance with the. PM emission
standard during a gampUani*^ test
(under interim status) or trail bum
(under a part B application). The Agency
beUevee that the capadrjr Unit on the
facility (expressed in appropriate units
such as raw material feed rate) and the
limits on the air pollution control systam
(APCS) operating paranwten appikable
during both interim statue and under a
subsequent operating permit will ensure
that cenent aad HgHt-w«igHt kfins
continuously comply with the PM
standard.*
0. Controls for Emission* of Toxfe
Organic Compounds
Burning hazardous waste that
contains toxic organic compounds (Le.,
organic compounds listed in appendix
Vm of 40 CFR part 261) under poor
combustion conditions can result in
substantial emissions of the toxic
compounds originally present in the
waste as well a* other compounds, due
to partial but incomplete combustion of
the constituents in the waste. The
quantity of toxic organic compounds
emitted depends on the concentration*
of the toxic compounds in the waste, the
waste firing rate (i.e.. the percentage of
total fuel provided by the hazardous
waste to the boiler or industrial
furnace), and the combustion conditions
under which the waste is burned The
risk posed by the emissions depends on
the quantity and toxidty of the
compounds emitted and on the •««M«n*
levels to which persons an exposed.
Hypothetical risk assessments show
that under poor combustion condition*
that achieve only 99 percent orBBA
percent destruction and removal
effidency (DRE) of organic compounds,
risks to the m"ri""?m exposed
individual (MET) from unbunted
cardnogenie organic* found in
hazardous wast* can result in increased
lifetime cancer risks of Iff*.10
The Agency i* controlling the
emission* of toxic organic compound*
from boilers and Industrial furnaces that
burn hazardous waste with two
performance standards. Pint a 99M
percent destruction and removal
effidency (DRE) standard for principal
organic hazardous constituents (POHCs)
in waste feeds will ensure that
constituents in the waste an not emitted
at levels that could pose «ig" •ppUabto FM ttoaaM to
•toadud prvvfcM by tateyi oils.!**.
tn already
i lor • FM cuadud. W« auto Sate tbattt*
monMrtntnt PMiUndudcppliM.
DOCUMM for to DwrafapMnt of lUfukttoM to
Control th* Borata* of Huudom WMU la Bate*
flue gaa concentration* of carbon
monoxide (CO) and, whew specified,
hydrocarbons (HC) will ensure mat
combustion devices operate
continuously at high combustion
efficiency and emit products of
incomplete combustion (PICs) at level*
that will not pose adverse effects on
public health, and the environment The
basis for these standards is discussed
below.
A. DRE Standard
As proposed, the Agency is
promulgating a 99.9098% ORE
standard ll for those acutely hazardous
wastes listed because they contain
dioxin " (and waste mixed with those-
wastes), and a 98.99 percent ORE
performance standard for all other
waste*. This standard is protective, it
can be readily achieved by boilers and
industrial furnaces, and it will ensure
that the Agency's controls an
for all combustion device* (boilers.
industrial furnaces, and incmeralots)
that pose similar risks.
Hypothetical risk assessments have
shown that a 99.99 percent DRE
standard for POHCs is protective of
risk* posed by emission* of organic
constituents in the waste in virtually
every scenario of which the Agency i*
a wan.14 (EPA considers elsewhen in
this notice the issue of products of
incomplete combustion.) Increased
lifetime cancer risk* to the IM**™™
exposed individual (MET) from an
incinerator operating at 99.90 percent
DRE would generally be 10"* or less.
Threshold (Le., noncardnogenic) organic
compound* also would not be expected
to be* present hi emissions from
hazardous waste burned in traders and
industrial furnaces at level* mat eonld
pass * health hazard andet the ttJO
percent DRE standard.
EPA ia aware, however, that the DRB
standard docs not directly control the
mass emission, rats (a*, pound* per
hour) of unboad frH
constituent* in the waste. Althongk
three an hypothetical sHnations in
which risk* from POHCs could be
significant under • 98J8> percent DRE
standard (•** boiler* or industrial
furaaoM located in urban area* burning
high volume* of we** with high
concentration* of highly potent
carcinogenic organic*), thu Agency i*
not awan that any such situation* an
'• Tta prapMMl feoMb fat £•!
bM* rtvlMd (• HM 0B*1 mi* (MB |
—*-i II •ithi»illrinjf
WMM* roaxroa. roa.
ron.roM.tad.soa,
. Oft. dL
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7147
actually occurring. It however, during
the permit process, it appears that a
high-risk scenario may exist permit
officials may use the omnibus permit
authority1* of section 3005(c)(3) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) codified at f 270.32(b)(2) to
develop permit requirements, as
necessary, to protect human health and
the environment (e.g* by requiring a
99.9999 percent ORE. by limiting the feed
rate of particular toxic compounds, or
by setting a mass emissions rate).
1. Selection of POHCs for ORE Testing
In the April 27,1990 proposed rule to
amend the incinerator standards (55 FR
17890), EPA outlined die considerations
to be made by applicants and permitting
officials in selecting POHCs for ORE
trial burns. Given that the ORE
implementation procedures for boilers
and industrial furnaces (BIFs) are
identical to those for incinerators, the
discussions in the incinerator proposed
rule are pertinent to this rule.
A major factor in selecting a POHC
for DRE testing is its incinerability
relative to other toxic organic
compounds. A number of indices can be
used to predict incinerability including
heat of combustion, autoignition
temperature, thermal stability under
excess oxygen conditions, and thermal
stability under low oxygen
(substoichiometric) conditions. An
incinerability ranking based on thermal
stability at low oxygen concentrations
(TSLoOj) shows promise and is
currently seeing widespread use in
incinerator permits. A number of
commenters responded to EPA's request
for comment on the use of the TSLoCs
index for POHC selection. In general.
they raised no problems with use of the
index. Their main concern appeared to
be that EPA choose one index and apply
it consistently.
The Agency, however, is not requiring
the use of a particular index. Due to the
various "failure modes" different
organic compounds are susceptible to
during the destruction process in a
combustion device, and the evolving
state of knowledge in this area, the
Agency feels that the POHC selection
process is technically complex and that
it should involve a number of
11 EPA ttotn that permit writer* chootinf to
invoke tht omaibnt permit authority of
i Z70.3:(b)(y to add condition* to • RCRA permit
mutt ihow that inch condition* are ntcemry to
eniura protection of human health and tha
environment and oniat provide tupport for the
condition* to intaraatad paitiea and accept and
rcipond to commant In addition, permit writer*
fno*t |u*tily in tha adiniiu*ualive record vupjjui line,
the pateiit any deoeioa* baaed on omnibua
authority.
considerations, rather than simply one
incinerability ranking. Thus. EPA
instead recommends that permit writers
and applicants consider these indices
and other relevant factors and use their
judgment and applicable guidance on a
case-by-case basis to select POHCs for
the trial bum.
2. Use of POHC Surrogates
A number of laboratory-scale, pilot-
scale, and field-scale tests have been
conducted to investigate the use of
nontoxic tracer surrogates (e.g, sulfur
hexafhioride (SF«)) rather than POHCs
selected from appendix VIE of part 261.
Sulfur hexafluoride, in particular, shows
promise as a conservative tracer
surrogate for compounds which are
susceptible to the thermal failure mode
(i.e.. it is difficult to destroy unless
sufficiently high temperatures are
reached). It is readily available
commercially, and is inexpensive and
nontoxic. POHCs that are listed on
appendix VOL especially in situations
where spiking is required to increase
concentrations in a waste for ORE
testing, are often difficult to obtain, are
expensive, and are a health hazard to
operators. Sampling and analysis
techniques for SF« are well documented
because of its long use as a tracer gas
for monitoring ambient air and are more
straightforward (simpler) and less
expensive than sampling techniques for
appendix VOL part 261, compounds (e.g.,
VOSTandMMS).
Numerous commenters responded to
EPA's request for information on an
approach for simplifying and
standardizing DRE testing. Commenters
supported standardization of DRE
testing provided the approach is
equitable for all boilers, industrial
furnaces, and incinerators. Comments
were received in support of all three
approaches proposed by EPA ("POHC
soup," surrogates, and specific waste
analysis). Commenters generally
supported use of surrogates in lieu of
extensive waste analysis for design of
DRE tests. Other commenters suggested
using a limited number of major waste
constituents as POHCs. such as carbon
tetrachloride. perchloroethylene.
trichloroethylene. and
monochlorobenzene. until it can be
shown that a universal surrogate, such
as sulfur hexafluoride (SF*), is
comparable in demonstrating DRE
performance. Sulfur hexafluoride was
recommended by some commenters as a
good surrogate choice based on the high
accuracy of results with the compound
and ease of use.
However, since the April 27 proposed
rule, data have become available
showing cases where other organic
compounds were more difficult to
destroy than SF* under conditions of
low oxygen. This is consistent with
theory, since SF* can be destroyed under
conditions of high temperature and low
oxygen relatively easily compared to
compounds which need oxygen to
decompose. Thus, although SF* appears
to show promise as a surrogate for
testing the thermal failure mode because
of its stability at high temperatures, it
does not appear to be adequate as a
"universal" surrogate, since it does not
test for low oxygen or "mixing" failure.
Nevertheless, today's rule explicitly
allows the use of surrogate, nontoxic
compounds for selection as POHCs for
DRE testing. As for any other type of
POHC, the use of such compounds must
be approved on a case-by-case basis by
permit officials based on technical
support provided by the applicant. The
applicant's trial burn plan must
adequately document the correlation
between the DRE of the surrogate
compound and the DREs of the
appendix Vffl compounds anticipated to
be burned at the facility under the
facility's permit.
3. Waiver of DRE Trial Bum for Boilers
Operating Under the Special Operating
Requirements
In 1987, the Agency proposed to waive
the trial burn requirement to
demonstrate DREs for boilers that
operate under special operating
requirements (SOR). The SOR required
that in addition to meeting the proposed
100 ppmv CO limit a qualifying boiler
must: (1) Burn at least 50 percent fossil
fuel in the form of oil gas, or coal; (2)
operate at a load of at least 25 percent
of its rated capacity; (3) bum hazardous
waste fuel with an as-fired heating value
of at least 8,000 Btu/lb; and (4) inject the
hazardous waste fuel through an
acceptable atomization firing system.
The SOR were based on the results of
nonsteady-state boiler testing. From
these results, the Agency believed that
boilers operating under the SOR would
maintain a hot stable flame conducive
to maintaining high combustion
efficiency, resulting in maximum
destruction of organic constituents in
the hazardous waste fuel. The Agency
believed that these boilers would
achieve at least 09.99 percent DRE, and
therefore, a trial burn to demonstrate
DRE would not be necessary.
The Agency continues to believe that
boilers operating under die SOR will
achieve 99.99 percent DRE. However.
based on comments received on the
proposed SOR and on further
examination of the previous steady-
-------
7148 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
state and nonsteady-state boiler test
results, the Agency has made the
following modifications to the SOR:
(1) Limit eligibility for the waiver to
nonstoker, watertube boilers;
(2) Revise the requirement that the
boiler fire 50 percent fossil fuel or fuels
derived from fossil fuel to include tail
oil, to allow permit officials to approve
on a case-by-case basis other
nonhazardous fuels with combustion
characteristics comparable to fossil fuel,
and to requirs for all such primary fuels
(i.e., fossil fuels, tall oil, and other fuels
approved on a case-by-case basis) a
minimum heating value of 8,000 Btu/lb;
(3) Clarify that the hazardous waste
fuel fired must have an as-fired heating
value of 8,000 Btu/lb and require that
each fuel fired in the burner where
hazardous waste is fired must have an
as-fired heating value of 8.000 Btu/lb;
(4) Increase the minimum load
requirement from 25% to 40%; and
(5) Eliminate the lower viscosity
requirements for the hazardous waste
and decrease the upper viscosity limits
for the hazardous waste to 300 seconds,
Saybolt Universal (SSU), measured at
the as-fired temperature of the fuel.
As proposed in 1987, boilers with a
trial burn waiver under the SOR must
meet the Tier I CO limit of 100 ppmv »•
and must comply with all other
requirements of the final rule (e.g.,
metals standards, PM limit).
The revised SOR are presented below,
along with the basis for the revisions.
a. The Boiler Must Be a Nonstoker,
Watertube Boiler. Commenters stated
that the nonsteady-state testing of only
three stoker and firetube boilers is
insufficient to determine whether 99.99
percent ORE would always be achieved
under the SOR. Commenten also
maintained that the stoker and firetube
boilers tested were not representative of
all types and sizes.
The Agency agrees that there is
limited data demonstrating that stoker
and firetube boilers can achieve 99.99%
ORE under the SOR. In the Agency's
steady-and nonsteady-state testing, only
three firetube boilers and one stoker
boiler were tested under steady-state
conditions, and one stoker boiler wai
tested under nonsteady-state conditions.
The remainder of the boilers tested were
watertube boilers.
The results from one of the firetube
boiler tests generally support the ability
of firetube boilers to achieve 99.99
" Boiler* complying with the Tin U PIC control*
where CO level* exceed 100 ppmv ut not eligible
for the automatic waiver of the ORE thai bum. This
it beceuie the ORE test data uaed to support the
waiver wai obtained for bollen operating at CO
level* below 100 ppmv.
percent ORE, but this boiler was
specially designed to combust
hazardous waste. The Agency is
concerned whether more conventionally
designed firetube boilers could easily
achieve this level of ORE. DREs could
not be calculated at one of the other
firetube boiler tests due to inadequate
waste feed levels, and sampling and
analytical problems occurred at the
third firetube boiler test The stoker
boiler tested under steady-state
conditions did not demonstrate 99.99
percent ORE. In addition to the limited
data for these boiler types, a greater
potential exists for poor distribution of
combustion gases and localized cold
spots in firetube and stoker boilers that
can result in poor combustion
conditions. This is because these boilers
generally burn fuels with a large and
variable particle size on a bed, thus,
making even distribution of combustion
air difficult Therefore, the final rule
precludes stoker or firetube boilers from
the automatic waiver of a ORE trial
burn.
b. A Minimum of 50 Percent of the
Fuel fired to the Boiler Must Be High
Quality "Primary" Fuel Consisting of
Fossil Fuels or Fuels Derived From
Fossil Fuels, Tall Oil, or, if Approved on
a Case-By-Case Basis, Other
Nonhazardous Fuel Comparable to
Fossil Fuel, and All Such Primary Fuels
Must Have a Minimum As-Fired
Heating Value of 8,000 Btu/lb. Thirteen
commentera found the 50 percent fossil
fuel requirement to be overly restrictive.
In particular, one commenter proposed
that the requirement be rephrased to
allow the burning of no more than 50
percent hazardous waste in mixtures
such that nonhazardous waste fuel
supplements can be fired. Another
commenter suggested eliminating the
fossil fuel requirement for wastes that
have heating values comparable to fossil
fuels. Eleven commentera supported the
burning of high quality non-fossil fuels,
such as tall oil (i.e., fuel derived from
vegetable and rosin fatty acids) and the
by-products derived from the fractional
distillation of tall oil. Many of these
commenters said they have burned
these materials and claimed they have
heating values and combustion
characteristics similar to fossil fuels.
Three commentera requested that the
burning of wood wastes as a primary
fuel be allowed. One of these
commentera presented the results from
six trial burns for wood waste boilers
which demonstrated that combustion
zone temperatures in these types of
boilers are consistent and that a hot
stable flame conducive to the
destruction of organic constituents in
the waste is present under these
conditions.
Based on the comments and
information presented regarding the use ,
of tall oil (i.e., tall oil burns like
commercial fuel oil), the Agency is
revising the 50% primary fuel
requirement to include tall oil. Also, the
Agency believes that the combustion of
other nonhazardous fuels that have
heating values of at least 8,000 Btu/lb
(representing the lower heating value
range of most sub-bituminous coals),
and combustion characteristics similar
to fossil fuels, will ensure a hot stable
flame conducive to the destruction of
organic constituents in the waste. An
owner/operator who is planning t6 burn
such a fuel supplement must present
information on the supplement's
combustion characteristics for the
Director's review. Concerning wood
wastes, the Agency continues to believe
that these wastes may not provide the
hot stable combustion zone conditions
needed to achieve 99.99 percent ORE.
Due to the higher flue gas moisture,
excess air. CO levels, and lower furnace
temperatures accociated with wood *
firing, the potential for less than 99.99
percent ORE exists. Therefore, boilers
that fire wood wastes must demonstrate
ORE capabilities through a trial burn.
The 50 percent minimum primary fuel
requirement on a total heat or volume
input basis, whichever results in the
greater volume of primary fuel, also is
needed to ensure appropriate
combustion zone conditions. This limit
was based on the maximum levels of
hazardous waste burned in the boilers
tested by EPA under nonsteady-state
conditions.
Finally, the Agency recognized that
the term "fossil fuel" can include peat or
other fuels with heating values below
8,000 Btu/lb. Because the test data used
to support the waiver were from boilers
fired with primary fuels with heating
values higher than 8,000 Btu/lb, the final
rule applies the minimum 8,000 Btu/lb
as-fired heating value limit to all fuels.
including fossil fuels, used to meet the
minimum 50% primary fuel requirement.
c. Boiler Load Must Beat Least 40
Percent Several commenters addressed
the proposed minimum load level of 25
percent Only one commenter
considered it to be too low. This
commenter advocated an 80 percent
load requirement unless high efficiency
combustion can be demonstrated at the
trial bum. One commenter considered
the 25 percent requirement to be
arbitrary, but within current practice.
Another commenter recommended that
the level be more flexible for multiple
burner boilers. One commenter
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7149
recommended that the requirement to
maintain a boiler load of 25 percent be
eliminated if the Btu value of the wastes
burned is equivalent to that of coal
thereby providing the heat input
necessary to sustain normal combustion
operations.
Boiler testing conducted at a load as
low as 28 percent has demonstrated that
certain boilers can achieve 99.99 percent
DRE when operated at low loads.
However, due to concerns related to
flame stability, combustion control, and
heat transfer effects associated with
load turndown on some boilers, the
Agency has raised the boiler load limit
from 25 percent to 40 percent of design
load. Operation of some boilers at loads
of less than 40 percent can result in
significantly higher excess air levels and
localized decreases in flame
temperatures, in addition, most of the
boilers tested to develop the operating
requirements operated at loads above
40%. Therefore, limiting the boiler to 40%
is more consistent with the available
test data. If an owner/operator expects
to operate a unit at a lower load while
firing hazardous waste, a thai bum to
demonstrate 99.99 percent DRE is
required.
d. The Heating Value of the
Hazardous Waste Fuel Must Be at Least
3.000 Btu/lb. As-Fired, and Each Fuel
Fired in a Burner Where Hazardous
Waste Is Fired Must Have a Heating
Value of at Least 8.000 Btu/lb. As-Fired.
Eleven commenten expressed concern
that the "as-fired" requirement proposed
in 1987 will require the blending of
wastes that have heating values of less
•nan 8,000 Btu/lb with other wastes
and/or tne primary fuel before
atomization. Four commenters
documented a number of problems with
blending low Btu wastes, including
immisciuility and other mixing
problems, increased quantity of
materials requiring handling, difficulty
of controlling feed during unit upsets.
and impracticality for coal-fired
systems. Five commenters requested
that the heating value be determined on
a total-burner basis, as a composite of
primary fuel and waste. Three
additional commenters recommended
that the minimum heating value of
wastes be lowered to 5.000 Btu/lb.
The Agency agrees that waste fuel
blending can present problems in some
instances. However, the Agency is
concerned that allowing low Btu wastes
to be fired separately from the fuel and
then atomized in the flame region of the
burner might make it difficult to ensure
good atomization. proper feed system
operation, and. consequently, adequate
combustion of the hazardous waste.
Therefore, the 8.000 Btu/lb requirement,
which represents the lower range of
heating values of fossil fuels, applies to
the as-fired heating value of the
hazardous waste and to the as-fired
heating value of any other fuel fired in
the same burner with the hazardous
waste.17
If hazardous waste with a heating
value below 8.000 Btu/lb " is mixed with
the "primary" fuel to meet the as-fired
minimum heating value for hazardous
waste of 8.000 Btu/lb, that quantity of
primary fuel may not be counted toward
the 50% primary fuel requirement. This
is because the purpose of requiring 50%
of the fuel to be "primary" fuel is to
ensure a hot stable flame to combust
the hazardous waste. If a portion of the
primary fuel is blended with the
hazardous waste to increase the heating
value of the hazardous waste as-fired.
then that portion of the primary fuel is
not providing the hot. stable flame.
The following example shows how
this requirement will work. Suppose a
boiler is fired with 70% primary fuel arid
30% hazardous waste, and that half of
the primary fuel is blended with the
hazardous waste to achieve an as-fired
heating value of 8.000 Btu/lb. This boiler
would not be eligible for the automatic
waiver of the DRE trial bum because it
is fired with only 35% primary fuel (half
of the 70%) that is not blended with the
hazardous waste to meet the minimum
as-fired heating value limit of 8,000 Btu/
Ib.
e. The Hazardous Waste Must Be
Fired with an Atomization System.
Seven commenten argued that lower
viscosity limits are unnecessary. Three
commenters stated that it is common to
atomize wastes well below 150-200 SSU,
and that No. 2 oil has a viscosity of 32.8-
37.9 SSU at 100 'F. One commenter
indicated that the upper viscosity limits
appear high for the atomization systems
specified. One commenter disagreed and
said that the high limits are in the
correct range. Six commenten
expressed concern that the particle size
limits are overly restrictive. One
" W« noli that the 8.000 Btu/lb minimum heating
value also applies (o the "primary" fuel that mutt
comprise it leest 50* of the boiler'* fuel
requirement*. However, the remainder of the
boiler'i fuel requirement! mey be provided by
hazardout waate and other fuel*. There ire no
restrictions on the other hwli unlet* they era Tired
in the tome burner witn the hazardous wait*. In
that case, thoee other fueli. like the hazardous
wane and "primary" fuel must have a minimum
heating value of 6.000 Btu/lb.
11 We no:e that at diicuated elsewhere in the
text, the them recycling policy stay* into effect until
an cxistmi facility certifies compliance with the
emission* standard* (see I 266-NXHc)). Thus, until
that tune, hazardous waste burned in a B1F must
have an aa-geneialed heating value of 5.000 Btu/lb.
unless the wast* is burned solely a* an ingredient.
commenters stated that diverse waste
streams can be handled to achieve good
destruction without particle size limits.
Another commenter disagreed with EPA
by stating that they are not familiar with
nozzles designed for particle sizes as
small as 200 mesh. Three commenten
said the waste viscosity should be left to
the discretion of the owner/opera tor
since it is industry practice to operate at
viscosities which provide optimum
atomization.
Based on the commenters' arguments.
the Agency has eliminated the lower
viscosity requirements and reduced the
upper limit to 300 SSU (Seconds, Saybolt
Universal) measured at the as-fired
temperature of the hazardous waste. We
eliminated the lower level because, after
consideration of comments and re-
evaluation, we believe that the concern
stated at proposal—formation of a fog at
low viscosity levels which could result
in poor combustion conditions—is not
likely to occur. At proposal, the Agency
established upper viscosity limits
ranging from 300 to 5.000 SSU. *
depending on the type of atomization
system. Commenters noted that, as a
practical matter, wastes with ai-fired
viscosities greater than 300 are not fired
in an atomization system. These
modifications will give facilities the
flexibility to preheat wastes before
atomization and are consistent with
general industry practice for good
atomization.
Regarding particle size limits the final
rule establishes the proposed limits.
When high pressure air or steam
atomizers, low pressure atomizers, or
mechanical atomizers, 70% of the waste
must pass a 200 mesh (74 micron)
screen. When a rotary cup atomizer is
used. 70% of the waste must pass a 100
mesh (150 micron) screen. These mesh
sizes are consistent with the design
droplet size of the atomizers.
Owners/operators of boilers who
propose to fire hazardous waste outside
these viscosity and particle size limits
must conduct a DRE trial burn.
B. PIC Controls
The burning of hazardous waste, like
virtually any combustion process,
results in emissions of incompletely
burned organic compounds, or products
of incomplete combustion (PICs). PICs
can be unbumed organic compounds
that were present in the waste, thermal
decomposition products resulting from
organic constituents in the waste, or
compounds synthesized during or
immediately after combustion. If a
device is operated under poor
combustion conditions, substantial
emissions of PICs can result (even if
-------
7150 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
99.99% ORE is demonstrated for POHCs;
this just means that the POHC is not
being emitted in its original form).
However, it should be noted that
estimates of risk to public health
resulting from PICs, based on available
emissions data, indicate that PIC
emissions do not pose significant risks
when BIFs and incinerators are operated
under good combustion conditions.
Nonetheless, the Agency is concerned
about the potential health risk from PICs
because the available information has
serious limitations. It is very difficult to
identify and quantify emissions of
thousands of different compounds, some
of which are present in minute
quantities. Although elaborate and
expensive sampling and analytical
techniques have been developed that
can identify many PICs, many others
cannot be identified and quantified with
current techniques. Further, health
effects information adequate to conduct
a health risk assessment considering
exposure via direct inhalation is not
currently available on many organic
compounds that may be emitted from
combustion systems. Finally, the
available public health and
environmental risk assessment tools are
incomplete. Data ere currently available
to conduct indirect exposure analyses
(e.g., exposure via the food chain,
drinking water, dermal exposure) on
only a few orsanic compounds, and it
will be some time before the Agency
will be able to quantify impacts on
ecological resources on a site-specific
basis for purposes of establishing
emissions standards.
Given the limited information about
the hazards that PIC emissions may
pose. EPA believes it is prudent to
require that boilers and industrial
furnaces operate at a high combustion
efficiency to minimize PIC emissions.
EPA is promulgating today a two-
tiered approach to control PICs as
discussed in the October 29.1989.
supplemental notice (54 FR 43721-28).
Under Tier I. CO is limited to 100 ppmv.
Under Tier II. the Agency is providing
an alternative standard. The facility
need not meet the 100 ppmv CO limit
provided the facility can demonstrate
that the hydrocarbon (HC)
concentration in the stack gas does not
exceed a good operating practice-based
limit of 20 ppmv. The alternative CO
limit under Tier II must be established
during the test burn based on the
average over all runs of the highest
hourly rolling average for each run.
1. Use of a CO Limit to Control PICs.
Generally accepted combustion
theory hold* that low CO flue gas levels
combined with low CO flue gas levels
combined with low excess oxygen levels
indicate a boiler, industrial furnace, or
incinerator is operating at high
combustion efficiency. Operating under
high combustion efficiency helps to
ensure minimum emissions of unturned
(or incompletely burned) organics. In the
first stage of the combustion of
hazardous waste fuel, the POHCs
thermally decompose in the flame to
form other, usually smaller, compounds
termed products if incomplete
combustion. In this first stage of
combustion, these PICs also decompose
to form CO.
The second stage of combustion
involves the oxidation of CO to COt
(carbon dioxide). The CO to CCs step is
the slowest (rate-controlling) step in the
combustion process because CO is
considered to be more thermally stable
(difficult to oxidize) than other
intermediate products of the combustion
of hazardous waste constituents.
Because fuel is being fired continuously,
these combustion stages occur
simultaneously.
Thus, in the waste combustion
process, the "destruction" of POHCs is
independent of flue gas CO levels. CO
flue gas levels cannot be correlated with
DREs for POHCs, and may also not
correlate well with PIC destruction.
Although some emissions data indicate
a weak correlation between CO and
PICs, the data generally indicate that
there is a relationship between the two
parameters: When CO is low. PIC
emissions are relatively low. The
converse may not hold: when CO is
high, PICs may or may not be high.
Low CO is an indicator of the status
of the CO to COj conversion process.
the last rate-limiting oxidation process.
Because oxidation of CO to COt occurs
after the destruction of a POHC and its
(other) intermediates (PICs), the absence
of CO is a useful indication of POHC
and PIC destruction. The presence of
high levels of CO in the flue gas is a
useful indication of inefficient
combustion, and at some level of
elevated CO flue gas concentration, is
an indication of the failure of the PIC
and POHC destruction process.
EPA believes it is necessary to limit
CO levels to levels that are indicative of
high combustion efficiency because the
precise CO level that indicates
significant failure of the PIC and POHC
destruction process is not known. In
fact, this critical CO level may depend
on site-specific and event-specific
factors (e.g., fuel type, fuel mix, air-to-
fuel ratios, and the rate and extent of
changes in these and other factors that
affect combustion efficiency). EPA
believes that limiting CO levels is also
reasonable because: (1) It is a widely
practiced approach for monitoring
combustion efficiency—some boilers
and industrial furnaces are already
equipped with CO monitors, and many
are equipped with flue gas oxygen
monitors; (2) the monitors may pay for
themselves through fuel savings
resulting from operation of the boiler or
industrial furnace closer to maximum
combustion efficiency; and (3) well-
designed and well-operated boilers and
industrial furnaces can readily be
operated in conformance with either the
100 ppmv CO limit under Tier I. or the 20
ppmv HC limit under Tier II.
2. Tier I PIC Controls: 100 ppmv CO
Limit
a. Basis for the 100ppmv CO Limit.
The May 6,1987 proposed rule would
have applied the same CO emission
limits to all boilers and industrial
furnaces: a lower limit of 100 ppmv over
an hourly rolling average and a 500.
ppmv limit over a 10-minute roiling
average. The hazardous waste feed
would be shut off automatically if either
limit was exceeded. However, the
hazardous waste would be cutoff
immediately once the 500 ppmv limit
was exceeded while the waste feed
would be cutoff within 10 minutes if the
100 ppmv limit was exceeded. Further if
the hazardous waste feed was cutoff
more than 10 times in a month, the
proposed rule would have prohibited
further hazardous waste burning
pending review and approval by
enforcement officials. The lower limit of
100 ppmv was selected as representative
of steady-state high efficiency
combustion conditions resulting in PIC
emissions that would not pose a
significant risk. The higher limit of 500
ppmv was proposed to limit the
frequency of emission spikes that
inevitably accompany routine
operational "upsets." such as load
changes and start-ups of waste firing.
While two commenters stated that the
proposed 100 ppmv CO limit is arbitrary,
six commenters supported the Tier I CO
limit of 100 ppmv. One commenter
supported both the 100 ppmv CO limit
over an hourly rolling average, and the
500 ppmv CO limit over a 10-minute
rolling average. Three additional
commenters also expressed support for
the 500 ppmv CO limit over a 10-minute
rolling average. Three other commenters
supported a 500 ppmv CO limit over an
hourly rolling average, and stated that a
maximum 1,000 ppmv CO limit can be
included in addition to a 10-minute
average.
Many commenters opposed the CO
trigger limits and associated limits on
the number of waste feed cutoffs
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7151
proposed in May 1987. Primarily.
commenters objected to one set of CO
emission limits as applicable to all
boilers and industrial furnaces. Further.
they argued that PIC emissions will not
be significant if. when the waste feed is
cutoff, the combustion chamber
temperatures are maintained while the
waste remains in the chamber. Six
commenters argued that the trigger
limits will result in increased NO,
emissions. One commenter stated that
NO, and CO cannot be lowered
simultaneously, and added that many
low NO, boilers may not be able to meet
these CO limits. As an alternative, one
commenter stated that a higher Tier I
CO limit should be allowed for less
toxic emissions; however, this
commenter did not provide an
alternative approach for identifying the
toxicity of emissions. One commenter
suggested that EPA retain two
alternatives to the CO standard:
establishing an alternative standard
based on nonmethane. ethane
hydrocarbon (NMEHC) emissions, and a
case-by-case risk assessment approach.
As a result of these and other
comments and further evaluation. EPA
is promulgating the Tier 1 limits based
on a maximum hourly rolling average
CO limit of 100 ppmv. corrected to 7
percent flue gas oxygen content. If this
limit is exceeded, the hazardous waste
feed must be automatically and
immediately cutoff. The final rule does
not restrict the number of waste feed
cutoffs because: (1) Combustion
chamber temperatures must be
maintained after a cutoff; and (2) the
number of cutoffs will be minimized by
allowing CO concentrations to be
averaged over a 60-minute period (i.e..
the hourly rolling average) and by the
recommended use of pre-alanns to
provide time to remedy the problem or
to allow a staged waste cutoff before
reaching the CO limit. Nonetheless, the
Agency retains the authority to limit the
frequency of cutoffs as the facts
warrant. See 5 266.102(e)(7)(ii). The final
rule does not include the proposed 500
ppmv rolling average over a 10-minute
limit on CO because we do not believe it
is needed given that the final rule
requires immediate waste feed cutoff
when the 100 ppmv hourly rolling
average limit is exceeded. In addition,
several commenters argued that the 500
ppmv limit was arbitrary.
In addition. EPA it promulgating
alternative (Tier II) standards (discussed
below), as discussed in the October 1989
supplemental notice, for control of PIC
emissions from boilers and industrial
furnaces. The Agency believes that the
alternative controls will allow facilities
flexibility in meeting both the PIC
controls and NO, emissions standards
(imposed under different regulatory
authorities) simultaneously. The Agency
believes that the alternative, Tier II
standards for control of PIC emissions
are needed to address issues and
concerns raised by commenters on the
proposed rule.
The 100 ppmv CO limit promulgated
today for Tier I is indicative of steady-
state (i.e.. normal), efficient combustion
conditions. The time-weighted average
for the CO limit is provided to
accommodate the CO spikes that
inevitably occur during routine "upsets,"
such as when hazardous waste fuel
firing starts, when there is a load change
on an industrial boiler, or when the
composition of fuels varies. Given that
CO is a sensitive indicator of overall
combustion conditions, and that it may
be a conservative indicator of POHC
and PIC destruction. EPA is
implementing CO control limits based
on time-weighted averages of
exceedances rather than implementing
fixed CO limits. Fixed limits that do not
acknowledge inevitable CO spikes and
that do not give owners and operators
time to adjust combustion conditions
actually could result in greater
emissions of PICs because each time
hazardous waste firing is interrupted,
CO concentrations increase, and
emissions of incompletely burned
organics may also increase. (Note,
however, that there is a requirement to
maintain combustion chamber
temperature after a waste feed cutoff
while waste remains in the chamber that
is intended to minimize HC emissions
after a cutoff.) Thus, any controls on CO
must balance the effects of organic
emissions that may result from overly
stringent CO limits that require frequent
waste feed interruptions with the effects
of emissions resulting from less stringent
controls that acknowledge inevitable
CO spikes.
The Agency has considered whether
the 100 ppmv CO limit is. in fact, too
stringent given that we acknowledge the
limit was chosen from within the range
of reasonable values that may be
considered indicative of good
combustion conditions—50 to 250 ppmv.
We attempted to obtain CO/time
profiles from a number of well-operated
devices to determine the percentage of
time the facilities operated within
particular CO ranges.1* We thought to
use this data to predict the frequency of
waste feed cutoffs that would be
required at various CO limits.
Unfortunately, the analyses could not be
conducted because the facilities we
evaluated were operating under specific
CO limits and their CO levels never
exceeded those limits when burning
hazardous waste. We found that the
facilities learned to comply with the CO
limits they had to meet.
Moreover, we believe that the 100
ppmv CO limit is reasonable for a
number of reasons. Not only is it within
the range of CO levels that are
indicative of good combustion
conditions, but the Agency believes that
it is not too low because: (1) It is higher
than the technology-based 50 ppmv CO
level EPA requires for boilers burning
waste PCBs (see 40 CFR part 761); (2) it
is higher than the CO limits included in
many hazardous waste incinerator
permits; 20 (3) the Agency explicitly
encourages the use of pre-alanns to
minimize the frequency of automatic
waste feed cutoffs:" and (4) the.limit is
implemented on an hourly rolling
average basis which allows and
minimizes the effects of short-term CO
spikes.
We also note that the Agency may
soon promulgate regulations for
municipal waste combustors (MWCs)
that among other controls, may limit CO
concentrations to 50,100. or 150 ppmv
(as proposed), depending on the type of
MWC over a four hour rolling average
and dry-corrected to 7% oxygen. The
MWC limits are technology-based—they
represent levels readily achievable by
well-designed and well-operated units.
EPA does not believe that the MWC
limits present a conflict with the 100
ppmv (with provisions for an alternative
higher limit if HC concentrations are
less than 20 ppmv) limit for BIFa under
today's rule. The Agency is confident
that the BIF rule is protective because
the Agency has determined that when
CO levels are less than 100 ppmv, PIC
emissions do not pose significant risk.
Thus, although the 100 ppmv limit is not
a best demonstrated technology-based
limit (many BIFs (and hazardous waste
incinerators) readily operate at CO
levels well below 100 ppmv). the 100
'• Energy and Environmental Raeearch
Corporation. "Guidance on MtUl end PIC
Emistions from Haxardoua Waite bidneraton".
Final Report September 21.1990.
•• Wt noti that the Agency propoted on April 27.
1990 to apply to hazardous watte incineraton the
•erne CO/HC limit* that today'! rule applie* to
BIFa.
*> If the CO limit ia "too low" for a given facility'*
detign and operatins condition*, then frequent
watte feed cutofft may occur. Frequent watte feed
cutoffi may actually increaae PIC eminloni
becaute the mulling perturbation to the
combuition ivitem may upaet the temperature.
oxygen, fuel relationahipt needed for complete
combuition.
-------
7152 Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 35 / Tharsday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Reguiatkafl
ppmv CO limit will ensure protection of
human health and the environment.
As stated above, the CO limits are
based on a flue gas oxygen content of 7
percent One commenter indicated that
EPA's reasoning for using the CO
correction of 7 percent oxygen is not
clear. The commenter believes the 7
percent correction factor is unfair for
thermal units which, under normal
conditions, need to operate at oxygen
levels greater than 7 percent, yet operate
with low levels of CO and HCa. EPA
believes that correcting CO Ieveh for
flue gas oxygen conlm! is necessary
because without this correction, high CO
flue gas concentrations could be dftnted
by high rates of excess oxygen, in
today's rute. EPA is requiring that CO be
corrected to a fine gas oxygen content of
7 percent because the majority of boilers
and industrial furnaces achieve high
combustion efficiency at optimum floe
gas oxygen levels Tanging from S percent
to 10 percent The optinmm oxygen level
to achieve high combustion efficiency
for « given device will vary depending
on factors such M fuel mix and boiler
load. In general, large combustion
devices (in terms of heat input capacity)
have optimum oxygen requirements on
the low end of the range of oxygen
content while smaller units require
higher oxygen levels. EPA believe* that
a correction level of 7 percent is
reasonable since this oxygen level is in
the middle of the range of typical
operation for ail devices and since the
majority of devices burning hazardous
waste fuels have moderate neat input
capacities (e«, 20-150 MM Btn/hr). In
addition, 7 percent oxygen is the
reference level for the existing
particuiate standard for hazardous
waste iodneraton under 40 CFR
264.343(c).
Moreover, the oxygen level to which
CO values ere corrected is not
significant since the CO levels far all
facilities ere corrected to a common
basic. If the oxygen catrection,
were changed from 7% to aome other
value, then theoretically, die CO limit
would have to be edjueted eooordinglf,
aad the effect on individual iaciHJties
would remain the same.
b. Itnpl^ffy>tit«Han of tha JQO ppmY CO
Limit The procedures used to '•"p1*""*^
the 100 ppmv CO limit are discussed
below, including oxygen and moisture
Correction, fnrm»t of the Hmti, mnit
compliance with the omit
Oxygen andMoitture Correction. The
CO tentt mder Tier I (and Tier fl)is on a
dry gas basis corrected to 1 percent
oxygen. The oxygen
combustion devices. In-system leakage,
facility size, and waste feed type an
other factors that cause oxygen
concentrations to vary widely in flue
gases and were considered in selection
of the oxygen correction factor. The
correction for moisture normalizes the
CO data that results from the different
types of CO monitors used at facilities
(e.g., extractive, in situ. etc.). EPA's
evaluation indicates that application of
the oxygen and moisture corrections can
change measured CO levels by a factor
of two in some cases.
Measured CO levels mast be
corrected continuously for the amount of
oxygen to the stack gas according to the
formula:
COt-CO.xl4/(E-Y)
When:
CO. to the corrected concentration of CO in
taiataok gas. CO, is the meeenmd CO
•pvdfiad ia Method* Manuel for
Compliance with theJUFBagalatiens
(Methods Manuel]n, £Is the percentage
of oxygen contained in the air used lor
combustion, end Y Is the ewswunu
uxygaa coBcertntkm on a dry basis to
the stack. Oxygen mast be awajured at
the same stack location at whka CO is
laeaiiifed lader procedure* that ae» also
provided in the Method* Minna I
Format of the CO */«"*- EPA
proposed that the CO limits be
I nnrlor either of two
alternative formats, the .hourly rolling
average format or the time-above-a-limit
format Under this approach.
would select the preferred approach on
a case-by-case basis. Comments were
received in support of both alternative
formats. Based on further evaluation of
the two formats and tor reasons
explained below, EPA It requiring use of
the horary rolling average format tor
compihmoe vrith this rule.
Under the hourly Tolling average
rennet, afacility must measure and
record CO levels as an hourly rolling
aval age. This approach allows
instantaneous CO peaks without
requiring a cutoff provided that at other
tines during dw previous hour CO
levels were correspondingly below the
limit This approach requires a CO
moaetoring system that can oontinaoualy
measure end adfast the oxygen
correction factor and compote the
,
Under the proposed time-e
bmtt format dual CO limihi woaki be
established in the peantt me first ae a
never-to-exoeed limit aad ftbe eecand as
a lower matt far cumulative
eyreedaacesof no moretaaa a specified
period of time to aa hour. These limits
and the time duration, of the
exceedaaces would be established oa e
case-by-case basis by equating the mass
emissions (peak areas) in both the
forauts (time-abo*e-a4imii and hourly
rolling avenge formats) so that the
regulation womld be equally stringent ia
both cases. The installments needed for
the tirae-above^a-limit format would
include a CO monitor, a recorder, and a
timer that could indicate me oimalative
time of exceedaaces ki every clock how,
at the end of which it woaid fae
recalibrated (manually or
electronically}. Oxygen would not fae
measured continuously in this format:
instead aa oxygen correction factor
would be determined from operating
data nofloctod during the trial bum.
Subsequently, oxygen correction factor*
would be determined aonimUy or at
moos frequent intervaJe specified in the
facility permit
ERA has re-examined Ae time-above-
tbe-limrt format ia light ef several
comments received aad has decided to
delete due alternative in today'* final
naeoeeaase:
1. Steot e nKjftty woaM not be lequiied te>
mtaswe u*mea eononuansly under tMs
fenaeC tbant weald fae ao assaEseot that a
facility-wedd ee onmed ia**on«aly dose
to tht oxyeta level at which •topentea'
dvriaf the trial eum. Evan with a daily
detexmkuuon of an oxygen camctioa factor.
then would b> tke postibiliry of "gaming" by
the facility (operating tht facility at low
oxygen levels during the inert test period
whtn the oxygen is meiiund, getting •
favorable correction factor ntabUshed on ths
basis. «n tait faout
woaldjamon this adMntage as w«U: aad
2, Xoe ptoposad y**"*pM**^>f*a for
converting hoarly raOiafavataias to this
fomut would bt cumbettom*. inaxact and
above ail voy restrictive. To obtain a
conservative coarmion. a permit writer
weaU have to **nme that CO tovris will
tee CO dele to e
ise, accounting for the venation «
design end operation of tin various
•• US. B>fi.M»thodi Manual for Complianc»
with th» BIP Regulation*. December IflBtt Aveileble
froej the Nettanel loIancUao Senriee N1BV 82S5
Part Jtoyel Hoed. Sprt^eld. VA XUBL pm) 4S7-
4SaD.ThedocumeDtauaiberiiJ>BSi-UD-oaB.
nssseiat fts •HsbBshea' as»ei
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7153
Compliance with the Tier I CO Limit.
The Agency considered a number of
alternative approaches for evaluating
CO readings during trial burns to
determine compliance with the 100
ppmv limit, including: (1) The time-
weighted average (or the average of the
hourly rolling averages); (2] the average
of the highest hourly rolling averages for
all trial burn runs; or (3) the highest
hourly rolling average. The time-
weighted average alternative provides
the lowest CO level that could
reasonably be used to determine
compliance, and the highest hourly
rolling average alternative provides the
highest CO level that could reasonably
be used. EPA is requiring the use of the
most conservative of these approaches,
the highest hourly rolling average
approach, for interpreting trial burn CO
emissions for compliance with the 100
ppmv Tier I limit (This approach is
conservative because trial burn CO
levels are compared to the maximum
CO allowed under Tier I—100 ppmv.)
EPA believes this conservative
approach is reasonable since
compliance with the Tier I CO limit
allows applicants to avoid the Tier II
requirement of evaluating HC emissions
to provide the additional assurance (or
confirmation) that HC emissions do not
exceed levels representative of good
operating practice.
3. Tier II PIC Controls: Limits on CO and
HC
a. Need for Tier II PIC Controls.
Commenters indicated that several
types of boilers and many cement kilns
will not be able to meet the (Tier I) 100
ppmv CO limit proposed in May 1967
even though HC concentrations will not
be high at elevated CO levels. For
example, boilers that bum residual oil or
coal typically operate with CO emission
levels above the Tier 1100 ppmv CO
limit because of inherent fuel
combustion characteristics, equipment
design constraints, routine transient
combustion-related events, requirements
for multiple fuel flexibility, and
requirements for compliance with NO,
emission standards established under
the Clean Air Act Attempts to reduce
CO emissions from these devices to
meet the Tier I limit could prove
unsuccessful. In addition, there is a
possibility that thermal efficiency could
be adversely affected if these attempts
are successful.
Similarly, industry and trade groups
for the cement industry voiced strong
opposition to the 100 ppmv CO limit for
cement kilns. These commenters
indicated that some cement kilns.
especially modem precalciners,
routinely emit CO above the Tier 1100
ppmv limit In general, commenters
indicated that while the Tier I limit may
be appropriate for combustion devices
in which only fuel (fossil or hazardous
waste) enters the combustion chamber.
it is inappropriate for cement kilns and
other product kilns in which massive
amounts of feedstocks are processed.
These feedstocks can generate large
quantities of CO emissions which are
unrelated to the combustion efficiency
of burning the waste and fuel. Whereas
all the CO from boilers and some
industrial furnaces is combustion-
generated, the bulk of the CO from
product kirns can be the result of
process events unrelated to the
combustion conditions at the burner
where wastes are introduced.19
Therefore, limiting CO emissions from
these combustion devices to the Tier I
100 ppmv level may be difficult and may
not be warranted as a means of
minimizing risk from PICs.
In summary, commenters argued that
these are specific instances and classes
of combustion devices for which the
Tier I CO limit would be difficult or
virtually impossible to meet and thus
this limit is inappropriate since EPA has
not established a direct correlation
between CO emissions, PIC emissions.
and health risks.
In light of these concerns, commenters
suggested that EPA establish CO limits
for specific categories of combustion
devices based on CO levels achieved by
units operating under best operating
practices (BOP). The Agency considered
this approach but determined that
equipment-specific CO trigger limits
would be difficult to establish and
support and would not necessarily
provide adequate protection from PIC
emissions. Nonetheless, EPA believes
that the CO limits should be flexible to
avoid major economic impacts on the
regulated community since no direct
correlation has been established
between exceeding the 100 ppmv CO
limit and increasing health risks from
PIC emissions. EPA believes, however.
that at some elevated CO level PIC
emissions would pose significant risk.
At this time. EPA is unable to identify •
precise CO trigger level since the trigger
level may vary by the type and design of
the combustion device and the fuel mix
used in the device. Consequently, EPA
has established a two-tiered approach to
control PICs. Under Tier I. CO is limited
to 100 ppmv or less, as discussed above.
Under Tier II. CO levels can exceed 100
ppmv provided that the owner or
operator demonstrate that the HC
concentration in the stack gas does not
exceed a good operating practice-based
limit of 20 ppmv (except that the
Director may establish under
5 266.104(f) an alternative HC limit for
furnaces that feed raw material
containing organic matter and. thus.
cannot meet the 20 ppmv limit).
Under Tier II. the CO limit for a
facility is based on the levels achieved
during a successful compliance test. The
Agency originally proposed two
alternative approaches for establishing
HC emission limits under the Tier II
waiver, a health-based approach and a
technology-based approach. These two
alternatives and EPA's rationale for
selecting the technology-based approach
for the final rule are discussed below.
Before moving to those discussions.
however, it may be useful to summarize
the conclusions of an evaluation by
EPA's Science Advisory Board of the
proposed PIC controls.
b. Comments by EPA's Science'
Advisory Board (SAB). We present
below a summary of SAB's
conclusions *• on the scientific support
for EPA's proposed PIC controls and
EPA's response:
• SAB: The Agency has not
documented that PICs from hazardous
waste combustion can cause significant
health risk to human health or the
environment.
—EPA Response: While the Agency
agrees that available data do not
show that PICs are likely to pose a
significant health risk. EPA's
emissions testing to date has been
able to identify and quantify only as
much as 60% of the organic
compounds being emitted during any
test During many of EPA's tests, less
than 5 to 10% of organic emissions
were characterized. The Agency is
concerned that this large fraction of
uncharacterized organic emissions
could be comprised of compounds that
can pose significant health risk.
Therefore, the Agency believes that
PICs have the potential to present a
hazard and should be controlled.
• SAB: It is prudent to control PICs
given the inability to show that they do
not pose a health risk because of
limitations of sampling and analytical
techniques and health and
environmental impact assessment data
and methodologies.
•' For example. CO on bt fenerated from UM
trace levela of organic matter eonUiMd in the raw
material! aa UM matariala man down the kila from
UM "cold" feed md to the "hot" tad where UM fual
and watt* if find and the product to dUchaifed.
•• U.S. EPA. "Raport of tht Product! of
Incompltut CombuitioB Subcommittee of the
Science Advieory Board". Report *EPA-SAB-£C-
80-004, laouary 1900.
-------
Ftdarsd Ragutor / VoL 56. No. 35 / Thursday, Febraary 21. 1891 / Rules and
7155
trial bom cannot exctcd 20 ppmv
(except as otherwise provided for
[furnaces feeding raw materials
Containing organic matter), reported as_
propane, corrected to 7% oxygen on a
dry basis.
The Agency considered whether to
establish provision for a case-by-case
waiver of the 23 ppmv KG limit based
either on health-risk assessment or
technical feasibility (i.e.. feasibility of
providing combustion conditions to
minimize fciei-senerated HQ. The final
rule does not provide for a waiver of the
20 ppmv HC Unit as an indicator of
ireod ccrr.bastion conditions and
minuTum fuel-generated PIC emissions.
(The final rule does, however, allow the
Director to establish under the part B
permit proceedings an alternative HC
limit for industrial furnaces (e.g, cement
kilns, lieht-wfiipht aggregate kilns) to
account for hydrocarbons that are
emitted from trace levels of organic
matter in the raw material. Any
alternative HC limit established for a
furnace wul ensure that fuel-generated
hydrocarbons (hazardous waste and
ether fuels) are less than 20 ppmv by
establishing the HC limit based on HC
concentrations when the system is
desicned and operated under good
combustion conditions without burning
hazardous waste.17 See section ILJL5 of
kPart Three of this preamble for more
'discussion of the alternative HC limit lor
industrial furnaces.)
EPA did not provide a waiver of the
HC limit in the final rule because: (1)
The Agency believes, and SAB concurs.
that a site-specific, health risk
assessment approach to establishing HC
limits (e-g., a waiver of the 20 ppmv
Hmit) is not scientifically supportable:
and (2) a technology-based waiver is not
supportable because well-designed and
operated hazardous waste combustion
devices can readily meet a 20 ppmv HC
limit
Several commenters disagreed with
EPA that both CO and HC should be
monitored, stating that it is unnecessary
• o monitor CO if HC is monitored. The
.\a«icy continues to believe that it is
*?asonable to require both CO and HC
monitoring when CO levels exceed 100
-omv. When CO levels exceed the Tirr i
;evel. the facility is not operating at hirJi
combustion efficiency and the ncrcntiai
• or high PIC emissions exists. The
Agency believes that since CO
monitoring is a widely practiced
approach {or improving and monitoring
«irif^ QQ
•' Wt ami that ttti* approach ahould Unit ruti-
^cttrattd hydrocarbon oanoimraaans to wall
br:'...v» 20 ppmv btcauta futi-gmmttd
'•.V lirocarbcr.i frrm • wtU-dtmsntd and optntad
c.-rctnt or csr.t-wcsbi •gsnsBtt loin •hould not
< xcatu a ppmv.
emission levels may respond more
quickly to process upsets than HC
levels, the apparent redundancy in
requiring both CO and HC monitoring is
warranted to ensure protection of
human health.
Another commenter added that HC
monitoring could be supplemented by
frequent testing for common PICs that
respond poorly to HC monitors, such as
carbon tetrachloride. formaldehyde.
perchlorethylene, and chlorobenzene. At
this time, the Agency believes that
continuous HC monitoring combined
with CO monitoring is adequate in most
cases to detect when the facility is
operating under combustion upset
conditions (this is another reason.
however, that monitoring both CO and
HC is reasonable when CO levels
exceed the level normally indicative of
good combustion— 100 ppmv). We note
that as discussed in section fJ.D below
the final rule requires a hot HC
monitoring system (Le., unconditioned
gas sample heated to a minimum of ISO
*C) which ensures m'"irmim loss of
organic compounds. Nonetheless, the
Agency is currently developing sampling
and analytical techniques to
continuously monitor indicator organic
compounds such as more suggested by
the commenter.
e. Basis for Firm! Rule. EPA believes
that the 20 ppmv HC limit in the final
rule for the Tier n PIC controls is
representative of an HC limit that
distinguishes between good and poor
combustion conditions. (When a facility
operates under poor combustion
conditions. PIC emissions can increase
and may result in adverse health effects
to exposed individuals.) This HC limit is
within the range of values reported in
the Agency's data base for hazardous
waste incinerators, boilers, and
industrial furnaces that bum hazardous
waste, and the limit is also protective of
human health based on risk assessments
conducted for 30 incinerators. See 34 FR
43723. Under Tier II. HC must be
monitored continuously, recorded en an
hourly rolling average basis, reported as
ppmv propane, and corrected to 7
percent oxygen on a dry basis. In
addition, CO must be monitored
continuously, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen on a dry basis, recorded on e.r.
uourly rolling average basis, and may
not exceed the limit established during
the test bum (i.e.. the average over all
runs of the highest hourly rolling
average for each run).
4. Special Requirements for Furnaces
The final rule provides several special
requirements for industrial furnaces
stemming from the fact mat: (1) Some
industrial furnace*, notably cemant
kilns, are not able to meet the 20 ppmv
HC limit because trace levels of organic
matter in raw materials can emit
substantial levels of hydrocarbons: and
(2) the PIC controls may not be
protective for furnaces (e-g.. cement
kilns and mineral wool cupolas) that
feed hazardous waste at locations other
than where normal fuels are fired. These
special requirements are discussed
below.
a. Alternative HC Limit EPA
requested comment on whether
alternative HC limits may be
appropriate for certain industrial
furnaces. See 54 FR 43724 {Oct 28.1989)
A number of commenters *• requested
that EPA allow cement loins, light-
weight aggregate kilns, and lime kilns
that cannot meet the 20 ppmv HC limit
because of the hydrocarbons generated
by trace levels of organic materials in
the normal raw materials to establish a
site-specific alternative HC limit that
does not allow HC levels when burning
hazardous waste to be significantly
higher than when burning normal fuels.
processing normal raw materials, and
producing normal products in a system
that is designed and operated to
minimize hydrocarbon concentrations in
stack gas. Nineteen commenters pointed
out that baseline HC emrnion levels
from cement kilns can be attributed to
the naturally-occurring raw materials
that are used in the production of
cement Use of shale as a raw material.
for example, can result in HC emissions
from kerogens in the shale. Use of fly
ash as a source of iron and silica could
result in increased CO emissions from
partial oxidation of free carbon in the fly
ash. Commenters claim that
approximately 6 to 10 cement plants
may not be able to comply with the HC
limit of 20 ppmv even though they
generate minimal HC from sources other
than raw materials (e.g.. hazardous
waste fuels, other fuels, organic
compounds in slurry water). The organic
compounds in normal raw materials
would not ordinarily be hazardous, so
.hat their emissions (e.g., through
volatilization) would not raise the types
cf concerns normally addressed by
RCRA."
"In addition to oaamania on tht October 26.
IMS •opptaont to die prupotaa rule. *a* mmuttt
ot tht EPA nut ana with tht Ctmtnt Kiln Rtcyciiag
Coalition of Aonl 17. iSBOc Mav 23. imk |un« «.
ISttk (un« 20. ion July 19.188ft and October 10.
UNO, Sat abo manna* of the EPA mama* with
Southdown. Inc. OB May It 1980. and the letter from
tht Cement Kiln RacyeUnf Coalition to Bob
HoUoway. EPA, dated hat 11 TWO.
•• Wt not*. hu»»t»ti. that nonhaxardou* organic
coniotaanuia Icadonama may 6t partially
-------
7158
Fwknl Rttistar / VoL 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
The Agency believe* that it will be
possible in some situations to develop
an approach on a case-by-case basis to
effectively implement an alternative HC
limit under the principle stated above.
(If the 20 ppmv HC limit were health-
based, the Agency would be more
reluctant to develop an alternative to it.
Given, however, that the limit is a
measure of combustion efficiency, the
Agency believes it reasonable to
develop an alternative means for this
class of furnaces to demonstrate
combustion efficiency.) The Agency
considered a number of approaches to
establish an alternative HC level and
determined in the time available that
none appeared to be workable in all
situations. The Agency is therefore
adopting a more individualized
approach in the present rule that allows
permit writers to establish an
alternative HC limit (i.e.. a HC limit that
exceeds 20 ppmv) in a facility's
operating permit and allows permit
writers to grant an extension of time to
comply with the HC limit during interim
status, based on the following showings:
(1) For cement kilns, the kiln is not
equipped with a by-pass duct that meets
the requirements of f 206.104(0(1); (2)
the applicant demonstrates that the
facility is designed and operated to
minimize hydrocarbon emissions from
fuels and raw materials: (3) the
applicant develops an approach to
effectively monitor over time changes in
the operation of the facility that could
reduce baseline HC levels—for example.
changes in raw materials, fuels, or
operating conditions—which could
result in establishing a new baseline
and corresponding adjustment of the HC
limit: and (4) the applicant demonstrates
that the hydrocarbon emissions are not
likely to pose a significant health risk.
See i 266.104(0(2). We explain these
provisions in more detail below, along
with an explanation of which provisions
apply during interim status and which
are part of permit application and
issuance.
Interim Status Facilities. Today's rule
requires facilities operating in interim
status to comply with CO and. if
required, a 20 ppmv HC limit within 18
months of the rule's date of
promulgation. The rule provides for a
case-by-case extension from these
requirements (as well as the paniculate.
metals, and HC1/CU standards) "if
compliance is not practicable for
reasons beyond the control of the owner
or operator." See i 286.103(c)(7)(ii). The
situation where a furnace may be
combutMd to form haiardom product* of
incomplete eoabuMM*.
unable to achieve the 20 ppmv HClimit
because of organics present at baseline
conditions (i.e.. when the facility is
designed and operated to minimize HC
emissions from raw materials and fuels
while producing normal products under
normal operating conditions and when
no hazardous waste is burned) may be
eligible for the extension of time
provided the following conditions are
satisfied:
1. The applicant for the extension of time
must have submitted a complete part B
permit application. The application must
include the following information pertinent to
the question of an alternative HC limit (a)
Documentation that the system is designed
and operated to minimiM HC emissions from
all sources when the baseline level is
established and when hazardous wasta is
burned; (b) documentation of the baseline HC
flua gas concentrations when the facility is
operated to minimize HC emissions and
when feeding normal raw materials and
normal fuels to produce normal products
under normal operating conditions and when
not burning hazardous waste: (c) a test
protocol to confirm the baseline HC (and CO)
level: (d) a trial burn protocol to demonstrate
that when hazardous wasta is burned. HC
(and CO) concentrations do not exceed the
baseline level: and (e) a procedure to show if
and when HC emissions from nonhazardoua
watte sources may decrease (in which case,
the overall HC limit might be adjusted
downward after a new baseline is
established). See i 270.22(b). (The
substantive basis for these requirements is
explained in more detail below.)
2. During interim status, the applicant must
not only conduct emissions testing when
burning hazardous to certify compliance with
all remaining emissions controls—dioxins
and furans. PM. metals, and Hd/Clt—but
also establish and comply with interim limit*
on CO and HC presented in the part B permit
application as levels the applicant has
determined by testing (without burning
hazardous waste) are baseline levels. We
note that the Director may not have time
during the review of the extension request
(and a preliminary review of the part B
application) to confirm the adequacy of the
mtenm CO and HC limits proposed by the
applicant. Moreover, to do so would require
the types 01 oversight of test protocols.
emissions testing, and review of data that
will be applied under the permit process.
Thus, the interim limits are subject to
revision based on (confirmation) testing in
support of the operating permit. Nonetheless.
EPA believes that establishing interim CO
and HC limits and requiring the owner/
operator to comply with them until a permit
is issued (or denied) is reasonable and
provides a measure of protection of human
health and the environment
It should be noted that the Agency does not
believe that it is possible to establish an
alternative HC limit during interim status.
This is because the level of interaction
between an applicant and permit writer over
evaluation of the venous protocols to
establish a HC baseline and determine whan
it should be reduced, plus conducting test
burns to confirm the HC b^f*1"" and that
HC levels do not increase when I
waste is burned, plus conducting a healf
risk assessment for organic emissions \
hazardous wasta is bunted are beyond the*
scope of interim status. Consequently, the
rule is structured so that the alternative HC
limit (if warranted) would be established as
part of the permit and the interim status
certification of compliance deadline can be
extended, if the Director finds this is
warranted, while the permit is being
processed. The Director may also make the
extension of **m* conditionai on the ^"**
estimated to process the permit application or
other factors, and can be conditioned on
operating conditions than ensure the facility
will operate in a manner that protects human
health and the environment Any such
condition would be embodied in an interim
status extension determination that is
enforceable as a requirement of subtitle C
(much aa conditions in a closure plan an
enforceable), and would be documented in an
administrative record for the determination.
3. Cement kilns with a by-pass duct
meeting die requirements of 128a.l04(g)(2)
an ineligible for an extension. The rale
precludes cement kilns operating with e by-
pass duct from eligibility for die extension of
the certification of compliance date for
compliance with the CO ^n^ HC limit aa well
aa for obtaining an alternative HC limit in e
permit
Fatly Permitted Facilities. The
Director may establish an altemativ
HC limit in the facility's operat
permit provided that the applicant
the following requirements. Information
and data documenting compliance with
these requirements must be included in
the pan B permit application. See
§ 270.22(b). First the applicant must
document in the permit application that
facility is designed and operated to
minimize HC emissions from all sources.
including raw materials and fuels.
Examples of situations where the
system is not designed and operated to
minimize HC (and CO) levels during
baseline testing are when: (1) Coal is
mixed with raw material which is fed
into a cement kiln preheater such that
the coal can contribute to HC emissions:
(2) cement kiln slurry water contains
enough organic compounds to
significantly contribute to HC emissions:
(3) weste fuels such as tires are burned
in a manner that could contribute to HC
emissions: (4) the furnace is not
operated and designed to minimize
emissions of hydrocabons emitted from •
raw material (in general the more
quickly the raw material is exposed to
elevated temperatures, the lower the
hydrocarbon emissions): and (S) normal
fuels are not burned under good
combustion conditions.
Second, the applicant must pr
the permit application baseline
-------
F*daral Register / VoL 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21.1«1 / Rules and Regulations 7157
CO and HC levels. These proposed
baseline levels also serve as interns
values tinder which the facility must
operate under a conditional time
extension for certification of compliance
with the HC standard until permit
issuance (or denial). The proposed
baseline levels must be supported by
emissions testing under baseline
conditions (ue- when die facility ia
designed and operated to minimize HC
emissions from raw materials and fuels
while producing normal products under
normal operating ftmAMmm and whea
no hazardous waste is burned). Baseline
levels must be determined from test
data as die average over all vatid runs
of the high»«t hourly rolling average
value for each run. This is the same
approach specified by the rule to
determine Limits on other opera ting
parameters (eg- maximum feed rate
limits, maximum temperatures, etc). EPA
believes that this approach is workable
for cement kilns *° given that
commeniers have asserted that •when
hazardous waste is burned,
hydrocarbon levels do not increase and
often deccease. As disousnari in section
1I.E of Part Three of the preamble. HC
levels from a cement kiln-with HC levels
of 66 to 70 ppmv when burning coal
decreased to 38 to 43 ppmv when
burning hazardous waste fuel If the
facility cannot install continuous
monitors for HC (and CO and oxygen) in
time to conduct these baseline tests
prior to submittal of the permit
application (which must be sufficiently
prior to 13 months after promulgation of
the rule to give the Director time to
consider whether to grant the time
extension), the facility may use portable
monitors. We note that the HC
monitoring system must be a hot
unconditioned system. In addition, we
note that different baseline values may
be necessary for different modes of
operation if the baseline HC (or CO)
level changes significantly under those
modes of operation. Examples are when
the raw material mix is changed to make
a different cement product or when
different fuels are burned.
Third, the applicant must develop
emissions testing protocols to: (1)
Confirm the baseline HC and CO levels
proposed in the permit application (and
under which the facility must operate in
interim status upon receipt of an
extension of time to comply with the HC
limit and until an operating permit is
10 Although my Imluitilil fumict tint cannot
meet the 10 ppnrr HC Unnt teem* of organic
m«tt«r in nw material i* •HglMt to apply for «n
dltcrnativk HC limit, oiuy OIM
concern tnet liiiiustftal fumoiv otter thm cvmnt
kilni may not bt abl« to meat thi 20 ppmv HC tiadt
issued (or denied)); aad (2) to
demonstrate that when hazardous
waste is burned, HC and CO levels do
not exceed baseline levels (and
emissions of other pollutants do not
exceed allowable levels). If a baseline
HC or CO level is to be established for
more than one mode of operation, a
baseline confirmation test (comprised of
at least three valid runs) must be run for
each mode.
Fourth, the applicant must develop an
approach to effectively monitor over
time changes in the operation of the
facility that could sjgaificaatly reduce
baseline HC or CO levels. If baseline
levels are significantly reduced, then the
alternative HC and CO limits dial apply
when burning hazardous waste must
also be reduced. Such changes could
include: (1) Changes in the
concentration of organic matter in raw
materials; (2) changes ia the
concentration of organic matter in the
raw material mix due to changes in the
mixture of raw materials needed to
produce different types of product; (3)
changes in fuels; and (4) changes ia die
concentration of organic compounds in
slurry water used for a wet cement kiln.
The approach must be workable and
enforceable.
EPA is requiring this condition in
Order tO aVOid g«*ahli«hinn g high
baseline which ia then reduced without
also lowering die HC limit, potentially
allowing die hazardous waste to be
burned under poor combustion
conditions creating high, but undetected.
HC levels (i.e., hazardous waste could
be burned under poor combustion
conditions and could be emitting high
HC levels even though die HC limit was
not exceeded). (The Agency notes that
the problem of establishing a HC
baseline and for determining when die
baseline might change for this type of
industrial furnace is more difficult than
determining when die raw material
baseline changes in documenting when
co-combustion of hazardous waste with
raw materials in a BeviU device might
affect the composition of residues. See
section Xm of Part Three of die
preamble. This is because, in die case of
die HC baseline, not only must die raw
materials' and fuels' composition be
monitored, but the units design and
operating conditions as well to
determine whether die baseline has
changed. Thus, the rule provides for
more '"fot-nrtinn in establishing Kaolin*
conditions and determining when they
change for assessing alternative HC
limits forcemeat kilns than it does when
making determinations as to whether co-
combustion of hazardous waste can
remove residues from eligibility for
exclusion under the Bevill amendment.)
Finally, EPA is concerned that
hazardous waste burning may affect the
type and concentration of organic
compounds emitted from an industrial
furnace that has elevated HC
concentrations attributable to raw
materials. For example, die chlorine in
the hazardous waste may result in
higher concentrations of chlorinated
organic compounds. Therefore, the rule
requires die owner or operator, as part
of die permitting process, to use state-of-
the-art emissions testing procedures and
risk assessment to demonstrate that
organic emissions are not likely to pose
unacceptable health risk. The owner or
operator must c'viuc* emissions testing
during die trial burn to identify and
quantify the organic compounds listed in
appendix Vm, part 281. that may be
emitted using test procedures specified
by die Director on a caaa-by-case basis.
As noted above, aldaough EPA does not
believe such risk-based approaches to
be adequate as die basis for a national
risk-based PIC standard. w« think the
approach is part of die best means of
assuring that cement kilns combust
hazardous waste fuels properly in those
instances where HC levels ate greater
than 20 ppmv as a result of organics in
normal raw material feed.
Two sampling and analysis
approaches dial the Director may use
are discussed below. One protocol
involves die following steps to identify
and quantify concentrations of organic
compounds in stack emissions:
1. Sample volatile organic compounds using
the VOST train of Method 0030 as prescribed
in SW-MB. Analytical work it conducted
using GC/MS according to Method SOW in
SW-646.
2. Sample semi-volatile organic compounds
using the sampling train preacribed in
Method 0010 in SW-64B. Analytical work it
conducted using GC/MS according to Method
8270 in SW-B46.
3. Sample aldehydes and ketoaes using «n
impinger train with 2-4-di-nitro-pinnyl
hydrazina. (2-4-DNPH) in the impinger
solution as prescribed in Method 0011 in the
Methods Manual, and analysis of impinger
solution by high performance liquid
chramatography (HFiQ «• specified in
"Analysis for Aldehydes and Ketones by
High Performance Liquid Chromstography" in
the Methods Manual.
Another protocol is a screening
approach that has been described in die
literature " that uses die following
protocols as specified in SW-646:31
•> fohnaon. Lory, tt ai. "Sownmi Approach for
Principal Organic Hatairlmit Coaitilurau and
Praducti of Incomplttt Combustion". JAPCA
Journal Volomt S9, No. S. May 118*.
-------
7158 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
1. Soxhlet extraction sample
preparation:
2. Gas chromatography (GC) cou^.ed
with flame ionization detector (FID, or
mass spectrography (MS) screening
3. Total chromatographic organic/;
(TCO) and gravimetric (GRAV)
procedures: and
4. High performance liquid
chromatography-ultraviolet/MS (KM.C-
UV/MS) screening and compound
identification.
To select an appropriate protocc. the
Director will consider the state-of-".a-
art of sampling and analytical
techniques and the expected nature of
organic emissions considering emissions
data or other information.
We note that under this PIC risk
assessment, emission rates must a.--.o be
determined for the 2,3.7.8-chlorinat':d
tetra-octa congeners of chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofura.-;s
(CDDs/CDFs) using Method 23.
"Determination of Polychlorinated
Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorin;jted
Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) from Stationary
Sources" in Methods Manual for
Compliance with the BIF Regulations
(Methods Manual), incorporated in
today's rule as appendix IX of part 268.
The risks from these congeners must be
estimated using the 2.3,7,8-TCDD
toxicity equivalence factor prescribed in
"Procedures for Estimating the Toxicity
Equivalence of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-
Dioxin and Dibenzofuran Congeners" in
Methods Manual.
The owner or operator must then
conduct dispersion modeling to predict
the maximum annual average ground
level concentration of each such organic
compound. On site ground level
concentrations must be considered if a
person resides on-site: otherwise, only
off-site concentrations may be
considered. Di.-oersion modeling must
be conducted in conformance with
EPA's Cuidelir" on Air Quality Models.
EPA's "Hazarr 'us Waste Combustion
Air Quality Scr -ming Procedure"
provided in Mr'nods Manual, or EPA's
Screening Procedures for Estimatinn Air
Quality Impact of Stationary Sources.
The Methods Manual and the Guideline
on Air Quality Models are incorporated
in today's rule as appendices IX and X.
respectively, to part 266. The Screening
Procedures document is incorporated by
reference in § 260.11.
Stack heights exceeding good
engineering practice (GEP. as defined in
40 CFR Sl.lOO(ii)) may not be used to
predict ground level concentrations. See
section V.B.1.C of Part Three of this
preamble.
If the owner or operator applies for an
alternative hydrocarbon limit for more
than one industrial furnace such that
emissions from the furnaces are from
more than one stack, emissions testing
must be conducted on all such stacks
and dispersion modeling must consider
emissions from all such stacks.
To demonstrate that the
noncarcinogenic organic compounds
listed in appendix IV of the rule do not
pose an unacceptable health risk, the
predicted ground level concentrations
cannot exceed the levels established in
that appendix.
To demonstrate that the carcinogenic
organic compounds listed in appendix V
of the rule do not pose an unacceptable
health risk, the sum of the ratios of the
predicted ground level concentrations to
the levels established in the appendix
cannot exceed 1.0. This is because the
acceptable ambient levels established in
appendix V are based on a 10"* risk
level. To ensure that the summed risk
from all carcinogenic compounds does
not exceed 10~* (i.e.. 1 in 100.000) the
sum of the ratios described above must
be used. (We note that the 2.3.7.8-TCDD
toxicity equivalency factor is to be used
to estimate the risk from 2.3.7,8-
chlorinated CDDs/CDFs, and the risk
from these congeners must be added to
the risk from other PICs to ensure that
the summed risk does not exceed 1 in
100.000.)
To demonstrate that other compounds
for which the Agency does not have
adequate health effects data to establish
an acceptable ambient level are not
likely to pose a health risk, the predicted
ambient level cannot exceed 0.1 fig/m*.
This is the Sth percentile lowest
reference air concentration for the
compounds listed in appendix IV of the
rule.
b. Feeding Waste at Locations other
than the Hot End. If hazardous waste is
fed into an industrial furnace at
locations other than the "hot" end
where the product is normally
discharged and where fuels are
normally fired, the rule requires the
owner/operator to monitor HC
irrespective of whether CO levels do not
exceed the Tier I limit of 100 ppmv and
to comply with special restrictions
during interim status. These provisions
are discussed below.
Mandatory HC Monitoring.M Except
as indicated below, facilities that fire
hazardous waste into an industrial
furnace at locations other than the "hot"
end where the product is normally
discharged and where fuels are
normally fired must comply with tfflVC
limit even if CO levels do not exceed the
Tier I limit of 100 ppmv. See f 266.104(d).
This is because the Agency is concerned
that the hazardous waste could
conceivably be fired at a location in a
manner such that nonmetal compounds
in the waste may be merely evaporated
or thermally cracked to form pyrolysis
by-products rather than completely
combusted. If so. little CO may be
generated by the process and. thus.
monitoring CO alone would r.ot ensure
that HC emissions were minimized.
However, if hazardous waste is
burned (or processed) solely as an
ingredient HC monitoring is not
automatically required because
emissions of nonmetal compounds are
not of concern. This is because the
metals emissions controls will ensure
that metals emissions do not pose a
hazard. (The rule establishes the
restrictions discussed below because we
are concerned that the interim status
controls on organic emissions may not
be protective when hazardous waste is
fed at locations other than the "hot" end
of a furnace.) See discussion in section
VILH of Part Three of this preambj&Jor
when a waste is considered to be
burned solely as an ingredient.**'
Interim Status Restrictions. In
addition to requiring HC monitoring
when hazardous waste is fed into a
furnace at locations other than the "hot"
end where the product is discharged arid
where fuels are normally fired, today's
rule applies other restrictions to
hazardous waste burning during interim
status. See i 266.103(a)(5). The
hazardous waste may not be fed at any
location where combustion gas
temperatures are less than 1800 *F. and
the owner or operator must demonstrate
that adequate oxygen is present to
combust the waste. In addition, for
cement kilns, the hazardous waste must
be fed into the kiln itself. These
requirements are provided to ensure
adequate destruction of the waste given
that the ORE standard (which requires a
demonstration by trial bum that organic
constituents in the waste are destroyed)
"Continuous HC monitoring it required for •
f umace if hazardous waste it firtd •! any location
other than tht "hot", product discharge end whm
fueli art normally fired irrespective of the CO laval
in stack amissions (i.e.. irrespective if CO levels are
lower than the Tier I limit of 100 ppmv) and
irrespeciive of whether furnace off-fas if pasaad
through another combustion chamber.
"Regulated cntitiaa have indicated that there is
substantial confusion over the terms "use as an
ingredient" and "material recovery . Under the
RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program. EPA
considers a hazardous waste to be bunted or
processed as an ingredient if it is used to produce a
product EPA considers a hazardous waste to be
burned or processed for material recoveryjtane or
more constituents of the waste is i
product
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 3S / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7159
is not applicable during interim status.
Like the requirement for mandatory HC
monitoring, however, these restrictions
do not apply if the hazardous waste is
burned (processed] solely as an
ingredient. For further discussion, see
section VII.H of Part Three of this
preamble.
5. Special Considerations for Cement
Kilns
a. Monitoring in the By-Pass Duct of a
Cement Kiln. The final rule provides
that cement kilns with by-pass ducts
may monitor CO and. if required. HC
concentrations in the by-pass duct. Most
precalciner and some preheater kilns
are equipped with by-pass ducts where
a portion (e.g.. 5-30%) of the kiln off-gas
is diverted to a separate air pollution
control system (APCS) and, sometimes,
a separate stack. A portion of the kiln
gases are so diverted to avoid a build-up
of metal salts that can adversely affect
the calcination process. Dust collected
from the by-pass APCS is usually
disposed of while dust collected from
the main APCS is usually recycled back
into the kiln to make the clinker product.
Several comments were received
regarding sampling at cement kilns. Five
commenters suggested that HC (and CO)
measurements should be allowed in the
by-pass duct rather than in the main
stack because: (1) The by-pass gas is
representative of the kiln off-gas; and (2)
this approach would preclude the
problem of nonfuel HC emissions from
the raw material exceeding the 20 ppmv
limit. The raw material would be heated
and partially calcined in the precalciner
or preheater and HC from that process
would be emitted from the main stack.
The by-pass duct draws the kiln off-gas
prior to the precalciner or preheater and,
so. would not be affected by that
process.
Another commenler specifically
supported monitoring CO (and HC. if
required) only in the bypass duct
provided that hazardous waste is fed
only to the kiln and not to the preheater
or precalciner.
The Agency conducted testing »* at a
cement kiln to gather information
relevant to ihe issue of HC monitoring in
the bypass duct for preheater and
precalciner cement kilns. The data
showed that the gases in the bypass
duct are representative of the
combustion of waste in the kiln.
Based on this test data end public
comment, the final rule allows CO and.
where required. HC monitoring in the
bypass duct of a cement kiln provided
that: (1) Hazardous waste is fired only
into the kiln (i.e., not at any location
downstream from the kiln exit relative
to the direction of gas flow); and (2) the
bypass duct diverts a minimum of 10% of
kiln off-gas. See { 266.104(g). The 10%
diversion requirement is based on
engineering judgment that, at this level
of kiln-gas diversion, the bypass gas will
be representative of the kiln off-gas.
Industry representatives indicate " that
the bypass duct capacity of most
facilities actively involved in burning
hazardous waste exceeds the 10% limit.
b. Use of Hazardous Waste as Slurry
Water for Wet Cement Kilns. Some kiln
operators have inquired as to what
regulatory standards apply, if any, if
hazardous wastes are used as slurry
water. The Agency does not regard the
practice as an excluded form of
recycling. The Agency has long been
skeptical of claims that hazardous
wastes are "recycled" when they
substitute for very commonly available
and economically marginal types of raw
materials. In particular, the Agency has
been skeptical that liquid hazardous
wastes serve as a substitute for water.
Cf. 48 FR at 14489 (April 4.1983). In the
case of hazardous waste used as slurry
water, the hazardous constituents in the
waste are ordinarily unnecessary to the
claimed recycling activity and are being
gotten rid of through the slurrying
process. Given the possibility of
hazardous levels of air emission is high,
the practice certainly can be part of the
waste disposal problem. Consequently,
the Agency regards such practice as a
form of waste management subject to
regulation under today's rule.
EPA considered prohibiting the use of
hazardous waste as slurry water for wet
cement kilns because of concern that
toxic organic constituents in the waste
could be volatilized and emitted without
complete combustion. The final rule
does not prohibit using (or mixing)
hazardous waste with slurry water
because we believe that the controls
provided by the rule both during interim
status and under a RCRA operating
permit adequately address the hazard
that the practice may pose.
If hazardous waste is fed into any
industrial furnace during interim status
at a location other than the hot. product
discharge end. combustion gas
temperatures must exceed 1800 *F at the
point of introduction, and the owner or
operator must document that adequate
oxygen is present to combust organic
constituents in the waste. See discussion
above. EPA believes that these
** U.S. EPA. "Emissions Testing of • Precilciner
Cement Kiln it Louisville. Nebraska". November
i9m.
" Letter d«t«d August 16.1990. from Dr. Michael
von Seebich. Southdown. Inc.. to Owight Hiustick.
EPA.
restrictions will, as a practical matter.
preclude use of hazardous waste in
slurry water during interim status.
Although these restrictions on
hazardous waste burned at locations
other than the hot end of an industrial
furnace do not apply under a RCRA
operating permit, the permit proceedings
will ensure that organic constituents in a
hazardous waste that is fed into the kiln
in slurry water (or in the slurry itself)
will be destroyed. The Director will
require that toxic nonmetal constituents
in the waste are destroyed to a 99.99%
destruction and removal efficiency, and
that adequate oxygen is present to
completely destroy the organic
compounds.
C. Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff
Requirements
Today's rule requires that boilers and
industrial furnaces combusting
hazardous waste be equipped with
automatic waste feed cutoff systems to
limit emissions of hazardous compounds
during combustion "upset" situations
and to ensure stable combustion
conditions. The automatic waste feed
cutoff system must be connected to the
CO and HC monitoring system, such
that an exceedance of a CO or HC limit
would trigger a cutoff of the waste feed.
Additionally, the automatic waste feed
cutoff system must engage when other
key operating conditions deviate from
specified unit operating limits, which are
determined during compliance testing or
which are based on manufacturer
specifications. See 55 266.102(e)(7)(ii)
and 266.103(g).
Some commenters disagreed with the
proposed automatic waste feed cutoff
requirements. One commenter argued
against any waste feed cutoffs for light-
weight aggregate kilns. Six commenters
expressed concern that waste feed
cutoffs would increase the instability of
the combustion conditions and would
possibly increase air emissions. Three
commenters requested a controlled
waste feed reduction over several
minutes rather than an automatic waste
feed shutoff. Three commenters
suggested different levels of CO
emissions be set for waste feed cutoffs.
The Agency acknowledges that there
can be performance and other problems
associated with automatic waste feed
cutoffs, and recognizes that they may be
undesirable for some applications. For
example, when the facility operates
without the use of hazardous waste fuel
use of fossil fuel is increased, and the
opportunity is lost for safe disposal of
hazardous waste. Further. HC emissions
may actually increase if the automatic
waste feed cutoff is triggered frequently
-------
7160 Fedanl Register / Vol. 58. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
even though combustion chamber
temperatures must be maintained while
hazardous waste or residues remain in
the combustion chamber. However, the
Agency continues to believe that
automatic waste feed cutoff systems are
necessary to avoid advene effect on
human health and the environment that
couid result if hazardous waste is fired
into the device when it is operating
under combustion upset conditions.
To address the concerns raised by
commenters, EPA recommends
installing ore-alarm systems that alert
an owner/operator of potential
problems and provide time either for
corrective measures to be taken or for a
staged cutoff of the hazardous waste
feed. Thus, the use of pre-aJarms should
minimize waste feed cutoffs. In addition,
we have included in the ruie seme
additional requirements related to waste
feed cutoffs and restarts, as discussed
below.
One commenter stated that cutoffs are
inappropriate for combustion devices
where the waste is destroyed
immediately upon injection into the
combustion chamber (e.g.. devices that
burn liquid wastes), or if the combustion
conditions supported by the waste fuel
continue to destroy residual waste after
waste feed cutoff. The Agency continues
to believe that the best method for
returning a combustion system to good
operating conditions, thereby
minimizing unacceptable emissions, is to
stop the input of hazardous waste.
Further, the burden associated with
automatic cutoffs should not be
substantial because frequent automatic
waste feed cutoffs should not occur
given that the parameters tied into the
automatic cutoff system may be
monitored on an hourly rolling average
basis (which allows high values to be
offset by low values) and that the
Agency recommends the use of pre-
alarms to warn the operator of a
pending cutotf (which may give the
operator time to take corrective
measure to avoid an automatic cutoff).
in the event of a waste feed cutoff.
monitoring for CO and HC (and other
operating parameters far which limits in
the permit are based on a roiling
averase basis) must ccnr.nue. and the
was'.s feed cannot b« restarted until CO
and HC levels (and levels of the other
parameter* i come within allowable
limits. See i 266.102(e);ri(,i). (For permit
operating conditions not established on
a roiling average basis, tr.3 Director will
specify, on a case-by-case basis, an
adequate penod of time during which
the parameters must remain within
permit limi's to demonstrate steady-
state operation prior to restarting the
hazardous waste feed.) In addition.
consistent with the April 27,1990
incinerator amendments proposal, the
provision of the final boiler and
industrial furnace rule requiring
compliance with the permit operating
conditions slates that compliance must
be maintained at any time there is waste
in the unit See 9 286.102(e)(l). This
language clarifies that activation of the
automatic waste feed cutoff does not
relieve the facility of its obligation to
comply with the permit conditions if
there is waste remaining in the unit
(such as in a rotary kiln). Thus, for
example, the air pollution control
system must continue to be operated
within the applicable permit conditions.
Furthermore, after a cutoff, the
temperature in the combustion chamber
must be maintained at levels
demonstrated during the compliance test
for as long as the hazardous waste or
residue remains in the combustion
chamber. The Agency believes this
temperature requirement will help
ensure that hydrocarbon emissions will
be minimized after a cutoff.
To comply with this requirement the
operating permit must specify the
minimum combustion chamber
temperature after a waste feed cutoff
while waste remains in the combustion
chamber. An uninterruptable burner
using auxiliary fuel (i.e., nonhazardous
waste fuel) of adequate capacity may be
needed to maintain the temperature in
the combustion chamber(s) and to allow
destruction of the waste materials and
associated combustion gases left in the
system after the waste feed is
automatically cut off. The safe startup of
the burners using auxiliary fuel requires
approved burner safety management
systems for prepurge. pilot lights, and
induced draft fan starts. If these safety
requirements preclude immediate
startup of auxiliary fuel burners and
such startup is needed to maintain
temperatures (i.e.. if the combustion
chamber temperatures drop
precipitously after waste feed cutoff).
the auxiliary fuel may have to be burned
continuously on "low fire" during
nonupset conditions.
Furthermore § 23e.lOC!e)(7)(ii)(D)
requires that the combustion gases must
continue to be routed through the air
pollution control system as iong as
waste remains in the unit. One et'fect of
this clarifying requirement, in
combination with the requirement to
maintain compliance wun permit
conditions as long as there is waste in
•he unit, is that opening of ar.y type of
air pollution control system bypass
stack while there is waste in the boiler
or furnace would be a violation of the
permit (unless the facility demonstrates
compliance with the performance
standards during the trial burn, wit)
vent stack open).
Although we believe that such
emergency bypass stacks are not
prevalent on boilers and industrial
furnaces, our discussion of this topic in
the preamble to the incinerator
amendments at 55 FR17890 (April 27.
1990) would also apply to any boiler or
industrial furnace with such a bypass or
vent stack. We received a number of
comments from the incinerator industry
expressing concern that use of a bypass
stack for safety purposes would be
considered a violation. We agree that
there can be mitigating circumstances to
warrant the use of a bypass stack and
do not discredit their use as a lafety
device. However, the Agency continues
to believe that the facility can and
should implement measures to minimize
situations where use of the emergency
vent stack is necessary.
One commenter stated that the use of
hazardous waste should be prohibited
during startup or shutdown periods for a
cement kiln until normal operating
temperatures an achieved. The final
rule does not restrict hazardous waste
burning during kiln startup or shutdown
provided that the compliance (or trial
bum) coven those periods of
operations. In other words, hazaro^vv
waste may be burned during startupTmd
shutdown if the facility demonstrates
conformance with the standards during
those operations.
Another commenter argued that
accurate measurement of combustion
chamber temperature for some
combustion devices will be difficult.
Because of this difficulty, the final rule
does not require that this temperature be
directly measured in the combustion
chamber if an owner/ operator can
demonstrate to permitting officials that
the combustion chamber temperature
correlates with a more easily measured
downstream gas temperature.
One commenter agreed with EPA's
revised proposal not to limit the number
of automatic waste feed cutoffs, but
disagreed with EPA's requirement that
combustion chamber temperatures must
be maintained at the levels that
occurred during the trail bum for the
duration of time that the waste remains
in the combustion chamber. This
commenter believed that electric utility
boilers and other burning devices will
have difficulty in accurately measuring
combustion chamber temperatures. For
this reason, ine commenter sucgestj
that waste feed cutoffs atone be <
control HC emissions rather th
requiring that combustion chamber"
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7161
temperatures be maintained. EPA
believes that the flexibility that the final
rule allows for monitoring combustion
chamber temperature and in setting the
frequency of waste feed cutoffs as
discussed above should address this
commenter's concerns.
Another commenter supported the
proposed 10 times per month limit on the
number of automatic waste feed cutoffs
and the proposed requirement that any
facility exceeding that frequency would
be required to cease burning hazardous
waste, to notify the Director, and not to
resume burning hazardous waste until
reauthorized by the Director. Another
commenter supported monthly cutoff
limits because they would provide an
incentive for the facility to take
corrective measures to preclude
frequent cutoffs. Some commer.ters
stated that this requirement is overly
restrictive.
After careful consideration. EPA has
decided to modify this requirement for
the following reasons: (1) The Agency
does not have data indicating a specific
frequency of cutoffs which would be
unacceptable at all boilers and furnaces
given that the combustion chamber
temperature and other conditions are
maintained as described above; (2) the
Agency believes that operating costs
associated with cutoffs will provide
sufficient incentive to encourage
owners/operators to minimize
automatic waste feed cutoff incidents;
and (3) the recommended use of pre-
alarm systems will reduce the number of
waste feed cutoffs. However, the final
rule allows the Director to use his
discretion to determine whether a limit
on the frequency of cutoffs is warranted
at a specific facility.
Waste Feed Restarts. Today's rule
provides that when the automatic waste
feed cutoff is triggered by a CO limit or
when applicable, an HC exceedance, the
waste feed can be restarted only when
the hourly rolling average CO/HC levels
meet the permitted limits (e.g.. 100 ppmv
for CO under Tier I).
The Agency proposed two alternative
approaches for restarting the waste feed
when a cutoff is triggered by a CO
exceedance: (1) Restart the waste feed
after an arbitrary 10-minute time period
to enable the operator to stabilize
combustion conditions: or (2) restart the
waste feed after the instantaneous CO
level meets the hourly rolling average
limit. Eight commenters supported
restarting the waste feed after the
instantaneous CO level meets the permit
limit. Five commenters suggested that
waste feed can be restarted once the
instantaneous CO level meets the hourly
roiling average limit The Agency
considered the comments, but continues
to believe that allowing a waste feed
restart after the hourly rolling average
equals or falls below the permitted limit
is preferable. After the waste feed is
cutoff, the facility will be burning
nonhazardous waste (typically fossil
fuel), which should result in CO and HC
levels well below the allowable limits.
Therefore, the hourly rolling average
should fall below the permitted limit
within a relatively brief period of time.
Allowing the waste feed to be restarted
when the instantaneous CO level has
dropped to the permitted level may not
be desirable, because restarting the
waste feed immediately may trigger
another cutoff due to a CO spike when
the waste feed is restarted.
Three commenters supported the
proposed approach to require the HC
hourly rolling average to be met before
restarting the waste feed cutoff because
of a HC exceedance. Three commenters
opposed this approach. Instead, these
commenters suggested a 10-minute
waiting period be used. EPA considered
these comments but continues to believe
that meeting the hourly rolling average
is a conservative approach and is
appropriate after a HC exceedance,
because the HC is a better surrogate for
toxic organic emissions than CO.
D. CEM Requirements for PIC Controls
The final rule promulgates the
proposed performance specifications for
continuously monitoring CO. HC, and
oxygen. See Methods Manual for
Compliance with the BIF Regulations,
incorporated as appendix IX of part 266
in today's rule. The performance
specifications for HC monitoring,
however, include specifications for both
hot and cold monitoring. Although hot
monitoring is generally required by the
final rule, cold monitoring may be used
for interim status facilities if they certify
compliance with the emissions
standards within 18 months of
promulgation of the rule. Even if cold
monitoring is used to certify initial
compliance, however, hot monitoring is
required for these facilities when they
recertify compliance and when they are
issued a RCRA operating permit
One commenter stated that an HC
monitoring system is readily available
for continuous emissions monitoring
(CEM), while five commenters
maintained that HC analyzers have
serious operational problems. Several
commenters requested that alternate HC
CEM methods be allowed, specifically
monitors with non-dispersive infra-red
(NDIR) detectors rather than the
required flame ionization detector (FID).
One commenter noted that EPA has not
validated the FID method for HC
analysis nor has it provided any critical
discussion of the current methods of HC
analysis.
The Agency considered the use of
NDIR detectors for HC monitoring but
believes that NDIR systems have
limitations compared to FID systems.
EPA believes that FID systems are more
sensitive than NDIR systems and that an
equivalent response is not found with
NDIR detectors. The final rule requires
the use of FID detectors for HC
monitoring.
Four commenters recommended
monitoring nonmethane hydrocarbons
(NMOC) as opposed to "total" HC
because methane, which is
predominately emitted from fuel
sources, has a high FID response factor.
Furthermore, these commenters would
like EPA to require testing for specific
PICs that respond poorly to HC monitors
during test burns. One commenter stated
that HC monitors can be varied easily to
detect NMOC. EPA does not agree with
either suggestion. The Agency is
requiring HC monitoring to indicate
whether the device is operating under
good combustion conditions. W«
acknowledge that the largest fraction of
organic compounds that the HC
monitoring system required by the final
rule will detect for facilities operating
under good combustion conditions will
be compounds that are relatively
nonhazardous (e.g., methane). In
addition, some hazardous compounds,
particularly highly chlorinated
compounds) will be under-reported.
Thus, although the promulgated
approach would not be adequate for the
purpose of assessing the risk that HC
may pose from a given facility, the
approach is adequate for its intended
purpose—a measure of whether the
facility continues to operate within good
combustion conditions. This is because
EPA's emissions testing has shown that
when combustion conditions
deteriorate, the compounds that are
readily detected by the promulgated HC
monitoring system increase
correspondingly.
In addition, if a NMOC system were
used, the 20 ppmv HC limit would have
to be lowered to account for the
methane fraction that would no longer
be counted. Commenters did not provide
support for so adjusting the proposed
HC limit Further, the Agency is
concerned that NMOC detectors may
not be able to provide continuous data
due to the time required for methane
separation. The Agency has also found
that HC CEMs are more durable than
NMOC CEMs. and thus less prone to
reliability problems. As a result, the
Agency has concluded that HC CEMs
are more likely to provide a continuous
-------
7162 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
indication of combustion conditions
than is possible with an NMOC monitor.
Hot Versus Cold HC Monitoring
Systems. Except as indicated below, the
final rule requires the use of e hot or
unconditioned HC monitoring system
that must be maintained at a
temperature of at least 150 *C until the
sample gas exits the detector. See
performance specifications in Methods
Manual for Compliance with the BIF
Regulations (incorporated in today's rule
as appendix IX of part 266). Given.
however, that the technology has just
recently been demonstrated sa to be
continuously operational on hazardous
waste combustion devices, the final rule
allows the use of a conditioned gas
monitoring system during the initial
phase of interim status operations.
Facilities in interim status that certify
compliance with the emission standards
for metals. HG. Cla. particulate matter.
CO and HC within 18 months of
promulgation of the final rule may use a
conditioned gas system. Facilities that
elect to obtain the automatic 12-month
extension (or a case-by-case extension)
of the 18-month certification deadline.
however, may not use a conditioned gas
system because the additional time
provided by the extension will also
provide time to install an unconditioned
HC monitoring system. These facilities
must demonstrate compliance with the
HC limit using an unconditioned gas
monitoring system. Further, facilities
that certify initial compliance using a
conditioned gas (cold) system must use
an unconditioned gas (hot) system when
they recertify compliance within three
years of certifying initial compliance.
EPA is requiring the use of a hot
monitoring system because it represents
best demonstrated technology given that
a larger fraction of HC emissions can be
detected with a hot system. As
discussed at proposal, a hot HC
monitoring system can detect a
substantially lamer fraction of
hydrocarbon emissions than a cold
system. This is because the cold system
-.ises a eas conditioning system that
removes semi- and nonvolatile
hydrocarbons and a substantial fraction
of water-soluble volatile hydrocarbons.
EPA received numerous comments
regarding gas conditioning (heated
versus unheated) for HC monitoring.
Eiaht r.ommenters are in favor of gas
conditioning. The purpose of gas
conditioning is to remove moisture from
the combustion gases that can degrade
instruments or plug sample lines.
Sample conditioning, however, can also
remove some of the water soluble
hydrocarbons and the semi- and
nonvolatile hydrocarbons in the flue gas
such that methane and other
nonhazardous volatile hydrocarbons are
frequently the dominant constituents
measured by the detector. Some
commenters were concerned that fewer
PICs would be detected by a
conditioned (i.e., cooled) monitoring
system. However, one commenter stated
that even though the constituents
contributing most of the hypothetical
risk are relatively nonvolatile they are
relatively nondetectable through an
unconditioned (heated) monitoring
system because of their halogen content.
As discussed at proposal, the Agency
is using HC monitoring to implement the
technology-based HC limit of 20 ppmv
as an indicator of good combustion
conditions. The HC monitor ia not used
in an attempt to quantify organic
emissions for risk assessment purposes.
Emissions testing has shown that during
combustion upset conditions, both the
hot and cold HC monitoring systems
detect an increase in HC levels because
under upset conditions there is a
substantial increase in hydrocarbon
compounds that are readily detected by
either monitoring system.37
One commenter suggested that, rather
than specifying a range of 40-64 *F for
operation on the conditioner as
proposed, a specific conditioning
temperature (32 *F) should be required
to precisely define the conditioned
sampling procedure. We agree that a
minimum temperature should be
specified rather than the range. The final
rule allows a conditioned monitoring
system during the initial phase of
interim status, and requires that the
sample gas temperature must be
maintained at a minimum of 40 *F at all
times prior to discharge from the
detector. EPA selected a minimum
temperature of 40 *F from the range of 40
to 64 *F to ensure that moisture was
effectively removed from the gas sample
to preclude plugging and fouling
problems with the monitoring system.
Three commentera suggested that the
HC limit of 20 ppmv be re-examined
because gas conditioning temperatures
or other changes in the measurement
11 01 ni_.
\\jf*
'9
method may influence ths amount of HC
measured. Given that the 20 ppmv I
is based primarily on test burn datj
using heated (i.e., unconditioned)
monitoring systems, the Agency
considered lowering the 20 ppmv limit
when a coid (i.e.. conditioned)
monitoring system is used. (Limited field
test data indicate that a heated system
would detect from 30% to 400% more of
the mass of organic compounds than a
conditioned system.) We believe.
however, that the 20 ppmv HC limit is
still appropriate when a conditioned
system is used because: (1) The data
correlating heated vs conditioned
systems are very limited: (2) the data on
HC emissions are limited (and there
apparently is confusion in some cases as
to whether the data were taken with a
conditioned or unconditioned
monitoring system); and (3) the Agency's
risk methodology is not sophisticated
enough to demonstrate that a HC limit
of 5 or 10 ppmv using a conditioned
system rather than an unconditioned
system is needed to protect human
health and the environment Th'e SAB "
also concurs with this view. (More
detailed responses to comments on this
issue are found in a separate
background document)
E. Controi ofDioxin andFuran
Emissions
For facilities that may have the
potential for significant emissions of
chlorinated dibenzodioxins anu
dibenzofurans (CDD/CDF). the final rule
requires emissions testing for both
interim status and new facilities to
determine emissions rates of ail tetra-
octa congeners, calculation of a toxicity
equivalency factor, and dispersion
modeling to demonstrate that the
predicted maximum annual average
ground level concentration (i.e.. the
hypothetical maximum exposed
individual) does not exceed levels that
would result in an increased u'fen'me
cancer risk of more than 1 in 100.000."
The Agency considers a facility to have
the potential for significant CDD/CDF
emissions if it is equipped with a dry
particuiate matter control device (e.g.,
fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator)
'• Entrrpy tninronnn-nul Inc. ' Evaluation of
heated THC Monitoring Sytlemi for Hazardous
VViite Inanentor EmUuon Muiurtmtnt". Draft
Final kf port October IWft and Shnmat Nadio. et
al.. "Totai Hydrocarbon Analyzer Studv", Paptr
oreeented at the Ktrd Water Pollution Control
Federation Conference m Washington. DC. October
8.1900.
1' EPA la requiring the uaa of a hat
unconditioned HC monitoring lyitan (except under
certain circuraataccM during the Initial phaaa of
Interim itatual beeauae hoi ayttima an.
nonetheleta. more conaervauve in that they datect a
\4rftt f.-iction of organic compoucda in emission*.
Further, hot •vttiras rcpreaent bmt demonstrated
technology for monitoring HC Uvela.
" U.S. EPA. "Report of the Products of
Incomplete Ccmbnation Subcommittee of the
Science Advisory Board". Report • EPA-SAB-EC-
90-004. (anuary 1MO.
" EPA is not requmng that the estimated cancer
risk from CDD/CDF be added to the risk fmm metal
emissions to demonstrate that the summed nsk to
the maximum exposed individual ia Uaa than UT*.
The Agency believes that it is mappropnataj
the estimated health risk from metals that j
known or probable human carcinogens i
loxiaty equivalency factor for COD/COP t
designed to be very coeaenrenv*.
-------
Feftaal Register / VoL 56, No. 35 / Thondajr, February 21. 1991 / Rales and Regulations 7163
with an inlet gas temperature within the
range of 450 to 750 *F, or if it is an
industrial furnace that has hydrocarbon
levels exceeding 20 ppmv. See { 266.104.
Dispersion modeling must be
conducted in conformance with EPA'i
"Hazardous Waste Combustion Air
Quality Screening Procedure" provided
in Methods Manual for Compliance with
the BIF Regulations or EPA's Guideline
on Air Quality Models (Revised) which
are incorporated in today's rule as
appendices IX and X, respectively, of
part 266, or "EPA SCREEN Screening
Procedure" as described in Screening
Procedures for Estimating Air Quality
Impact of Stationary Sources. The latter
document is incorporated by reference
in today's final rule at S 260.11. To
evaluate potential cancer risk from the
congeners, prescribed procedures must
be used to estimate the 2J.7.8-TCDD
toxicity equivalence of 24.7,8-
chlorinated congeners. See "Procedures
for Estimating Toxicity Equivalence of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin and
Dibenzofuran Congeners" in Methods
Manual for Compliance with the BIF
Regulations incorporated in the rule as
- appendix DC of part 266.
Studies conducted by the Agency 40
and others 41 during development of
regulations for municipal waste
combustors (MWCs) concluded that PM
control devices operated at
temperatures greater than 450 *F have
the potential for emitting elevated levels
of CDD/CDF. At these temperatures,
precursor organic materials and chlorine
in the flue gas can be catalyzed by PM
captured in the PM collection device to
form CDD/CDF. Based on these
findings, the Agency proposed to restrict
the combustion of hazardous waste in
BIFs that operate with PM control
device temperatures greater than 450 *F.
A number of commenters opposed the
proposed limitation on the flue gas
temperature to less than 450 *F. Several
commenters pointed out technical
distinctions among types of boilers and
industrial furnaces that affect the ability
of a unit to change flue gas temperature
and the potential of an ESP to form
CDD/CDF. For example, many boiler
and industrial furnaces either combust
wastes that are very low in chlorine or
that have high levels of chlorine capture
within the process (e.g., cement kilns).
•o Set U.S. EPA. "Muiutipal W«iU Combuition
Study: Combustion Control of Orgnic Emiiiioot".
EPA/530-SW-S7-OZ1C. MIS Ord«f No. PB87-
308090; U.S. B>A, -Municipal Wwtt Combuition
Study: Flu. Co Clmolng Technology". EPA/530-
SW-87-OHD. NTIS Order No. PBB7-208108; and 54
FR 52251 (Dtcmnbtr ta 188SJ.
• > Vogg H. tnd L Stiefiltt. ThtriMl Behavior of
In Fly Aah from Municipal Wattt
As a result the CDD/CDF emission
potential will vary for different boilers
and industrial farnanm. as well aa
between boilers and industrial furnaces
and MWCs. Commenters also stated
that there is no direct evidence of CDD/
CDF emissions from several types of
boilers and industrial furnaces, and that
compliance testing to demonstrate 99.90
percent ORE of POHCs and continuous
monitoring of CO and HC levels is
adequate to ensure minimal emissions of
organic compounds.
The Agency has reviewed the
available data on the theory of CDD/
CDF formation as well as CDD/CDF
emissions from BIFs. Based on this
review, the Agency agrees that most but
not necessarily all, BIFs burning
hazardous waste have low CDD/CDF
emission rates. For example, EPA
recently tested a cement kiln burning
hazardous waste that operates with an
ESP at a temperature of 500-500 *F and
found it to have relatively high CDD/
CDF emissions.4* (EPA conducted a risk
assessment however, that estimated the
increased lifetime cancer risk to the
hypothetical maximum exposed
individual from the CDD/CDF emissions
ranged from 7 in 10,000,000 to 2 in
1,000.000 without burning hazardous
waste and from 2 In 1,000,000 to 4 in
1.000,000 when burning hazardous
waste, well under the 1 in 100.000 limit
established in today's rule.) The Agency
suspects that the elevated CDD/CDF
concentrations in the stack gas at this
cement kiln are the result of the ESFs
operating temperature and the level of
HC precursor material in the flue gas.
HC concentrations ranged from 66 to 70
ppmv (measured with a hot system,
reported as propane, and corrected to
7% oxygen, dry basis) without
hazardous waste burning and from 38
ppmv to 63 ppmv with hazardous waste
burning. (We note that to continue
burning hazardous waste under today's
rule, the Director must establish during
the part B permit proceedings an
alternative HC level for this kiln based
on a demonstration by the applicant that
HC levels are not higher when burning
hazardous waste than under normal
conditions and that the facility is
designed and operated to minimize HC
emissions from all sources—fuels and
raw materials. At certification of
compliance with the emissions controls
other than the HC limit this facility
must also propose a HC concentration
limit for the remainder of interim status
(until that limit or another limit is
established under permit proceedings)
PUJU/
Incinarator*-. OMnoapbar*. pp. 1373-137S. JOBS.
" U.S. EPA. EmiMiOB* Taatfnf of a Wat
Kiln at Hannibal MO. Oaeanfaar 1880.
that will ensure that HC levels when
hazardous waste is burned will not be
higher than baseline levels (Le, HC
levels when the system is designed and
operated to minimize HC emissions from
all sources, when burning normal fuels
and feeding normal raw materials to
produce normal products, and when not
burning hazardous waste).) In addition,
trial bum emissions testing must
demonstrate that emissions of organic
compounds are not likely to result in an
increased lifetime cancer risk to the
hypothetical maximum exposed
individual exceeding 1 in 100.000. See
S 266.104(f) and discussion in section
Q.B.4.b of part three of this preamble.)
There may be other factors that
influence CDD/CDF levels at this
facility (and other facilities), but this is
uncertain. In addition, the exact HC
concentration in combustion gas below
which elevated CDD/CDF
concentrations will not occur is
unknown.
The Agency continues to believe that
the operating temperature of the PM
control device (andHC concentrations
in flue gas) plays a significant role in
CDD/CDF emissions. For a given HC
concentration in the flue gas, the
available data suggest that the potential
for elevated CDD/CDF emissions is low
if the PM control device operates at
temperatures of leu than 450 *F or
above 750 *F. Consequently, today's rule
does not require BIFs with PM control
devices operating at temperatures
outside of the 450-750 *F window to
determine CDD/CDF emission rates
(unless it is an industrial furnace with
HC levels greater than 20 ppmv).
Owners and operators of units operating
within the temperature window,
however, are required to conduct stack
testing to determine CDD/CDF emission
rates and to conduct a risk assessment
using prescribed procedures to
demonstrate that the estimated
increased lifetime cancer risk to the
hypothetical maximum exposed
individual is less than 1 in 100,000.
The Agency notes that the final rule
municipal waste combustors (MWCs)
may take a slightly different approach to
control dioxin and furans by limiting
temperatures at the inlet of the PM air
pollution control system to within 30 *F
of those achieved in a dioxin/furan
compliance test The preamble to that
rule, however, will probably continue to
note the possibility of dioxin/furan
formation in the temperature range of
230 *C (450 *F). In today's rule, the
Agency believes that using temperature
and HC levels as a trigger to dioxin/
furan testing and risk assessment will be
fully protective of human health and the
-------
7164 Federal Register / VoL 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
environment and somewhat easier to
implement than the MWC approach.
ni. Risk Assessment Procedures
The Agency uses assessment of health
risk to develop and implement the final
rules for metals, hydrochloric acid (HC1),
and chlorine gas (Cla). Specifically, the
Agency has used risk assessment to: (1)
Establish ambient air concentrations of
appendix VHI compounds that do not
pose an unacceptable health risk for
purposes of this rulemaking; and (2)
establish risk-based, conservative feed
rate and emissions Screening Limits for
metals and HC1. In addition, if facilities
fail the Screening Limits or elect to
conduct dispersion modeling to obtain
less conservative limits, the rule allows
facilities to use site-specific dispersion
modeling to establish emission limits,
and ultimately feed rate limits for metals
and chlorine.
To establish health-based acceptable
ambient concentrations for
noncarcinogenic toxic metal and
nonmetal compounds (except for HC1.
Cla and lead). EPA converted oral
reference doses to reference air
concentrations (RACs) by assuming
average breathing volumes and body
weights, and by applying a safety and a
background level factor. See 54 FR at
43756. Health-based concentrations for
carcinogenic pollutants were derived by
converting cancer potency factors, or
slopes (unique for each carcinogen), into
Risk Specific Doses (RSDs) at a risk
level of 1 in 100,000.** Since carcinogens
are assumed to pose a small but finite
risk of cancer even at very low doses,
the RSD reflects a certain risk level.
corresponding to 1 chance in 100,000. or
10"* excess risk of cancer for the
maximally exposed individual if
exposed continuously to multiple
carcinogenic chemicals for a 70-year
lifetime. RACs for HCl and Cla are
based on inhalation data, and a RAC for
lead is based on the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
To establish the Screening Limits for
metals and HCl. air dispersion modeling
was applied to back-calculate maximum
acceptable feed rates and stack
emissions rates from risk-based.
acceptable ambient concentrations.
These calculations were performed for
various terrain types, effective stack
heights, and land use classifications.
The resulting permissible Screening
Limits reflect plausible, reasonable
worst-case assumptions about a generic
facility that are not site-specific. The
Screening Limits process provides a
rapid and convenient risk-based
mechanism to determine compliance.
Conservative assumptions used to
estimate health impacts exposure in the
Screening limit process include: (1) Use
of reasonable, worst-case estimate of
dispersion of stack emissions; and (2)
for the Tier I feed rate Screening Limits,
assuming that all metals and chlorine
fed into the BIF in all feedstreams are
emitted (i.e., there is no partitioning to
bottom ash or product and not removal
by an air pollution control system.44 See
52 FR 17002 (May 8,1987) and 54 FR
43729 (October 26.1989). Thus,
assumptions and the Screening Limits
tend to err intentionally on the side of
protecting human health.4*
If emission levels exceed the
Screening Limits (or if the owner/
operator so elects), the rule allows a
facility to conduct its own site-specific
air dispersion modeling in order to
establish metals. HCl. and Cb emission
limits. Incorporation of site-specific
information allows less conservative
assumptions (than the reasonable worst-
case, nonsite-specific defaults) to be
used in the dispersion models.
Consequently, site-specific air
dispersion modeling may predict lower
ambient concentrations than the
nonsite-specific modeling reflected in
the Screening Limits, thus allowing
higher emissions and feed rate limits.
A. Health Effects Data
1. Carcinogens
Health effects evaluations for
carcinogens have been summarized in
Part Three. I. D, "Evaluation of Health
Risk" in the April 27.1990 proposal (see
55 FR 17873). To summarize briefly, in
contrast to noncarcinogens. carcinogens
are assumed to present a small but finite
risk of causing cancer, even at very low
doses. The slope of the dose-response
curve in the low dose region is assumed
to be linear for carcinogens. Because of
«• Wt net* th»t the cancer rick from the
carcinogenic metala muat be tummed to enture that
the tummed rlak ia not greater then 1 in 100.000.
""hua. when more than on* carcinogenic metal ia
lined the allowable ground level concentration
.or each carcinogenic metal ia leaa than the 10**
Riak Spvhfic Ooaa far that metal
44 To obtain credit for partitioning to reiidue or
product and for APCS removal efficiency, ownen
and operator* mutt conduct emiitiona letting to
demorutratt the overall Syttem Removal Efficiency
(SHE}—partitioning plua APCS removal efficiency.
The Agency ha* not aaiumed an SRE in developing
the Tier I feed rate Screening Limita becauae there
en many tite-apectfic factor* that can affect the
SRE.
•• We note that the Screening Limita may not
alwaya be conaervative. however. Today'a rule
identifie* criteria whereby the Screening Limita may
not be used becauae they may not be conaervative.
See f 280.108(8). Thai paragraph in the rule alto
givea the Agency authority to determine whether
the Screening Limita may not be protective in a
particular aituabon. In that caae. the owner and
operator mutt uaa the Tier HI procedure* tite-
tpecific diaperaion modeling.
this, the slope of the curve in the low
dose region may be used as an estimate
of carcinogenic potency. The unit risk is
defined as the incremental lifetime risk
estimated to result from exposure of an
individual for a 70-year lifetime to a
carcinogen in air containing 1 microgram
of the compound per cubic meter of air
(pg/m1). At an air concentration of 1 fig/
mj, the cancer potency slope is
numerically equivalent to the unit risk.
Thus, at a preselected risk level, the
corresponding air concentration which
would cause that risk may be calculated
by dividing the desired risk level by the
unit risk value. Although the resulting
value represents an air concentration
with units of pg/m'. this concentration
is referred to as the Risk Specific Dose
(RSD).
When exposed to more than one
carcinogen, the Guidelines for
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (51 FR
33992 (September 24,1986)) recommend
adding risks from the individual
carcinogens to obtain the aggregate risk
(i.e.. cancer risks from exposure to more
than one carcinogen are assumed to be
additive). For today's rule, the Agency
has proposed that an aggregate risk
level for metals (i.e.. arsenic beryllium.
cadmium, and hexavalent chromium) of
10~*is appropriate because it would
limit the risk level for individual
carcinogens to the order of 10~*. The
Agency points out however, that in
selecting the appropriate risk level for a
particular regulatory program, it
considers such factors as the particular
statutory mandate involved, nature of
the pollutants, control alternatives, fate
and transport of the pollutant in
different media, and potential human
exposure. See. e.g.. 54 FR at 38049 (Sept.
14,1989). Particular factors bearing on
the Agency's choice here include the
wide array and potentially large
volumes of carcinogenic pollutants that
can be emitted by these devices (unlike
the situation in such rules as the
benzene NESHAP when a single
pollutant with well-understood effects
was at issue), the need to guard against
environmental harm as well as harm to
human health, potential synergistic
effects of the carcinogens emitted by
these devices (which effects are not
accounted for by the risk assessment),
and legislative history indicating
Congressional preference for parity of
regulation between Bffs burning
hazardous waste fuels and hazardous
waste incinerators (S. Rep. No. 284,98th
Cong. 1st Sess. 38)). In addition, the
increased recognition of ths need to
control net air emissions of toxic
pollutants generally, manifest in Title HI
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7165
1990, influences the Agency'* choice of a
conservative risk target in this rule.
These same factors can also influence
'choice of a risk level where the Agency
is making site-specific determinations.
The following section discusses
comments on health effects data on
carcinogens.
o. Unit Risk Factors/Risk Specific
Doses. A few commenters argued for
deletion of category C carcinogens from
consideration in the risk assessment
process.
Given that the carcinogenic metals
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and
hexavalent chromium are classified as
either A or B carcinogens, this
discussion pertains only to the C
nonmetal appendix VIII compounds for
which the Agency established KT'RSDs
for purposes of implementing the low
risk waste exemption, risk assessments
for cement kilns with HC levels
exceeding 20 ppmv, and health-based
limits for Bevill excluded waste.
As a conservative element in the risk
assessment process, and especially for
purposes of implementing an exemption
from some of the emission controls, EPA
does not believe that exposure to
category C carcinogens should be
ignored at this time for those chemicals
with cancer potency slopes. The
classification schemes categorize
^chemicals based upon weight of the
levidence. not carcinogenic potency.
"Therefore, a highly potent carcinogen
may be classified in the C category and
present a threat to health.
b. Quality of the lexicological Data
Base. Several commenters questioned
the quality and extent of the toxicology
data base and EPA's selection of
specific studies used to calculate the
cancer potency factors and unit risk
values for a particular chemical. For
example, one commenter noted that the
molecular species of a metal compound
emitted from an incinerator may be
markedly different from the metallic
complex actually tested for
carcinogenicity and used to calculate
that metal's cancer potency factor. This
would distort the risk assessment
process. This same commenter argued
that beryllium oxide, which would be
formed preferentially at the extreme
temperatures of a furnace, is relatively
inert compared to the molecular
complex of beryllium which forms the
basis of the cancer potency factor.
Another commenter contended that in
general the less water soluble (and.
therefore, less bioavailable) metallic
oxides are emitted from incinerators
whereas the metallic species tested for
cancer were more water soluble and
jbioavailable (i.e.. absorbable into the
'organism).
EPA acknowledges the concern that
the metal complex tested for
carcinogenicity in animal* reflects that
to which humans are exposed. However,
the particular metal complex being
emitted may not have been tested in
animals. In such cases, it is sometimes
necessary to use that toxicologicai data
which is available (on the same metal
but complexed with a different ligand),
limitations notwithstanding, until
appropriate data on the complex of
concern become available. EPA believes
the use of the available data base will
result in risk assessment methodology
that is protective of human health and
the environment.
Moreover, EPA notes that soluble
metallic salts may also be emitted under
some conditions (e.g., metallic
chlorides). For screening purposes, the
conservative assumption that soluble
(i.e., bioavailable) metallic complexes
are emitted, is assumed to protect
health. For the site-specific risk
assessment option, historical or test
burn data may be used to identify
probable emitted metallic species. If
permit officials conclude during the
permit process that appropriate fate,
transport and toxicologicai data exist
for the actual emitted complex to
support risk assessment this could then
be used in the site-specific risk
assessment option.
c. High DOM to Low Dose
Extrapolation. Several commenters
questioned the scientific merit of
extrapolating from high dose
experimental data to low dose cancer
risks using existing statistical models,
asserting that the process is not
biologically-based and is extremely
conservative (i.e.. overly health-
protective): Two commenters asserted
that the linearized multistage model
should not be applied to non-genotoxic
carcinogens because such "carcinogens"
promote rather than initiate cancer, thus
acting as a classical toxicant with a
threshold. These commenters
maintained that a chemical such as
chloroform, which they claim is non-
genotoxic (i.e., has not tested positive in
mutation assays), would have a
threshold below which there is no risk
of cancer. Another commenter argued
that biological evidence indicates •
threshold for arsenic-induced cancer
due to its known benefit as an essential
trace element at low doses. This same
commenter asserted that hexavalent
chromium (Cr+6) is quickly converted
in the body to the essential trace
element Cr+3 and. therefore, should be
treated as a "threshold carcinogen."
The Agency is following closely
recent developments in scientific
consensus regarding the basic molecular
biology of cancer. EPA will revise its
guidelines for carcinogen risk
assessment and other guidance
documents, to reflect developing
scientific theory on high to low dose
extrapolation threshold effects, and
other related issues. Until that time. EPA
will continue to use its current
approach, believing that a more
conservative approach is warranted in
the face of uncertainty.
d. Chromium Oxidation State. Several
commenters argued that the current
proposal does not differentiate
chromium in the +8 oxidation state
from chromium +3. They contend that
most chromium emitted from boilers.
industrial furnaces, and incinerators
exists in the +3 state. Consequently, the
proposed approach, which assumes that
all chromium is +8. may overstate risks
drastically. The commenters
recommended that EPA assume that
only a fraction of the chromium emitted
by incinerators exists in the +6
oxidation state.
EPA concludes that assuming that
100% of the chromium is in the
hexavalent oxidation state is •
conservative assumption taken in the
face of limited data. In a test •• of
hazardous waste incinerator emissions
under varying levels of total chlorine in
the waste burned, a high percentage of
the total chromium emitted was in the
hexavalent state under certain
conditions. Until more data is available.
showing consistently lower proportions
of Cr** under a variety of combustion
conditions, EPA believes it is health-
protective to assume that chromium
from incinerator emissions exists in the
hexavalent state. Facilities may elect to
conduct emissions testing to determine
the actual emission rate of Cr*'.
e. Additive Ritkt. One commenter
criticized EPA's selection of 10~* as the
acceptable aggregate risk level (for
carcinogenic metals) for deriving
screening limits, and claimed the
selection is arbitrary and inconsistent
with other EPA policy. EPA policy, the
commenter notes, has traditionally
embraced a range of risks from 10~' to
10~4, with the final EPA-selected risk
level dependent upon site-specific
conditions (i.e., characteristics and size
of the exposed population).
EPA's rationale for selecting 10~* risk
for the MEI is described in the October
26,1980 supplemental notice (54 FR
43754). In summary. EPA continues to
believe that the aggregate cancer risk to
•• US. EPA. TIM Seek Erthutton of ttw Fati of
Tract MMate to • Rotary Kiln ladnmtor with •
Vmtnri ScMMMT/PwkwI Cohra Sovbtar. VoL L
Technical kMulU". April USB.
-------
7168 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
the MEI of 10~* for metals is appropriate
because: (1) It provides adequate
protection of public health: (2) it
considers weight of evidence of human
carcinogenicity; (3) it limits the risk from
individual Group A and B carcinogens to
risk levels on the order of 1CT*: and (4) it
is within the range of risk levels the
Agency has used for hazardous waste
regulatory programs. See also the
discussion in section III.A.l of part three
above.
2. Noncarcinogens. For toxic
substances not known to display
carcinogenic properties, there appears to
be an identifiable exposure threshold
below which adverse health effects
usually do not occur. Noncarcinogenic
effects are manifested when these .
pollutants are present in concentrations
great enough to overcome the
homeostatic. compensating, and
adaptive mechanisms of the organism.
Thus, protection against the adverse
health effects of a toxicant is likely to be
achieved by preventing total exposure
levels that would result in a dose
exceeding its threshold. Since other
sources in addition to the controlled
source may contribute to exposure.
ambient concentrations associated with
the controlled source should ideally take
other potential sources into account.
Therefore, the Agency has
conservatively defined reference air
concentrations (RACs) for
noncarcinogenic compounds that are
defined in terms of • fixed fraction of
the estimated threshold concentration.
The RACs for lead and hydrogen
chloride, however, were established
differently, as discussed below. The
RACs established in today's final rule
are identical to those proposed. (See
appendix H of the Supplement to
Proposed Rule at 54 FR 43762 (October
26.1989)). (The Agency notes that it
does not intend for RACs to be used as
a means of setting air quality standards
in other contexts. For instance, the RAC
methodology does not imply a decision
to supplant standards established under
the Clean Air Act)
We note, however, that the RACs
proposed in appendix H of the
supplement to proposed rule (and
promulgated today as appendix IV to
the rule) included both Agency-verified
and unverified values. Unverified values
are subject to revision as the Agency's
Reference Dose Workgroup continues to
establish verified inhalation RfDs.
(Occasionally, the Agency may also
revise verified values based on new and
significant information.) Since the
supplemental notice, the Workgroup has
established inhalation RfDs for eight
compounds on proposed appendix H
(and promulgated appendix IV to the
rule). The basis for the newly-verified
RfDs is set forth in the Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables. Fourth
Quarter—FY90, U.S. EPA. OERR 9200 6-
303 (90-4). September 1990.*7
Consequently. RACs based on those
RfDs are different from the proposed
and promulgated RACs. The RACs
based on verified inhalation RfDs are
shown in the table below. EPA will use
the omnibus permit authority of
§ 270.32(b)(2) to use these revised RACs
where the facts warrant.**
Compound
Acrortin (107-02-81 __.
Carbon DisulfxJe (75-
1 5-0)
p-Ochtoroc«ru*n*!
(108-48-7)
Bromometnana (74-
83-9)
HydroowrSulM*
(7703-06-4)
Mercury (7438-97-8) _
5)
Toluww (108-88-3) _
RAC In
•npwKk-rv
odtnalruM
(pg/n.)
20
200
10
0.8
3
0.3
SO
300
RACbaaed
on ftcejnuy
vertMdRrD
(MO/ir.)
0.03
3
200
2
0.2
0.08
4
500
RACs have been derived from oral
reference doses (RfDs) for those
noncarcinogenic compounds listed
appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 (except
for lead. HC1. and Cli) for which the
Agency considers that it has adequate
health effects data. An oral RfD is an
estimate (with an uncertainty of perhaps
an order of magnitude) of a daily oral
dose (commonly expressed with units of
mg/kg-day) for the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is
likely to be without an appreciable risk
deleterious effects, even if exposure
occurs daily for a lifetime. Since these
oral RfDs are subject to change. EPA
will undertake rulemakings as necessary
if the derivative RACs change in a way
that affects the regulatory standard (see
also the discussion of this issue in the
Boiler/Furnace supplemental notice
published on October 26.1989 at 54 FR
43718). We note that in the interim
before any such rulemaking is complete.
41 The document n available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS). S28S pott
Royal Road. Springfield. VA 22161. (703) 487-4000.
The document number ta PB90-021-1Q4.
•• EPA notet that permit writer* chooainf to
invoke the omntbua permit authority of
i 270.32(b)(2) to add condition! to • RdtA permit
muat ihow thai *uch condition, an neeetaary to
eniur* protection of human health and In*
environment and mult provide lupport for tht
condition! to intenited partiea and accept and
reipond to comment In addition, permit whtere "
mutt juilify in the adminiitrativa record aupportinf
the permit any dectaiont baaed on omnibua
authority.
and as discussed above, permit officials
may use the omnibus permit authority *•
of the statute to consider revised hea
effects data in establishing permit
conditions.
The Agency's rationale for using oral
RfDs as a basis for RAC-derivation is
described in 54 FR 43755 (October 26.
1989). EPA believes the approach to
derive RACs is reasonable because: (1)
the RfDs are verified by an EPA
workgroup whose decisions are subject
to public review: (2) the verification
process addresses long term (lifetime)
exposure: (3) the RfDs are based on the
best available information meeting
specific scientific criteria; (4) the most
sensitive individuals are considered:
and (5) the RfD determination takes into
account the confidence in the quality of
the information on which they are
based. Nevertheless, the Agency's
Inhalation RfD Workgroup is developing
reference dose values (concentrations)
for inhalation exposure for several
chemicals, and some an currently
available. As reference concentrations
are established by the Workgroup, the
Agency will consider the need to change
the RACs established in today's rule as
discussed above.
The final rule regulates HC1 emissions
based on an annual exposure (long-
term) RAC of 7 »ig/m».»° The RAC jj
based on the threshold of priority |
resulting from exposure to HC1.
Background levels were considered to
be insignificant given that there are not
many large sources of HCl and that this
pollutant generally should not be
transported over long distances in the
lower atmosphere.
The Agency also proposed a short-
term (i.e.. 3-minute exposure) RAC for
HCl. The Agency agrees with
commenters. however, that the proposed
RAC was not technically supportable.
See discussion in section V of part three
of this preamble. Consequently, the final
rule does not establish a short-term RAC
for HCl.
To consider the health effects from
lead emissions, we adjusted the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) by a factor of one-tenth to
account for background ambient levels
•B
f>
•• EPA note* thai permit wnten choosing to
invoke the omnibua permit authority of
1270.32(b)(2) to add condition* to a RCRA permit
muat ahow that such condition* are neeee*ary to
emure protection of human health and the
environment and muat provide rapport for the
condition* to intereitad parti** and accept and
reipond to comment In addition, permit writer*
muat hiatify In the adminiitrative record aupponing
the permit any deciaiooa baaed on omnibu*
authority.
•• U.S. EPA. Integrated Riik Informati
(IRIS) Chemical File*.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7167
^and indirect exposure from the source in
•question. Thus, although the lead
FNAAQS is 1.5 fig/ms, for purposes of
this regulation, sources could contribute
only up to 0.15fig/m*. Given, however.
that the lead NAAQS is based on a
quarterly average, the equivalent annual
exposure is 0.09 WJ/m*.
Finally, section 109 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish
ambient standards for pollutants
determined to be injurious to public
health, allowing for an adequate margin
of safety. Secondary NAAQS, also
authorized by section 109, must be
designed to protect public welfare in
addition to public health, and, thus, are
more stringent. As discussed above, the
Reference Air Concentration (RAG)
used in today's rule for Lead is based on
the Lead NAAQS. As the Agency
develops additional NAAQS for toxic
compounds that may be emitted from
hazardous waste incinerators, we will
consider whether the acceptable
ambient levels (and, subsequently, the
feed rate and emission rate Screening
Limits) ulimately established under this
rule should be revised. We note again
that the reference air concentration
values (and risk-specific dose values for
carcinogens] presented here in no way
preclude the Agency from establishing
wAAQS as appropriate for these
^compounds under authority of the CAA.
a. Derivation of Oral RfDs/HACs.
Many commenters responded to the
issue of derivation of oral RfDs/RACs.
questioning the scientific basis for the
oral RfDa and conversion of RfDs to
RACs. Some commenters stated that use
of oral RfDs do not factor in differences
in routes of exposure (e.g., absorption,
first-pass effects) when extrapolating
from oral to inhalation routes of
exposure. As discussed above, we
acknowledge the limitations of
developing RACs from oral RfDs but
coniinue to believe the approach used is
reasonable and the best available
approach until the Agency's Inhalation
RfD Workgroup can provide inhalation
values.
Other commenters directed their
comments exclusively to lead, indicating
that the lead RAC was arbitrary. EPA
has based the lead RAC on the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This was done in part
because no reference dose or cancer
potency slope is currently available for
this metal. The final rule uses 10%,
rather than 25% as is used for other
compounds, as an apportionment factor
Has proposed) because the Agency is
particularly concerned with: (1) The
possible high contribution of lead
exposure by indirect pathways,
particularly in urban environments; and
(2) the growing concern of low level lead
exposure in children since the Isad
NAAQS was established. (The Agency
currently plans to propose to readjust
the lead NAAQS in 1991.)
b. Apportionment. Some commenters
questioned EPA's proposal apportioning
75% of the RfD to other non-specified
sources, thus causing the RAC to
correspond to 25% of the RfD. The
commenters indicated that the figure of
75% from other sources was arbitrary
and could vary from one chemical to
another. They suggested that unless
other sources of exposure were
identified, the RAC should reflect 100%
of the RfD.
EPA has chosen a fraction (25%) of the
RfD to serve as the basis for the RACs
because indirect pathways, known to
contribute to risks, are not quantified in
these regulations. Even apart from
exposures contributed by sources
separate from the boiler, industrial
furnace, or incinerator, indirect
pathways from emissions from these
devices themselves may contribute 75%
or more to risk. Such indirect (i.e., non-
inhalation) pathways include deposition
of emitted chemicals on: (1) Gardens
and crops directly consumed by
humans: (2) meadows used for grazing
by beef cattle and other edible livestock;
and (3) meadows and fodder used by
dairy cattle (and subsequent milk
consumption by humans).
Such real exposures, which are not
quantified in these rules, are accounted
for by the allowance for 75%
contribution from other sources.
Moreover, it is questionable whether
any single facility should be allowed to
consume 100% of an individual's
exposure allowance, above which any
further exposure might cause adverse
health effects.
B. Air Dispersion Modeling
The Agency used air dispersion
modeling to develop the Screening
Limits and dispersion modeling is
available as the exposure assessment
component of the site-specific risk
assessment option. A more extensive
discussion of air dispersion modeling is
included in the 1939 supplemental notice
(see 54 FR 43752-54). This discussion
focuses on derivation of Screening
Limits wherein the dispersion models
are used to "back-calculate" emission
rates from acceptable ground level
concentrations. The section is also
applicable to dispersion modeling used
for the risk assessment option (where
ground level concentrations are
predicted from estimated emissions
rates). The reader is referred to this
discussion for further information about
air dispersion modeling. It should be
noted that for the purposes of the risk
assessment option, more site-specific
information may be used in place of
some of the conservative default
assumptions used to derive the
Screening Limits, generally resulting in
lower predicted ambient air
concentrations.
1. Option for Site-Specific Modeling
In responding to this provision in the
proposal, many commenters argued for
procedures which would allow greater
flexibility in the air dispersion modeling
process. Many commenters seemed to
confuse the issues of dispersion
modeling used for the Screening Limits.
and modeling for the site-specific risk
assessment. EPA concedes that many
assumptions used to develop the
Screening Limits are, by design,
conservative to ensure that the Limits
are protective in most cases. These
assumptions do not apply, however,
when an owner or operator conducts
site-specific dispersion modeling under
the Tier in standards. For site-specific
dispersion modeling, procedures
specified in EPA's Guideline on Air
Quality Models must be used.
2. Terrain-Adjusted Effective Stack
Height
Two commenters stated that in
adjusting the stack height to account for
local terrain and differentiating for
terrain in the screeing limits, EPA is
"double counting" the influence of
terrain unnecessarily. One commenter
added that such terrain adjustment of
stack height is not supported by the
current EPA Guideline on Air Quality
Models (Revised) and should be
eliminated.
EPA acknowledged this "double
counting" of terrain in the supplement to
the proposed rule (54 FR 43759), stating
that this additional conservatism is
necessary to account for the wide range
of terrain complexities encountered at
real facilities. EPA continues to believe
that this double counting is necessary.
Without this conservatism, additional
criteria would have to be added to the
existing list (see 1266.106(b)(7)) for
determining when the screening limits
may not be conservative and, thus, may
not be used. Commenters did not
propose (and provide support for)
additional criteria for determining when
the use of less conservative screening
limits would be appropriate. Further.
EPA believes that additional criteria
would complicate and delay the
implementation of the rule by placing
additional burden on regulatory
officials. Moreover, if a facility cannot
-------
7166 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
meet the screening limits, then site-
specific dispersion modeling may be
used to demonstrate compliance with
the Tier III standards. Detailed.
comprehensive dispersion modeling
generally costs less than $5,000 and,
thus, should not pose a substantial
burden. In fact many BIPs have already
conducted such modeling to comply
with applicable standards under the
Clean Air Act. Finally, the final rule
minimizes the burden of dispersion
modeling by allowing the use of
screening models.
3. Conservatism in Screening Limits
Five commenters stated that EPA's
approach to setting the screening limits
ia overly conservative and illustrated
this by calculating the difference in
estimated ground level concentrations
using site-specific information as
opposed to the default assumptions
recommended for the Screening Limits.
It should be noted that the Agency
would expect that the use of site-
specific information would lead to
higher emission limits than under the
screening limits. However, the Agency
developed feed rate and emission rate
screening limits with the intent of
minimizing the need of site-specific
dispersion modeling and thus reducing
the burden of demonstrating compliance
with the emissions standards. To ensure
that the limits are protective in most
cases, however, the Agency derived the
limits using conservative assumptions.
The Agency believes that although the
assumptions are reasonable, they would
likely limit emissions by a factor of 2 to
20 times lower than would be allowed
by site-specific dispersion modeling (54
FR 43758).
4. CEP Stack Height.
Two commenters stated that EPA
should not impose a CEP stack height
limitation for existing stacks. The
commenters went on to state that EPA.
should allow modeling of emissions at*
actual stack height for existing stacks
or. at a minimum, adopt a grandfather
provision to exclude GEP from applying
to stacks constructed prior to December
:i. 1970. One commenter also indicated
that EPA should recognize that the stack
height used for conducting a site-specific
dispersion modeling analysis may
exceed CEP formula height, as allowed
under section 123 of the Clean Air Act
The Agency maintains that in
complying with the metals and HC1/C1*
controls credit will not be allowed for
slack heights greater than GEP. GEP
stack heights are determined in a
nanner consistent with the Guideline
for Determination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height (Technical
Support Document for the Stack Height
Regulations), Revised (EPA 450/480-
023R).
EPA's position here is consistent with
the prohibition on using physical stack
height in excess of GEP in the
development of emission limitations
under EPA's Air Program at 40 CFR
51.118 and 40 CFR 51.164. Stack heights
higher than GEP cannot be used for
compliance purposes because such
stacks merely provide added dispersion
and dilution of ambient levels. EPA
prefers that pollutants be removed from
the stack gas to avoid build-up of
persistent pollutants (e.g., metals) in the
environment and subsequent indirect
exposure through, for example, the food
chain. In addition, better dispersion of
emissions of carcinogenic compounds
can merely expose larger populations to
(albeit lower) concentrations of
pollutants and may not decrease the
aggregate population risk (i.e.. cancer
incidents/year in the affected
population).
5. Plume Rise Table
One commenter recommended that
EPA extend Table F-2 (plume rise) and
Tables E-l through E-10 (feed rate and
emissions screening limits) of the
October 26.1989 supplemental notice to
account for the high flow rates typical of
many cement plant stacks. Another
commenter stated that the effective
stack height of most utility boilers
exceeds the maximum stack height
contained in Tables E-l through E-10.
One commenter indicated that the
plume rise values presented in Table F-
2 are not conservative for conditions of
neutral atmospheric stability at average
to high wind speeds or for stable
atmospheric conditions at all typical
wind speeds. This commenter added
that the screening limits based on Table
F-2 plume rise may not be conservative
for regions having complex terrain.
For the final rule, the plume rise
values presented in Table F-2 of the-
supplement to the proposed rule were
revised and the table was expanded to
include higher stack exit flow rates
indicative of cement kiln stacks (exit
flow rates were increased up to a level
of 200 ma/s). See appendix VI to the
final rule. The plume rise table values
were originally developed based on
plume rise equations presented in the
1979 User's Guide to the Industrial
Source Complex (ISC) model. The plume
rise formulation in the ISC model has
since been changed to correspond to the
way other EPA models determine plume
rise. Consequently, the entire table was
revised, based on conservative
application of the updated neutral and
stable buoyant plume rise equations.5'
The revised values of plume rise
represent the lowest value of
conservative stable buoyant and neutral
buoyant plume rise for each flow rate/
temperature level.
The range of terrain-adjusted effective
stack heights, shown in Tables E-l
through E-10 of the supplemental notice.
was not increased beyond the height of
120 meters. This height was determined
to be the maximum terrain-adjusted
effective stack height based on the stack
parameter and site location data used in
the development of the dispersion
coefficients (as described in appendix F
of the proposed, supplemental rule).
Facilities with terrain-adjusted effective
stack heights that exceed 120 meters
have the option of conducting site-
specific dispersion modeling to
demonstrate compliance.
6. Compliance by Manipulating Effective
Stack Height
One commenter claimed that facilities
may elect to circumvent compliance by
manipulating their effective stack
heights. This commenter added mat
additional exposures could result from
the increased dispersion from taller
stacks. The Agency acknowledges that
an owner or .operator could increase
physical stack height up to the GEP
maximum to achieve better dispersion
and hence a higher allowable emission
rate. The Agency maintains, however,
that it is more protective of human
health and the environment (see
discussion in section IH.B.4 above) and
it may be more cost-effective to upgrade
emission control equipment to state-of-
the-art control, rather than to increase
stack height, particularly given that the
Agency plans to consider in the future
whether additional controls are needed
to better control metals emissions. See
discussion in section I of Part Three of
this preamble.
7. Effect of HC1 Emissions on Acid Rain
One commenter disagreed with the
use of Screening Limits for HC1 which
are based solely upon effective stack
height terrain and land use. This
commenter maintained that this
approach ignores the effects of HC1 in
atmospheric reactions and acid rain.
Addressing potential effects of HC1 in
atmospheric reactions and acid rain is
beyond the scope of this rule. The
screening limits were developed to
'' Mtmonndom from Su« Templemm. fUdita _
Corp. to Dwight Hlurtcfc. EPA. •nbtlwi "Dtrtviuon"
of Plum* MM VcIuM for Bff«". dattd Novtmtxr 30,
1990.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7169
protect human health in the vicinity of
facilities burning hazardous waste.
8. Building Wake Effects
One commenter stated that emissions
limits based on effective stack height,
terrain, and land use would not be
conservative in cases where stacks are
subject to building wake effects. This
commenter added that only
consideration of building wake effects
will lead to conservative concentrations
for stacks influenced by nearby
structures and recommended that site-
specific dispersion modeling be required
in all cases where the "Guideline for Air
Quality Models (Revised)" indicates the
necessity for consideration of building
wake effects.
The development of the conservative
dispersion coefficients incorporated an
eleventh hypothetical source in order to
represent facilities whose release
heights do not meet good engineering
practice and whose plumes would thus
be subject to building wake effects (54
FR 43752). In addition, the Agency
acknowledges that the dispersion
coefficients used to establish the Tier 1
and II Screening Limits may not be
conservative in extremely poor
dispersion conditions or when the
ambient-air receptor is located close to
.the source and has therefore defined
five situations for which the permit
writer should require site-specific
dispersion modeling (34 FR 43754).
Furthermore, the Agency is reserving the
right tc require that a site-specific
dispersion modeling analysis be
conducted, irrespective of whether the
facility meets the specific Screening
Limits. Thus, the permit writer has the
option of overruling use of Tier I or II. if
a probability exists that application of
this methodology would not be
protective of the health-based
s'andards. The Tier III approach of
conducting site-specific dispersion
modeling requires incorporation of
building wake effects, as necessary, in
the modeling analysis. The Tier I and 0
Screening Limit methodology was not
further modified to account for these
factors, as it already embodies repeated
use of conservative assumptions.
C. Consideration of Indirect Exposure
and Environmental Impacts
1. Ir. direct Exposure
During the proposal stages of these
regulations, a few commenters
recommended incorporating indirect
exposure pathways into the risk
assessment process. Indirect exposure is
defined, in these regulations, as any
exposure pathway other than direct
inhalation of emissions from • boiler or
industrial furnace. One commenter
maintained that emissions such as
metals, chlorinated dioxins, and furans
would be environmentally persistent
and able to enter the food chain after
deposition on the ground (including
crops, pasture land, surface waters).
Consequently, the commenter argued
that indirect exposures should be
factored into the risk assessment.
EPA recognizes that the contribution
of indirect pathways may be significant.
However, the Agency believes that other
conservative procedures, such as
apportioning 75% of exposures to either
indirect pathways or other emission
sources (that can contribute to
background levels) in the calculation of
RACs, will help offset the contribution
of indirect pathways. Another
significant source of conservatism.
offsetting the contribution of indirect
pathways, is represented by the inherent
uncertainty, and consequent
conservatism, in the models used to
estimate unit risk values. Use of the MEI
in the Screening Limits procedure
comprises yet another conservative
element in the risk assessment process
which would offset direct estimation of
indirect pathway exposure. Therefore.
the Agency has not modified the risk
assessment process to address indirect
pathways.
2. Non-human Health Related
Environmental Impacts
One commenter noted that for many
pollutants, environmental standards for
certain flora and fauna may be more
stringent than for humans. Therefore,
the effect on non-human receptors
should not be ignored in the regulations
and the environmental risks should be
evaluated.
EPA is concerned about the potential
effects of BIF emissions on non-human
receptors. While some environmental
standards are available for the
protection of environmental receptors
(notably EPA water quality criteria for
aquatic organisms), methods for
quantifying exposure and defining
acceptable levels for non-human
receptors are still largely in the
developmental stages. Thus, until these
critical procedures are better
established, the Agency is not requiring
such an evaluation at this time.
However, as noted earlier, some of the
conservatism in the human health risk
assessment is designed to compensate
for the absence of direct environmental
standards.
D. Acceptable Risk Level for
Carcinogens
Today's rule limits the incremental
lifetime cancer risk to the hypothetical
maximum exposed individual (MEI) to
10~*. This risk level is within the range
of levels historically used by EPA in its
hazardous waste and emergency
response programs—10"4 to 10" *.
Under the rule, we are limiting the
aggregate risk to the MEI from
carcinogenic metals to 10~*. and the
aggregate risk from carcinogenic organic
compounds (dioxins and furans and
other PICs under provisions of the
alternative HC limit) to 10~*. This will
limit in most cases the risk from
individual carcinogenic compounds to
levels on the order of 10~* but below
10~*. The rule does not require that the
risk from carcinogenic organic
compounds be added to the risk from
carcinogenic metals. This is because the
Agency does not believe it is
appropriate to sum the risk from metals
(i.e., arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and
chromium) that are known or probable
human carcinogens (Group A or B
carcinogens under the weight-of-
evidence approach) with the risk from
organic compounds, many of which, are
possible human carcinogens (Group C
carcinogens).
In selecting a 10" * aggregate risk
threshold level for this rule, we
considered risk thresholds in the range
of 10~* to 10'4, the range the Agency
generally uses for various aspects of its
hazardous waste programs.
We considered limiting the aggregate
risk of the MEI to 10~* but determined
that this risk threshold would be
unnecessarily conservative for the
purpose of this rule. In reaching this
determination, we considered that, at an
aggregate risk level of 10"*, the risk level
for individual metals would be on the
order of 10"', which we believe is overly
conservative for this rule.
Alternatively, we considered limiting
the aggregate risk to the MEI to 10~4. An
aggregate risk threshold of NT'would
result in limiting the risk level for
individual carcinogens on the order of
10~*. We did not select a 10~* aggregate
risk threshold for this proposed rule for
a number of reasons. In selecting the
appropriate risk level for a particular
regulatory program, the Agency
considers such factors as the particular
statutory mandate involved, nature of
the pollutants, control alternatives, fate
and transport of the pollutant in
different media, and potential human
exposure. The Agency believes that a
10" • risk level is appropriate for this rule
because: (1) The rule limits emissions
considering only direct exposure via
inhalation of dispersed emissions. Other
routes of exposure (e.g., soil ingestion,
uptake through the food chain) are not
accounted for by this methodology,
-------
7170 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
which means the risk is somewhat
higher. (2) the carcinogenic metals that
the rule controls are Group A or B (i.e..
known or probable) human carcinogens;
(3) we are concerned about the potential
risks posed by the unknown pollutants
these devices can emit—i.e., products of
incomplete combustion (PICs);5* and (4)
ths 10"' risk level does not result in a
PJ •: that poses a substantial burden on
th< regulated community given that it is
neither a. major rule as defined by
Executive Order 12291 nor will it
significantly impact small entities.
When the proposed regulations were
published and comments were solicited
from affected parties, several
commenters responded to the issue of
acceptable risk levels for exposure to
carcinogens. These commenters
questioned the basis of 10"' as
representing an acceptable risk level.
They maintained that the discussion in
the rule, serving as the rationale or
justification for selecting this level of
risk, was inadequate. Others- asserted
that the selected acceptable level of
cancer risk was not consistent with
other regulations (specifically. 10-~4
cancer risk to the MEI was used to set a
national emission standard (NESHAP)
for benzene, and 10~* for individuals
living "some distance from the source").
The Agency continues to believe that
the aggregate cancer risk to the MET of
l
-------
Fadaal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Roles and Regulation! 7171
categories of waste combustion
facilities.)
Many commenters responded broadly
on the impact of assumptions and
uncertainty in risk assessment. While
generally supporting the concept of risk
assessment some asserted that EPA's
proposed assumptions were too
conservative regarding estimated
emission levels, dispersion modeling.
and health impact estimation. Further,
they maintained that assumptions were
not well enough justified and the
conservative bias used for each of the
multiple assumptions required in a risk
assessment tends to accumulate,
resulting in gross over-estimation of
health impacts. Some of the specific
assumptions that commenters
considered too conservative are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Two commenters asserted that
emission control technology should not
be assumed absent when estimating
emission levels. One commenter
recommended that sensitivity analysis
be incorporated into the risk assessment
process. This commenter also
recommended incorporation into the risk
assessment of population mobility (i.e..
time spent away from the site), facility
lifetimes less than 70 years, and an
attenuation factor for time spent
indoors, rather than assume 24 hr/day,
70-year exposure.
Many of the respondents argued that
economic impacts resulting from overly-
conservative risk assessments are
substantial To avoid some of the
default assumptions is also burdensome
in the commenters' judgment requiring
trial burns, emissions measurements,
slag and product assays, and detailed
air quality dispersion modeling.
Although many of the assumptions
discussed by the commenters are
conservative in nature, it is difficult to
determine how leas conservative
assumptions could be used in light of the
considerable associated uncertainty.
Much of the conservatism referred to
originates from assumptions used to
derive screening levels. When screening
levels are derived, either (1) No site-
specific information is available (nor
may be assumed if the procedure is
intended to screen a variety of sites); or
(2) incorporation of site-specific
information in the derivation of
screening levels would so complicate
the process as to render it prohibitively
time-consuming and defeat its utility as
a screen. Thus, in light of the uncertainty
(i.e.. no site specific-information),
conservative assumptions are used to
derive the screening limits that EPA
believes to be protective of human
health and the environment
If the facility fails to meet the
screening criteria, the option of site-
specific risk assessment is still
available. For site-specific risk
assessment more realistic and less
conservative assumptions may be
incorporated, reflecting actual site or
facility conditions.
V. Controls for Emissions of Toxic
Metals
The Agency has identified 12 toxic
metals in appendix VIII of 40 CFR part
261 that may pose a hazard to human
health and the environment: antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium, silver, and thallium.
Five of these metals (or their
compounds) are known or suspected
carcinogens: arsenic, beryllium.
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and
nickel.
Many of these toxic metals are
contained in hazardous waste that is
burned in boilers and industrial
furnaces. Many hazardous waste fuels
contain metals at levels orders of
magnitude higher than levels found in
No. 6 fuel oil Metal-bearing wastes
typically used as fuel in boilers and
industrial furnaces include spent
halogenated and nonhalogenated
degreasing solvents used for metals
cleaning, paint manufacturing wastes,
and other organic liquid wastes with
high heating values. Currently, metals
emissions from the burning of these
wastes are not controlled under RCRA
for boilers and the types of industrial
furnaces that burn hazardous wastes.
Emissions of carcinogenic metals can
potentially result in increased lifetime
cancer risks of greater than IX10"* and
emissions of noncaicinagenic metals
such as lead can result in ambient levels
that result in adverse health effects.
Today's final rule promulgates the
controls as discussed in the October
1989 supplement to the proposed rule
(see 54 FR 43728-29)." See 1266.106.
The rules establish metals emission
limits for 10 toxic metals) •* listed in
•• Glvtn Urn* conitriintt in developing the final
rule for promulgation. response to major comments
could not be provided in the preamble. Riipaneea so
comments ire provided in the Comment Response
Document for the Bff Regulation.
14 Ai proposed, the rule doe* not limit emissions
of nickel tad eelenium (tee 54 FR 43729). Umiti
cannot be established for Minium beaut* the
Agency hai Inadequate health data to eetabliih •
reference air concentration. Nickel I* not cnn trolled
becauae the two nickel compound! suspected at this
time of being potential human carcinogen*, nickel
carbonyl and eubaulfide. are not likely to be emitted
from eomboation device*, given their highly
oxidizing conditioaa. In the 1068 supplemental .
notice to the proposed rule. EPA requested
comments' on whether the reduced carctnogviiic
forma of nickel weie likely to be emitted boa
appendix Vffl of 40 CFR part 261 based
on projected inhalation health risks to a
hypothetical maximum exposed
individual (MEI). The standards for the
carcinogenic metals (arsenic, beryllium.
cadmium, and chromium) limit the
increased lifetime cancer risk to the MEI
to a maximum of 1 in 100,000. The risk
from the four carcinogens must be
summed to ensure that the combined
risk is no greater than 1 in 100.000. The
standards for the noncartinogenic
metals (antimony, barium, mercury,
silver, and thalliumjare based on
Reference Doses (RfDs) below which
adverse health effects have not been
observed. The standard for lead is
based on the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.
The owner and operator must analyze
the hazardous waste to be burned and
comply with the standard for each of the
10 metals that could reasonably be
expected to be in the waste. The metals
excluded from analysis must be
indentured and the basis for their
exclusion explained to ensure that there
is adequate justification for not _
analyzing for a particular mstd."
The standards are implemented
through a three-tiered approach.
Compliance with any tier is acceptable.
The tiers are structured to allow higher
emission rates (and feed rates) as the
owner or operator elects to conduct
more site-specific testing and analyses
(e.g., emissions testing, dispersion
modeling). Thus, the feed rate limits
under each of the tiers are derived
baaed on different levels of site-specific
information related to facility design
and surrounding terrain. Under tier I
(see i 286.106(b)), the Agency has
provided conservative waste feed rate
limits in reference tables as a function of
effective stack height and terrain and
land use in the vicinity of the stack The
owner or operator demonstrates
compliance by waste analysis, not
emissions testing or dispersion
modeling. Consequently, the Tier I feed
rate limits an based on an assumed
reasonable, worst-case dispersion
scenario, and an assumption that all
metals fed to the device are emitted (i.e.
no partitioning to bottom ash or product.
and no removal by an air pollution
control device (APCD)).
Under Tier II (see i 286.106(c)). the
owner or operator conducts emissions
testing (but not dispersion modeling) to
get credit for partitioning to bottom ash
hazardous waste banting device*, espwnslly those
furnace* that may not us* highly oxidind
conditions. However, the Agency did not receive
any comment* on mil leave pertinent to boilers and
industrial furnace*.
-------
7172 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 33 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
or product, and APCD removal
efficiency. Thus, the Agency has
developed conservative emission rate
limits in reference tables, again as a
function of effective stack height and
terrain and land use in the vicinity of the
stack. The Agency also assumed
reasonable, worst-case dispersion under
Tier II.
Under Tier III (see § 266.10S(d)), the
owner or operator elects to conduct
emissions testing and site-specific
dispersion modeling to demonstrate that
the actual (measured) emissions do not
exceed acceptable levels considering
actual (predicted) dispersion.
The metals controls apply both to
facilities applying for a part B operating
permit and to facilities operating during
interim status. See section VII of part
Three of this preamble for discussion of
how the standards apply during interim
status.
A. Background Information
The following sections summarize
EPA's regulation of metals emissions
from boilers and industrial furnaces
under other statutes, the 1987 proposed
rule and comments received on that
proposal, and the basis for the 1989
revision to the proposed rule and
comments received on that revised
approach.
1. Metal Standards Under Other Statutes
As discussed below. EPA has
promulgated standards applicable to
boilers and industrial furnaces under
other statutes for some but not all of the
13 toxic metals controlled by today's
rule. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
EPA established National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(MESHAPS) for arsenic, beryllium, and
mercury for certain categories of sources
(»0 CFR part 81). These emission
standards were developed considering
the quantities and types of metals
emissions from various source
categories, current control practices, and
the economic impacts of reducing
emissions. In addition. EPA has
established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards •• (NAAQS) for lead
and paniculate matter. These ambient
standards are implemented by states
under the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) program to control major sources
of lead and paniculate emissions. Hie
Agency does not believe that lead
emissions standards have been
" We nott that the reference tit concentration
values for noncarcinogen* ind risk-specific doit
vtlues for carcinogen* established by today'* rule
are not intended to. and in no wey. preclude the
Agency from establishing NAAQS aa appropriate
for these compound* under authority of the Clean
Air Act.
established under the SIPs for any
boilers and for many industrial furnaces
that burn hazardous waste fuels (e.g.,
cement and light-weight aggregate kilns)
because they are not major lead emitters
as defined under the NAAQS. Therefore.
EPA believes that today's metals
controls are not redundant to existing
Agency standards, and. thus, are
necessary to ensure adequate protection
of human health and the environment.
Participate emission standards.
however, established under the SIPs in
confonnance with the paniculate.
NAAQS, or by EPA as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). do
apply to some boilers and industrial
furnaces that bum hazardous waste.
The paniculate standards generally limit
metals emissions to the extent that
state-of-the-art paniculate control
technologies will allow. High efficiency
electrostatic precipitatora (ESPs) or
fabric filters are usually required to
meet these standards. However, these
paniculate emission standards may not
adequately control metals emissions
from the burning of hazardous wastes in
many boilers and industrial furnaces for
service reasons: (1) The particulate
standards do not apply to gas and oil-
fired boilers (which represent a large
number of hazardous waste fuel
burners); (2) smaller coal-fired boilers
are not subject to NSPS standards and
may not be required under the SIPs to be
equipped with ESPs or fabric filters: (3)
large volumes of hazardous waste fuels
are burned by light-weight aggregate
kilns that are equipped with low-
pressure wet scrubbers that may not be
highly efficient at collecting particulates
in the less than 1 micron range, the size
range that contains the bulk of the
particulate metals: and (4) the risks
posed by metals emissions from these
boilers and industrial furnaces that are
equipped with ESPs. fabric filters, and
wet scrubbers can increase
substantially when hazardous waste
fuel is burned since the levels of some
metals, particularly chromium and lead.
can be much higher in hazardous waste
than in coal.
2.1987 Proposed Rule
The 1987 proposed rule would have
established a four-tiered standard to
control emissions of arsenic, cadmium.
hexavalent chromium, and lead. Each
tier represented a standard protective
on its own. and demonstration of
compliance with any Tier would have
been sufficient Tiers I through III
established hazardous waste metals
concentrations, feed rates, and emission
screening limits, respectively, as a
function of device type and thermal
capacity. Tier IV would have provided
for site-specific dispersion modeling to
demonstrate that when the screening
limits were exceeded, emissions would
nevertheless not pose an unacceptable
health risk. Data available to the
Agency indicated that only four of the 12
toxic metals listed in appendix VIE of
part 281 were likely to be present in
hazardous waste burned in boilers and
industrial furnaces at levels posing a
significant health risk. The permit writer
would have determined on a case-by-
case basis if any of the other toxic
metals were present at levels posing a
significant risk.
Public comments submitted on the
1987 proposal stated that EPA's
database on the metals composition of
hazardous waste was both limited and
out of date in light of the Agency's data
collection efforts at that time and the
HSWA statutory requirement to pretreat
waste that heretofore had been land
disposed. As a result of HSWA. more
hazardous waste is being burned, and
pretreamtent operations are often likely
to involve combustion. The hazardous.
waste burned currently and in the future
in boilers and industrial furnaces may
include toxic metals other than the four
targeted for regulation in the 1987
proposal. Therefore, the Agency
requested comment in the October 1989
supplemental notice on expanding the
list of regulated metals to include all 10
appendix Vffl metals. (Nickel and
selenium were not included as discussed
above.) In addition, if standards for all
of the toxic metals were included in the
rule, the burden on permit writers would
actually be reduced because explicit
standards would be provided for all
metals of potential concern. Without
explicit standards, permit writers would
have to rely on the omnibus permit
authority of the statute to add permit
conditions as necessary to protect
human health and the environment
Using the omnibus permit authority can
involve a lengthy and cumbersome.
interaction between permit officials and
the applicant
3.1989 Supplement to Proposed Rule
Based on public comments submitted
on the 1987 proposed rule and on
additional evaluation of the risk
assessment approach used for the
proposal, the Agency discussed in the
1989 supplemental notice whether to (1)
expand the list of metals for which
emissions standards would be
established in the rule to include all the
toxic metals listed in appendix VIII of
part 261 (except nickel and selenium, for
the reasons discussed above); (2)
establish the screening limits as a
function of effective stack height
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7173
terrain, and land use rather than as a
function of device type and capacity;
and (3) rather than provide the screening
limits in the rule itself as proposed in
1987, provide them in a guidance
document that would be entitled "Risk
Assessment Guideline (RAG) for
Permitting Hazardous Waste Thermal
Treatment Devices".
a. Expanded List of Metals. In the
1989 supplemental notice. EPA proposed
to expand the list of metals for which
emissions standards would be
established in the rule to include
antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium.
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead.
mercury silver, and thallium. Thus, of
the 12 toxic metals listed in appendix
VIII. only selenium and nickel would not
be controlled for reasons discussed
above. Today's final rule establishes
standards for all 10 metals. We note that
the controls apply only to metals that
are present in the hazardous waste feed
at detectable levels using procedures
specified in SW-846. See { 286.106(a).
b. Revised Basis for Screening Limits.
In the 1989 supplemental notice. EPA
also proposed to revise the bases for the
feed rate and emission rate screening
limits to correlate them with stack
height and terrain and land use in the
vicinity of the facility because these
parameters more directly relate
emission controls to key parameters that
affect the dispersion of emissions, and
ultimately, ambient levels (i.e.. more so
than the proposed approach of
correlating the screening limits to device
type and heat input capacity). When
developing the Tier I through Tier III
screening limits proposed in 1987. the
Agency made a simplified assumption
that effective stack height correlated
with thermal capacity (e.g., if the
thermal capacity of one device was 10
percent greater than the thermal
apacity of another, the effective stack
height was also 10 percent greater). The
Agency acknowledges that this
assumption may not always hold. Stack
helflht is often more a function of the
height of nearby buildings and
surrounding terrain than a function of
:he heat input capacity of the device.
Thus, the fmal ru;e correlates the Tier I
.2iid Tier i! screening limits to stack
height, terrain, and land use.
c. Establishing the Screening Limits in
:i-e Rule. As originally proposed in 1987.
the iinal rule incorporates the Tier 1 feed
rate screening limits and the Tier II
emissions race screening limits in the
rule itseif rather than in a separate
guidance document. Our concern (and
many commenters concurred) is that a
guidance document would not earn- the
'.veight of a regulation—permit writers
would be free to accept or reject the
guidance (i.e., in this case, the screening
limits and the reference air
concentration (RACs) and risk-specific
dose (RSD) values used to develop the
limits). In addition, permit writers would
be obligated to justify use and
appropriateness of the guidance on a
case-by-case basis. This would place a
substantial burden on the permit writer
and result in inconsistent and perhaps.
inappropriate permit condition!. Finally,
implementing the emission standards
during interim status as required by the
final rule would be virtually impossible
without incorporating the screening
limits and RACs and RSDs in the rule.
We note that revisions to the RACs
and RSD values will undoubtedly need
to be made over time as the Agency
obtains additional health effects
information on the regulated pollutants.
and corresponding revisions to the
screening limits will be made by formal
ruiemaking (i.e., proposed revisions.
opportunity for pubu'c comment and
promulgation of final revisions). In the
interim, however, permit writers may
apply stricter limits than contained in
the rule (if the facts justify it) pursuant
to the omnibus permit authority ** in
section 3005(c)(3).
In the 1989 proposal as a possible
alternative to monitoring waste feed
rates and compositions. EPA requested
comment on using the results of
analyses of emission control residues to
monitor compliance with the metals
emission standards. Several
commenters supported this approach.
The final rule allows for this or other
alternative approaches to implement the
metals controls. See section 1V.C.4 of
Part Three of the preamble.
B. How the Standards Work
1. Tier III Standards
Tier HI standards are discussed first
because the Agency believes that the
majority of facilities will elect to comply
with these standards rather than the
Tier I cr Tier II screening limits to obtain
more flexible permit limits. The Tier III
standards (see § 26B.108(d)) require: (1)
Emissions testing to determine actual
emissions taking into account
partitioning of metals to combustion gas
versus ash or product: and removal of
metals from flue gas by the air pollution
control system (APCS): and (2) site-
specific dispersion modeling to take into
account actual, predicted dispersion
conditions at the facility.
To comply with the Tier ffl standards,
predicted ambient concentrations of the
carcinogenic metals, arsenic, beryllium.
cadmium, and hexavalent chromium at
the hypothetical maximum exposed
individual (MET) may not result in an
increased cancer risk of more than 1 in
100.000. The risk from each metal must
be summed to ensure that the summed
risk does not exceed 1 in 100.000. As
proposed, the final rule establishes a
risk-specific dose (RSD) for each metal
at the 10-* (i.e.. 1 in 100.000) risk level. If
a person is exposed to the 10~6 RSD (an
ambient air concentration) over a
lifetime, the probability of increased
cancer incidence is not expected to
exceed 1 in 100.000. To ensure that the
summed risk from the four carcinogens
is no greater than 1 in 100.1)00, the ratios
of the predicted ambient concentration
to the 10~* RSD must be summed for all
metals to demonstrate that the sum does
not exceed l.O.*7
For the noncarcinogenic metals.
antimony, barium, mercury, silver, and
thallium, predicted MEI ambient air
concentrations may not exceed the
reference air concentrations (RACs), as
proposed The RAC for lead is based on
10% of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead, as
proposed. One commenter stated that
the lead RAC may be appropriate for
facilities in urban areas but that it is not
appropriate for rural areas with low
background lead levels. This commenter
suggested a waiver of the lead RAC
where a facility can show that measured
ambient air lead levels do not exceed
the NAAQS. Although this approach is
reasonable, the final rule does not
include a waiver provision for the lead
RAC based on site-specific ambient air
monitoring ** because: (1) the lead
Ji EPA notei th«t permit writer* choosing to
invoice the ommbui permit authority of
§ 2T0.32(bl(2) to add corditiont to i RCRA permit
TT.UJI mow that such condition! are necessary ro
ensure protection of human health cna the
environment and muit provide support for the
condition* lo interested parties and accept and
rjjpond to comment. In addition, permit wnten
nun msiify in the administrative record supporting
the permit aoy aecuions bttea on omnibus
" To implement the meuls controls, metils feed
rates are limited to levels during the compliance test
or tnal bum. Thus, u the owner/ opera tor would li*n
to have the flexibility to bum wastes with varying
'Higher) levels of carcinogenic metsls. he/she may
choose to develop two or more operating mode*
with varying tan rates of carunooeruc metals. If so.
a compliance test or tn«l bum would be required for
each moae of operation to demonstrate that the
summed risk from the carcinogenic meuls does not
exceed 1 in 100,000. Under this approach, the
operator is required to identify the mode ot
operation at any time, and 10 comply with the metal
feed rate limits for that mode of operation.
•• We note, however, that EPA's Guideline on A:r
Quality Models ellowi the use of ambient eir
monitoring to develop site-speaCc dissection
models.
-------
7174
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
NAAQS may not be protective given
that the Agency has been developing for
some time a proposal to lower the
NAAQS (perhaps by as much as 50%)
based on health effects data obtained
since the NAAQS was established
initially (the Agency plans to propose a
lower lead NAAQS in the fall of 1991);
(2) the time and cost of conducting
ambient monitoring in conformance with
procedures established by EPA's Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) would make this approach
impracticable: (3) a waiver provision
would add extra complexity to the rule;
and (4) such a waiver would make
eventual further regulation under
amended section 112 of the Clean Air
Act more likely.
a. Emissions Testing. Stack emissions
tasting for metals must be conducted in
conformance with "Methodology for the
Determination of Metals Emissions in
Exhaust Gases from Hazardous Waste
Incineration and Similar Combustion
Processes" (Multiple Metals Train)
provided in section 3.1 of Methods
Manual for Compliance with the BIF
Regulations (incorporated in today's rule
as appendix IX of part 266).
b. Dispersion Modeling. Dispersion
modeling must be conducted in
conformance with EPA's "Hazardous
Waste Combustion Air Quality
Screening Procedure" provided in
Methods Manual for Compliance with
the BIF Regulations or EPA's Guideline
on Air Quality Models (Revised) which
are incorporated in today's rule as
Appendices IX and X. respectively, of
Part 2C6, or "EPA SCREEN Screening
Procedure" as described in Screening
Procedures for Estimating Air Quality
Impact of Stationary Sources. The latter
document is incorporated by reference
in today's final rule at { 260.11. The
Guideline on Air Quality Models is the
Agency's primary guide for dispersion
modeling. The "Hazardous Waste
Combustion Air Quality Screening
Procedure" is included in EPA's
Guidance on Metals and Hydrogen
Chloride Controls for Hazardous Waste
Incinerators. Draft Final Report August
1989. The derivation of this procedure.
which was developed specifically for
hazardous waste combustion facilities.
is also included in that document The
data base used in the derivation is the
same as that used for deriving the Tier I
and Tier II screening limits as
summarized in the October 26.1989
supplement to the proposed BIF rule (54
FR 43752). Finally, the EPA SCREEN
screening procedure has been in general
use since 1988 when it was developed
by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. It has been used by
Regional Offices, States, and sources for
air dispersion modeling required by EPA
air regulations.
If a user determines that there is an
inconsistency between either of the
screening procedures discussed above
and EPA's Guideline on Air Quality
Models, the Guideline shall have
primacy.
c. CEP Stack Height As proposed.
stack heights used to demonstrate
conformance with the final rule may not
exceed Good Engineering Practice (GEP)
as defined in 40 CFR part Sl.lOO(ii).
d. MEL As proposed, the hypothetical
MEI concentration is the maximum
annual average ground level
concentration at an off-site location. On-
site MEI locations need not be used to
demonstrate conformance with the
standards, unless a person resides on-
site.
e. Bubble Approach for Multiple
Stacks. Given that the standards for
metals (and HC1 and Cl») are health risk-
based, the final rules are implemented
using a limited "bubble" approach at
proposed. Under the limited bubble
approach, emissions from all hazardous
waste combustion stacks at a facility
subject to metals and chlorine feed rate
limits must be considered in
demonstrating conformance with the
acceptable ambient levels. This includes
all boilers and industrial furnaces
regulated under today's rule, and also
those RCRA-regulated incinerators and
thermal treatment units where feed rate
or emission limits have been established
for metals, chlorine. HC1, or Cli by EPA.
(The Agency considered expanding the
bubble to consider other stack emissions
such as from nonhazardous waste
incinerators or process stacks, out
believes that effective implementation
would be difficult given the different
types and levels of regulatory control
end procedures applicable to a variety
of stack emission sources.)
To implement the bubble approach.
dispersion modeling must consider
emissions from all regulated stacks (see
discussion above) to predict the
maximum annual average off-site
ground level (i.e.. MEI) concentration of
each metal. The MEI location will
generally vary for each metal.
2. Tier II Standards
See 5 266.106(c). The final rule
incorporates the Tier II emission rate
screening limits (see appendix I of the
final rule) as presented in the 1989
supplemental notice as a function of
terrain-adjusted effective stack height
and noncomplex versus complex terrain •
and urban versus rural land use in the
vicinity of the facility. The limits were
back-calculated from the RACs and 10~*
RSDs established by today's rule using
reasonable, worst-case dispersion ^
scenarios. Conformance with the Tier !•
emission rate screening limits is
demonstrated by emissions testing (i.e..
the facility's actual emissions are
compared to the maximum allowable
screening limits).
The methodologies for determining
terrain-adjusted effective stack height
and terrain type are established in
§5 266.106(0) (3) and (4), and the
methodology for determining land use in
the vicinity of the stack are provided in
"Simplified Land Use Classification
Procedures for Compliance with Tier I
and Tier n Limits in Methods Manual for
Compliance with the BIF Regulations
(incorporated in today's rule as
appendix IX of part 266).
a. Special Requirements for
Carcinogens. We note that the Tier II
emission rate screening limit* for the
carcinogen metal* arsenic, beryllium.
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, are
back-calculated from the 10~* RSD for
each metal. Thus, if the actual emission
rate of one of those metal* was at the
Tier II screening limit the resulting risk
to the MEI is estimated to be 1 in
100,000. Given that the rule require* that
the summed risk for all carcinogenic
metals cannot exceed 1 hi 100,000. the
ratio* of the actual emission rate to <
Tier II allowable emission rate for all i
the carcinogenic metals must be
summed and the sum cannot exceed 1.0.
b. Bubble Approach for Multiple
Stacks. Although we believe that most
facilities will use Tier III dispersion
modeling to demonstrate conformance
with the metals (and HC1 and Cl.)
controls when they have multiple stacks
to obtain credit for actual dispersion
conditions. Tier II (or Tier I) may be
used. To use the Tier I feed rate limits or
Tier II emissions rate limits for multiple
stacks, the owner/operator must
conservatively assume that all
hazardous waste is fed to the source
with the worst-case stack (i.e..
considering dispersion). The worst-case
stack must be determined from the
following equation *• as applied to each
stack:
K-HVT
when:
K»a parameter accounting for relative
influence of stack height and plume hie:
H«physical slack height (metersh
V-stack gas flow rate (M*/second): and
T—exhaust temperature (Kelvin).
•• This equation WM proposed et 54 FR 437S2
(OcL 28.1980). It Is derived bora a similar aquatioM
on pp. 2-3 of Scnenini Procedures for Estimatraifl
Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources. EPA-«Sq
4-Sa-Oia August 108*.
-------
Federal Rayiter / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February a. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
7175
The tuck with the lowest vtiue of K must
be used at the wont-cue itack.
c. Facilities Ineligible To Use the Tier
11 (and Tier I) Screening Limits. The
screening limits wen back-calculated
from the RACi and NT* RSDs
established by today'i rule using
dispersion modeling scenarios that the
Agency considers reasonable, worst-
case dispersion scenarios. However,
dispersion characteristics at a particular
facility may, in fact provide worse
dispersion of emissions than used to
calculate the screening limits.
Consequently, the final rule, as
discussed in the 1989 supplemental
notice, establishes criteria for facilities
that are ineligible to use the screening
limits. See { 266.106(b)(7).
3. Tier I Standards
See 4 266.106(b). The final rule
incorporates the Tier I feed rate
screening limits (see appendix 1 to the
rule! as presented in the 1989
supplemental notice as • function of
terrain adjusted effective stack height
and noncomplex versus complex terrain
and urban versus rural land use in the
vicinity of the facility. Conformance
with the Tier I feed rate screening limits
is demonstrated by sampling and
analysis of all feed streams (hazardous
waste, other fuels, and raw materials).
By complying with the conservative
Tier 1 feed rate screening limits.
applicants burning hazardous waste
with very low concentrations of metals
would not have to conduct emissions
testing. The feed rate limits are back-
calculated from the emission screening
limits, assuming that all metals present
in feedstreams an emitted to the
atmosphen. Thus, no metals an
assumed to partition to the bottom ash
or product and no allowance is made
for removal of metals from the stack gas
by an air pollution control system.
Consequently, the Tier 1 feed rate
screening limits an equivalent to the
Tier II emission rate screening limits
and are provided in the same table in
appendix I to the rule. (At proposal the
feed rate and emission rate screening
limits were provided in separate tables
because the Agency presented the limits
m different units—Ib/hr (pound per
hour) for feed rate limits, and g/s (grams
per second) for emission rate limits. To
avoid confusion and for simplicity.
however, the final rule combines the
Tier I and II screening limits and
presents the limits in g/hr (grams per
hour)).
The Tier II discussions above on
special requirements for carcinogens
also applies to the Tier 1 feed rate limits.
Thus, to demonstrate conformance with
the feed rate limits for the carcinogenic
metals, the sum of the ratios of the
actual feed rate to the Tier I allowable
feed rate for all of the carcinogenic
metals must be summed, and the sum
cannot exceed 1.0.
In addition, the Tier II discussions
above on the bubble approach for
multiple stacks and criteria for facilities
that are ineligible to use the screening
limit apply to the Tier I feed rate
screening limits as well.
Finally, we note that the Tier I feed
rate limits may be adjusted upward to
reflect site-specific dispersion modeling.
This is a hybrid of Tien I and IE. See
$ 266.106(e). Under this approach, site-
specific dispersion modeling may be
conducted using the procedures
discussed above to back-calculate
allowable emission rates for each metal.
These allowable emission rates then
become the adjusted feed rate limits.
Given that emissions testing is not
conducted under this modified Tier I
approach, no credit is given for
partitioning of metals to bottom ash or
product or removal by the air pollution
control system.
C. Implementation
As discussed above, EPA developed a
three-tiered standard to ensure that
metals emissions do not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health and
the environment Tier I consists of
conservative feed rate screening limits.
Tier II establishes conservative emission
rate screening limits, and Tier in allows
the use of site-specific air dispersion
modeling to demonstrate compliance.
The decision of which tier to use
depends on the physical characteristics
of the facility and surrounding terrain.
on the anticipated waste compositions
and feed rates, and on the level of
resources available for conducting the
analysis. It is acceptable to use. different
tiers to comply with the standards for
different metals.
1. Tier I Implementation
The Tier I feed rate limits are
implemented by sampling and-analysis
as necessary and flow rate monitoring
of each feedstream (i.e.. hazardous
waste, other fuels, and raw materials) to
ensure that the total feed rate of each
metal does not exceed the Tier I limit on
either an hourly rolling average or
instantaneous basis (i.e., at any time),
except as provided for the carcinogenic
metals and lead as discussed below.
a. Special Procedures for
Carcinogenic Metals. Given that for the
carcinogenic metals, the sum of the
ratios of the actual feed rates to the Tier
I allowable feed rates cannot exceed 1.0,
there an no fixed feed rate limits for
individual carcinogenic metals. Rather,
the operator must ensure that on an
hourly rolling average or instantaneous
basis (or as allowed below for
carcinogenic metals and lead) that the
mixture of carcinogenic metals fed into
the BIF does not exceed allowable
levels. To demonstrate conformance
with this standard, the operator must (1)
Know the concentration of metals in
each feedstream and the Dow rate of
each feedstream: (2) calculate on an
hourly rolling average or instantaneous
basis (or as allowed below for
carcinogenic metals and lead) the sum
of the ratios of the actual feed rate to
the allowable feed rate; and (3) ensure
that the sum of the ratios for all
carcinogenic metals (on an hourly
rolling average or instantaneous basis or
as allowed below) does not exceed 1.0.
b. Averaging Periods. As discussed in
the 1989 supplemental notice, the final
rule provides an alternative averaging
period to the hourly rolling average or
instantaneous basis for the carcinogenic
metals arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and
chromium, and for lead. For these*
metals, an averaging period not to
exceed 24 hours (i.e.. 24-hour rolling
average) may be used provided that the
feed rate at any time (Le.,
instantaneously) does not exceed 10
times the feed rate on an hourly rolling
average basis. The Agency believes that
an averaging period greater than an
hourly rolling average is reasonable
given that the metals controls an based
on lifetime exposures. However, the
Agency is concerned that averaging
periods greater than 24 hours may be
difficult to enforce. A ten-fold higher
emission rate should not pose adverse
health effects from short-term exposures
for the carcinogenic metals because the
24-hour rolling average would not
exceed the level that could pose • 10'*
health risk over a lifetime of exposure
and the threshold (i.e.. noncancer)
health effect would not be likely at
exposures only ten times higher than the
10~* RSD. A ten-fold higher
instantaneous ambient level for lead
should not pose adverse health effects
given that the acceptable ambient level
for long-term exposure to lead (i.e.. the
lead RAC) is based on only 10% of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
We do not believe that • similar
approach for the other noncarcinogenic
metals would be appropriate given the
uncertainty in the level of protection
provided by the long-term acceptable
ambient (e.g.. the RACs are based on
oral RfDs converted 1 to 1 to inhalation
values).
-------
TITS Federal Ragtster / Vol. 56. No, 3S / Thursday. February a. MB1 / Rate and Regulation*
2. TferD ImplementatioB
Confonnance with the Tier II emission
rate screening limits is based on
emissions testing (see section IV.B.l.a)
using the Multiple Metals Train
prescribed in Methods Manual for
Compliance with the BIF Regulations
(incorporated in today's rale as
appendix IX of part 280}. The Tier II
emission limits are implemented by
permit limits on the following
parameter* based on operations during
the trial burn:
• Maximum feed rate of each metal in
total feedstreams (e.g.. hazardous waste.
raw material, other fuel), except a»
discussed below
• Maximum feed rate of each metal in
total hazardous waste feedatreamr
• Maximum feed rate of each metal in.
all pompabie hazardous waste
feedstreams;
• Maximum feed rate of total
hazardous waate and pumpabla
hazardous waste:
• Maximum feed rate of chlorine in
total feedstreams;
• Maximum production rate in
appropriate units (e.g.. total heat input
pounds of steam prodcced. raw material
feed rate);
• Maximum temperature at the inlet
to the air pollution control system
(APCS);
• Maximum, combustion chamber
tempeiaturer and
• Key parameters to ensnre proper
operation of the APCS.
The approach that most be used to
measure these parameters and the
approach to establish limits on each
parameter based on trial bum data is
specified in f 208.102(e)(6r.
In addition, the permit must specify
sampling and analysis procedure* far alt
feedstreams and all flow rates of all
feedstreams must be continuously
monitored and recorded.
The final rule establishes limits on
these parameters because they can
affect metals esoisaion*. The feed rate of
metals in both total hazardous-wasta
feeds and pumpable hazardous1 waste
feeds is limited because the physical
form of the waste (e.g, solid vs liquid)
can affect the partitioning of the mttal
between bottom ash, (for a boiler) or
product (for a furnace) and. combustion
gas entering the PM control system.
Metals partition to the combustion gas
more readily when fired in a liquid or
pumpable form.
The rale limits the metal feed rate
from total feedstreams to account for
metals in raw materials and
nonhazardons fuels. When added to the
emissions from hazardous waste.
r.oncarcinogenic metals from these
source* can cause the MB
concentration to exceed the threshold
level for health effects and carcinogenic
metals from these source* can cause the
MEI concentration to exceed the
incremental lifetime cancer risk limit for
the rule of 1 in 100.000. Thus, these
controls ensure that banting hazardous
waste does not result in unacceptable
risk*.
The rule limits the chlorine feed rata
because chlorine can increase the
volatility of metals, thus increasing the
rate of partitioning to the combustion
gaeand. m some case*, resulting in
smaller metal particuiales In flue gas
that can be more difficult to control with
a PM collection system.
The rule limits the maximum capacity
of the device to ensure that during the
cooptiance test (under interim status} or
the trial burn (under a part B permit
application) the device is feeding raw
materials- and nonhazardous fuels- at a
rate that wilt not be exceeded after me
compliance teat or trial burn. Thus, the
gas flow rate and particulate loading are
maximized during the compliance test or
trial bum. which tests the ability of tb*>
PM collection system to control metals.
The rule limits the maximum
temperature at the inlet to- the PM
collection system because tempeiataie
affects the volatility of a metal— some-
metal species may be partially (or
totally in the ease of mercnry) in the
vapor form at high temperatures at the
inlet to the PM collection system which
win* reduce the amount of the metal
collected. Limiting the inlet temperature
to that occurring during the compliance
test or trial bum wti! ensure that the
temperature cannot be increased rater
which could result m an increase in
Finally, the rale Kmrts key operating
parameters of the PM air pollution
control system to ensure that it
continues to operate as efficiently as it
did during the compliance test or trial
bum.
3. Tier III Implementation
Confonnance with Tier III is
demonstrated by emissions testing and
site-specific dispersion modeling
showing that ambient levels of metals
do not exceed allowable levels. Permit
limits are established for the same
parameters as required for Tier D.
4. Special Requirements for Furnace*
that Recycle Collected Paniculate
Matter
Metal emissions are not feasibly
monitored on a continuous bam. Thnss
soow other means of demonstrating
canpfisnee is necessary. For neat type*
of BIT* compliance is demonstrated by
monitoring feed rates of metals front all
feedstreams. EPA requested comment
on- whether approaches other than
monitoring feed rates of metala may be
more appropriate to implement the
metals controls. See 54 FR 43760-(Oct
26,1980). A aumber of commenters
argued that the material balance
approach for implea*Bting the metal*
control* was impractical and
nonconaervative for cement kirn*. The
material balance approach for metals
limits the feed rate of each metal in
three types of feeds: (1) Pumpabie
hazardous waste; (2> total haurdou*
waste; and (3) total feedstreams.
Although limiting the feed rata of each
metal in the total hazardous waste feed
and the pumpable hazardous waste feed
was workable, commenters argued that
limiting the feed rate of metals in total
feedstream* wa* impractical for cement
kilns because of the variety of raw
materiel* they feed. Raw material* to- a
cement kiln are a bland of several
component* including ««iie<»nfr sources
such aa cunestone. saa shefia. mack or
chalk, silica sources such as clay, shale.
slate, or sand, and iron source* such as
iron ore or mnl grindinga. The
properties)* of the component* of that
blend are changed frequently according
to tha-type- of cement desired and the.
composition of the- source*. Tbia can
make H very difficult to accurately
determine the metals feed rate in- the
blended raw materials.
Of avun more concern, to the Agency*
however, is the fact that the matBrial
balance approach is not likely to be
conaarvatrv* (i.e.. protective) for
furnaces, tike cement kilns, that recycle
collected PM back into die furnace.
Because the dust is. recycled, an.
increase in the feed rata of a metai la
nnn of ths fssilslissins snrh si naliiiu
during a comptianca tast (under interim
status) or a triad burn (under a pattB
permit application) load* to a gradual
increase in the concentration (and read
rate) of that metal in thai recharged ki&x
dust which, leads to a gradual incren*
in thai natal enrissicna. Several rechazg*
cycles may/ be necessary for thai kirn to
reach steady state condition. Thus, until
the system reaches aquilibrimn. metssst
feed rates do not correlate with metals
emis
EPA considered a number of
alternative* to address the problem that
the recycled dust create* a system that
is out of equilibrium when a metal la
spiked We considered handling the
recycled dust as another feedstream.
Under this approach, the feed rate of
metal* in the recycled dust would be
considered along win those from other
fesnstrsasua (Orstatsjattsoi*, tha> f**a)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*- 7177
f metals in the recycled oust would
isidered as a fourth level of metals
feed rate controls—that is. the feed rate
of metals in pumpable hazardous waste.
total hazardous waste, recycled dust
and total feedstreams would be limited.)
We did not adopt this approach
because: (1) The recycled dust is an
internal recycled stream so that limits
on the recycled dust coupled with limits
on other feedstreams would probably
correlate with metals emissions in the
kiln off-gas, but not necessarily with
stack emissions; and (2) during an
emissions test when metals are spiked.
the system will not be in equilibrium
and we do not know enough about metal
behavior in the system to determine
whether the metals feed rate in the dust
would be higher or lower after reaching
equilibrium (i..e., we did not know
whether this approach would be
conservative).
To address this concern that the
material balance approach to
implementing metals controls is not
likely to be conservative (i.e., protective)
for furnaces that recylce dust, today's
rule requires owners and operators of
such devices to comply with one of three
alternatives: (1) Daily monitoring of
ed PM to ensure that metals
do not exceed limits that relate
centration of the metal in the
collected PM to emitted PM; (2) daily
stack sampling for metals; or (3)
conditioning of the furnace system prior
to compliance testing to ensure that
metals emissions are at equilibrium with
metals feed rates. We discuss each of
these procedures below.
We note first however, that today's
rule gives owners and operators the
option of selecting one of these methods
only during interim status. The Director
will determine under the part B permit
application proceeding which of these
methods (or whether another method)
may be more appropriate on a case-by-
case basis considering the facts. See
§ 266.106(f). In addition, we note that
experience with these methods during
interim status may indicate the need to
refine them for use under a RCRA
operating permit Finally, we note that
'.his provision of the permit standards is
not limited to furnaces that recycle
collected PM. (However, the methods
discussed below may be used during
interim status only by furnaces that
recycle collected PM.) The permit
standards provide this flexibility
because, although we believe that these
^ethods (as they may be refined with
Hcperience) or other methods that
adequately address the concerns
described below must be required for
systems that recycle collected PM. the
first two methods (i.e., monitoring
collected PM or daily stack sampling)
may be preferable for other types of
devices as well. This is because these
first two alternative methods address
not only the special problem caused by
recycled PM but also the problem of the
difficulty (and imprecision) associated
with limiting metals emission rates by
the material balance approach given the
variability of waste and raw material
matrices and variability of the
concentrations of metals in feedstreams.
a problem that also exists for these
furnaces and will exist for other devices
as well.40
a. Monitoring Metals in Collected PM.
This approach will control metals
emission rates by establishing limits on
all of the parameters discussed above
for implementing the Tier n and Tier m
controls, except for limits on the feed
rate of each metal in total feedstreams.
In lieu of that parameter, the final rule
limits the concentration of each metal in
collected PM. See "Alternative
Methodology for Implementing Metals
Controls" in Method Manual for
Compliance with the BEF Regulations
(incorporated in today's rule as
appendix IX of part 266). The
concentration limit is calculated by
determining the maximum allowable
concentration of each metal in the
emitted PM and by empirically relating
the concentration of the metal in the
emitted PM to the concentration of the
metal in collected PM (i.e., the
enrichment factor). The maximum
allowable concentration of each metal
in the emitted PM is determined by
dividing the allowable emission rate for
the metal in pounds per hour by the
applicable PM standard " in pounds per
hour. The enrichment factor (i.e..
concentration of a metal in emitted PM
divided by the concentration in
collected PM) is determined initially by
a series of 10 emissions tests over a two-
week period. Quarterly testing is
required thereafter to determine if the
enrichment factor changes substantially.
If so. the series of 10 emissions tests
must be conducted again to establish the
revised enrichment factor.
EPA acknowledges certain potential
limitations to this approach: (1) The
Agency has limited data to support the
main assumption of this approach—that
the enrichment factor will remain
constant over the range of normal
operating conditions that occur between
the initial series of 10 tests to establish
the enrichment factor and the quarterly
confirmation teats; and (2) that a
problem with emissions is detected after
the fact However, we have built into the
approach conservative features that
should address concern about whether
the enrichment factor may change over
time. First, the approach assumes that
the facility is always operating at its
maximum allowable PM emission limit
Although allowable metal
concentrations in collected PM would be
higher when the facility operates at
lower PM emission levels, the limits do
not change. Thus, for example, for every
10% the facility operates under its PM
standard, the limit on metals
concentrations in collected PM are
conservative (lower than necessary) by
10%. Second, the enrichment factor is
statistically determined based on test
data as the lower of: (1) Twice the
enrichment factor at the 95% confidence
level: or (2) the enrichment factor at the
99% confidence level. Where then is .
significant scatter in the data, twice the
enrichment factor at the 95% confidence
level is likely to govern. Thus, when the
enrichment factor varies significantly
during the 10 tests, not only is the
enrichment factor based on the 95%
confidence level but an additional
margin of safety is provided by doubling
the factor at the 95% confidence level for
purposes of determining the metal limit
in collected PM."
As for detection after the fact
sampling of collected dust is required
every eight hours to form a daily
composite sample. The operator is
allowed up to 48 hours to analyze the
daily composite '* given that the
analytical procedures can take 24 to 48
hours even for on-site laboratories. In
addition, if the sample fails the
concentration limit for a metal, the
operator may analyze two duplicate
samples that he may have elected to
obtain to determine if the failed sample
is an outlier. Analyses of these back-up
samples will also take up to 48 hours.
Thus, it could take up to four days to
confirm that a dust sample has failed the
•• Wt al»o note that the** mttbodi may be
preferable to the material balance approach In torn*
uiuation* (or implementing UM metal* control* (or
haxardou* WMM incinerator*.
• • The applicable PM ttandard U OOS p/dtcf or
any more ttrinteot standard thai may apply t
theNSPSorSlP.
•* In addition, the methodology require* that a
"*a(a enrichment (actor" of 100 be ueed when a
metal ia at nondetect level* in the collected PM.
Mercury, for example, may be at nondetect levele
becatiM it i* likely to be in the vapor form (and not
collected at PM| ia an ESP or bashou**.
*• Except for "aonehtical" metal* whan 30
contiaaoua day* of analyae* demonttrata that the
du*t concentration for the metal doe* not enreed
10% of the concentration limit For theee metal*,
weakly compoeite timrlTt muet be analysed. If a
weekly compoaite exceed* 10* of the duet
cooceotnuoa limit however, daily analy*** would
be *«ain required.
-------
7171
/ VoL 56. No. 85 / Ttoiday, Febraary 21.
concentration limit end feat • vioiatfoa
of the metal* emissions controls m»y
havt occurred.*4
Notwithstanding this provision of the
method. EPA expects that owners, and
operator* that want to comply with te
spirit of the controls and to operate in *
manner that is protective of Inmate
health; sod tire environment will cuuuMct
triplicate analyses of samples for those
r.;xau thst may exceed the
"conservative" metal limit to avoid the
time delay of subsequently analyzing
back-up- samples if the initial sample
fails the concentration limit Owears/
open tors shoaid use historical data to
determine whether a metal may be close
to exceeding a concentration, limit and,
thus, routinely analyaa "back-up"
samples concurrently with the.
"required" sample for such metals.
Further, EPA expect* that enforcement
officials will consider whether the.
owner/operator has taken such.
Precautions tO minimi** tt\a Hmtt ^^)pt^o
which they may be operating under
violation conditions (if the dust
concentration actually exceeds the
"violation" limit} in determining
appropriate enforcement action.
Notwithstanding these potential
limitations. EPA believes that this
methodology is preferable to the
material balance approach. Rather than
attempt to limit emissions by limiting
metal feed rates and extrapolating
through a number of not well-
undentood processes for furnaces thai
recycle dust, the methodology hi the
final rule goes to the material that i*
closest to to whet is being emitted.
collected PM, to extrapolate to
emissions.
Limits on the operating parameters
discussed above will be established
under thie methodology daring •
fjijrpm^im of three "compliance tests'* of
the first five of the ten emission Into
required to establish the enrichment
factor for each metaL Consequently,
"neoatbodologrraqmTca tat two dust
coocaatrattaa UaOt bt aauaOahad fct Mcfe awtafca
"conaamtiva" Unit and * "vtoUttM" to*. Par
exampla. thft camemtiva limit to baaad OB the uft
tnrichmattt factor of twrfee tha anndunant factor at
tha-apparss* eonfidaacttowal. wfcifi a* violate*
limit to b«Md on th« tnrichmrat factor at UM uppar
SS* confUianca lavai. If tha canMiYan'va Umlt to
failad nmt than 3 Umt» out of SO Omn. tha ownti/
oparator mutt notify mi Oinctor and hi may bom
hasardooa watta for a tout of Tzahoun daring
which: ft) The ttiiif of 10 miaou (tttt man be
conducted to reriee the enrichment ^mfwt and *^*^
duet concentration Units: and (2T the mejdm
raw of tack metal in th» haaraona watte to
reduaed oy flex i ejuuevt dsfBBj the* nvoo
ttttf H ITth»»toUttoB BmH to
tha operator to in violation of *»
(and k* MM alao notify th» Dtnetor r*4«e» (far
ft«d fata ef a«ato la hiiiiiJM* mtw*. _
of 10 totta to eakihia in mto»d
attea Umita.)
during three of the te» runs, feed rate* of
metal* m total bexardoe* waste and
pumpable hezardou* waste wifl be at
the maxiinoai ieret that the facility may
operate dvring (he remainder of inf erin
statue. Although the feed rate of metals
in the haratdoM waste during the other
testy need not be at the manrireem level
estabBsfaed dating the thtee
"compliance tests'*, the feed rate most
be at least 25» •• of the comptiaace test
level, and the facility meat operate at
the compliance teat capacity (i.*, the
maximum capacity at winch, the facility
toB rBKiannflasr ot
interim status). The owner and operator
nxmrt demmtrate cosplisnce wnh the
applicable PM ataacVaid and the metals
*mt~o*mm standard* of ft 29&106(c} or
(d) during all ten teats requited to
estabfcah enrichixent factora. The rale
requires that the ten- •nttr^qt testa to
detenniav unrigtmtmi* factors be
conducted in a two week period with
not mote than two tests, per day. end
that the three compliance tests twae*
metala feed rates from the hacardoue
waste will be maximized to establish-
limit* {QI the remainder of mierin
status) be among the first five teeta* EPA
is providing these reatdctkna to ensure
that the emncbBMnt factor* ere
representative of opeutioB* over
several day* when operating conditione
can vary., and to ensue that any effect
on eniichmeDt factot* fron the high
metals loading from spiked hazaidDve
waste during the three compliance testa-
will be detected during the subsequent
testa.
The testing and operating
requirements for this methodology are
prescribed in. detail in "Alternative
Mtthffldo^°fly for i*"pi»T»"Hnn Metal*
Controls" in. *he m»«t"^« f4»Tmni
b^ Doily Emissions Testing* I ln^"r thi
*
option, the owner or operator must
conduct daily emissions >p«^"g to
confirm that the metala emission limits
are not exceeded. Sampling must be
conducted for a minimum of 6 hours
each day when hazardous waste is
burned. To ensure that sampled
emission* are representative of normal
emissions that day. the testingmuat be
conducted whea burning normal
hazardous waste for that day (i.e..
considering metals content point of
•• Wa annottaqtarini th»UclUy apatata at tha
maximum (La- compGanca tttt) mataU faad rate
from hasaidvn wait* (or otttar fttdftna
•U tan amiasiona tnti bacauM tha purpoaa of tha
ramainins taau ta>to obtain data to itatutieally
detamina tha anridunani factor. Thua. a U
important to dvtamin* how tha anrichmant factor
may chant* •«
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7179
status compliance testing) is required to
demonstrate the performance
capabilities of a system and to establish
the operating limits of a facility for the
duration of the operating permit.
Compliance limits will be based on the
operating conditions and emission rates
observed during the trial burn.
Therefore, to obtain the most flexible
compliance limits, an owner/operator
should conduct test burns and the trial
burn under worst-case conditions (those
that maximize emissions without
exceeding the established limits). These
conditions include feeding the waste
used in the trial bum at a feed rate and
metals concentration that reflect the
highest levels expected in present or
future operations.
Spiking with Metals. To achieve the
maximum allowable concentration of
metals, the owner/operator may wish to
spike the waste to artificially high
concentrations of the metals during the
pre-trial burn period and during the trial
burn. However, the owner/operator may
not feed metal* at levels higher than
those documented in the part B permit
application as those not likely to result
in emissions exceeding allowable levels.
Permit officials will consider this
documentation in establishing pre-trial
bum permit conditions for new permits.
6. Monitoring and Analysis
Requirements
a. Emissions Testing. Emissions
testing and analysis for metali must be
conducted using "Methodology for the
Determination of Metal Emissions in
Exhaust Gases from Hazardous Waste
Incineration and Similar Combustion
Processes" provided in Methods Manual
for Compliance with the BIF
Regulations ". incorporated in today's
rule as appendix IX of part 266. The
methodology describes the use of a
multiple metals sampling train. The
methodology also describes and
provides references to the appropriate
analytical techniques in Test Methods
for Evaluation Solid Wastes (SW-846).
incorporated by reference in { 260.11.
that must be used to analyze samples.
b. Analysis of Feedstreams.
Feedstrcams must be analyzed for each
of the 10 regulated metals that could
reasonably be expected to be in the
hazardous waste. If a particular metal is
excluded from the analysis, the basis for
exclusion must be documented and
included in the operating record.
Methods for sampling and analysis of
feedstreams for metals are prescribed in
SW-646.
D. Interim Status Compliance
Requirements
As prescribed in $286.103. and
discussed in section VII of part three of
this preamble, boilers and industrial
furnaces operating under interim status
must comply with the metals emissions
standards during interim status.
V. Controls for Emissions of Hydrogen
Chloride and Chlorine Gas
Today's final rule uses a three-tiered
regulatory approach to limit HC1 and CU
emissions (see i 268.107), an approach
identical to that used to control
noncarcinogenic toxic metals emissions.
A. Background Information
In the 1987 proposed rule. EPA stated
its intention to develop risk-based HC1
emission standards in the same format
and for the same reasons as the
proposed metals emission limits. The
HC1 emission limits for a particular
device would have been based on the
device type and capacity, and on the
type of surrounding terrain. In the 1989
supplemental notice. EPA discussed an
alternative approach to make the
standards a function of stack height
terrain, and land use rather than a
function of device type and capacity.
The reasons for the change were the
same as those described above in the
discussion of the metals standards.
Controls on CU were proposed on
April 27.1990 (55 FR17866) because CU
can be emitted from devices burning
chlorinated wastes if insufficient
hydrogen is available (i.e.. from other
hydrocarbon compounds or water
vapor) to react with all of the chlorine
present in the waste. In recent tests *T of
a cement kiln. EPA found that
approximately 50% of gaseous chlorine
emissions were in the form of CU (and
the other 50% was in the form of HC1). In
the April 1990 proposal the Agency
proposed a CU RAC of 0.4 ug/ra *.
In the 1989 supplemental notice. EPA
also discussed the possibility of using
continuous HC1 monitors in lieu of the
waste feed analysis approach for
monitoring HC1 emissions are likely to
be close to allowable emissions. The
Agency continues to believe that this is
a reasonable approach and believes that
it can be effectively implemented during
the permit process as necessary using
the omnibus authority.**
B. Response to Comments
The Agency received a number of
comments on the proposed HC1 and CU
controls as discussed below.
1. Short Term Hd RAC
A number of commenters stated that
the Agency's support for the proposed 3-
minute RAC for HC1 was inadequate.
The Agency is currently developing a
new methodology for evaluating health
effects data to develop a no-adverse-
effect short-term exposure level.**
Given that the new methodology has not
been approved by the Agency, today's
final rule does not establish a short-term
RACforHCl.
We note that the Tier I chlorine feed
rate limits proposed in the 1989
supplemental notice were based on the
short-term HC1 RAC because the short-
term exposure RAC provided more
restrictive feed rate limits than the long-
term RAC Consequently, the 1989
proposed chlorine feed rate limits are
not included in today's final rule. In
establishing the Tier I feed rate limits
for chlorine in today's final rule, the
Agency considered both the long-term
HC1 RAC (i.e. 7 ug/m *) and the dt
RAC (i.e.. 0.4 fig/m »). and the
partitioning between the two pollutants
in stack gases. Given that the Agency
has tested for CU emissions at only two
facilities, and at one of the facilities
more than 50% of the chlorine
partitioned to CU. the Agency
conservatively assumed in calculating
feed rate limits that 100% of the chlorine
would be partitioned to CU. Because the
CU RAC is more than an order of
magnitude lower than the HQ RAC. the
Tier I chlorine limits were based on
100% conversion of chlorine to CU. If
applicants believe that this assumption
is too conservative, they may conduct
emissions testing to document CU and
HC1 emission rates.
2. Need for CU Controls
Many commenters stated that CU
controls are unnecessary. One
conunenter believed that very little
hydrogen is needed to react with CU to
form HC1. Another conunenter believed
that operating conditions for boilers and
industrial furnaces are not conducive to
the formation of CU. Another conunenter
stated that the proposed limits to control
••U.S. EPA. Mtthodt Manual for Compliant*
mth Hit BIF Regulation*. December 1930. EPA/530-
SW-n-010. NTIS publication number PB91-120-008.
" U.S. EPA. Emiuioo Teitinf of • Prtc*lcintr
Cement Kiln tt louiaviU*. Nebraaka, November
1990. Document No. EPA/S30-SW-ftl-018.
•• EPA note* that permit writer* chooiinf to
invokt the oranibM permit Minority of
I 270.321 b)(2| to add condition* to • RCRA permit
mutt ihow that *uch condition* an naonaary to
eneuro protactioo of human health ^f"* the
environment and most provld* lupport for th*
condition* to intereited partin and accept and
reepond to comment, in addition, permit writer*
mtut juitify in the adninutrativ* record eupporting
the permit any d*ca*ion* ba*ad on omnibu*
authority.
•• Memorandum dated September is from Stuan
Griffin. EPA. to Bob HoUoway. EPA. entitled
"Derivation of Short-Tern RAC for HCT
-------
7180
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
HC1 emissions will provide adequate
control of CI» emissions as well.
The Agency does not agree with these
commenters. As discussed above.
emissions testing indicates that a
substantial fraction of gaseous chlorine
can be emitted in the form of CIj. In
addition, the HC1 controls may not be
adequate to control Cli emissions.
Because Ct, has a much lower solubility
in water than does HC1. the use of wet
scrubbers as the principle emissions
control device for HC1 is not likely to
significantly reduce emissions of CU. CU
emissions can be controlled, however.
by increasing the hydrogen content of
feedstreams (e.g., by adding steam) or
by decreasing the feed rate of chlorine.
Moreover. EPA does not believe that
high CI> emissions relative to HC1
emissions is a widespread occurence.
3. HC1 Emission Test Procedures
A number of commenters who own or
operate cement kilns expressed concern
that EPA's HC1 stack sampling and
analysis procedure (see section 3.3 in
Methods Manual for Compliance with
the BIF Regulations) was inappropriate
because it counted as HC1 chlorine in
inorganic chloride salts and chloride
iona that are emitted as ammonium
chloride. The Agency has determined70
that the filter in the sample probe, in
fact effectively removes fine paniculate
chloride salts so that they do not
interfere with the HC1 determination.
The Agency agrees, however, with
commenters that the procedure may
consider as HC1 chloride ions that are
emitted as ammonium chloride.7'
Although the Agency has not developed
a sampling and analysis procedure that
would correct this problem, we do not
believe that any such over-reporting of
MCI will cause a cement kiln to exceed
the HCI standard. This is because the
highly alkaline particulate matter
resulting from the limestone raw
materials effectively neutralizes much of
the chlorine generated from hazardous
waste fed into the kiln.
4. Technology-Based HCI controls
Several commenters stated that
technology-based HCI emission controls
applicable to hazardous waste
incinerators (i.e.. 99% reduction of
emissions in the stack gas) should also
apply to BIFs. As discussed in the
proposed rule, the Agency continues to
believe that a 99°5 reduction standard
70 U.S. EPA. Emiuion Telling of • Precaldnw
Cement Kiln it Lcuiav.Ue. Nebraska. Novimber
1<30. Document No. EPA/530-SW-01-016.
1 < U.S. EPA. Eroiuioni Tttting of • Wet Cement
Kiln et Hannibal MO. December 1390. Document
No. EPA/S30-SW-91-017.
for BIFs to control HCI emissions may
be neither technically feasible nor
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. The Agency believes
that the process chemistry of some
industrial furnaces (e.g., cement kilns]
generally results in low HCI emissions
and concerns about tube corrosion
generally limit HCI concentrations in
boiler emissions. Given the low
uncontrolled HCI concentrations in
many BIFs. a 99% reduction standard in
addition to the health-based standard
required by today's final rule, may not
be cost-effective. Commenters did not
provide data or information that would
support the need for, and the cost-
effectiveness of a technology-based
standard in addition to the health-based
standard provided by the final rule.
We note that the Agency is currently
developing health effects data for two
other acid gases: hydrogen fluoride and
hydrogen bromide.
C. Implementation
Procedures for implementing the HCI
and CU controls are virtually identical to
those for the metals controls discussed
above.
1. Emissions Testing
Collection and analysis of HCI and
CU in stack gas emission samples must
be conducted according to the
procedures prescribed in section 3.3 of
the Methods Manual for Compliance
with the BIF Regulations. (Methods
Manual) incorporated in today's rule as
appendix IX of part 266. The Methods
Manual describes two procedures for
sampling emissions for HCI and CU:
Methods 0050 and 0051. Method 0050
collects a sample isokinetically and is.
therefore, particularly suited for
sampling at sources emitting acid
particulate matter (e.g.. HCI dissolved in
water droplets), such as those controlled
by wet scrubbers. Method 0051 uses a
midget impinger train sampling method
designed for sampling sources of HCI
and CU emissions not in particulate
form. Samples collected using either
method must be analyzed using Method
9057 which is also described in the
Methods Manual.
2. Wastes Analysis
Methods for sampling and analysis of
feedstreams for total chlorine and
chloride are described in detail in SW-
846.
3. Interim Status Compliance
Requirements.
As discussed in section VII of part
three of this preamble, boilers and
industrial furnaces operating under
interim status must comply with the HCI
and CU emissions standards during
interim status.
VL Nontechnical Requirement!
As proposed, the final rule requires
BIFs to comply with the nontechnical
standards applicable to other hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. These nontechnical standards
address the potential hazards from
spills, fires, explosions, and unintended
egress; require compliance with the
manifest system to complete the cradle
to grave tracking system: ensure that
hazardous wastes (and hazardous
residues) are removed from the site
upon closure; and ensure that the
owners and operators are financially
capable of complying with the
standards. BIFs burning hazardous
waste fuels that operate storage
facilities must already comply with
these standards under existing
S 266.35(c).
We also note, in particular, that
owners and operators of BIFs are
subject to the waste analysis
requirements of 11 264.13 and 265.13 by
reference. See || 286.102(a)(2)(ii) for
permitted facilities and 266.103(a)(4)(ii)
for interim status facilities. Before a
waste is stored or burned, the owner or
operator must obtain a detailed
chemical and physical analysis of a
representative sample of the waste
sufficient to enable the owner or
operator to comply with today's rule.
The nontechnical standards provided
in today's rule are identical to those that
currently apply to hazardous waste
incinerators. In today's rule.
S 266.102(a)(2) applies these standards
to permitted BIFs and 1266.103(a)(4)
applies these standards to BIFs
operating in interim status.
Finally, we note that as proposed.
today's rule applies the same controls
on fugitive emissions that currently
apply to hazardous waste incinerators.
The controls apply to facilities operating
under a permit (see I 266.102(e)(7)(i)
and. on the effective date of the rule, to
facilities operating under interim status
(see 1266.103(h)). The controls provide
for alternative control strategies
including: (1) Keeping the combustion
zone where hazardous waste is burned
(or where emissions from such burning
may migrate) totally sealed: and (2)
maintaining the combustion zone
pressure lower than atmospheric
pressure.
VTL Interim Status Standards
In addition to the nontechnical
standards discussed above, today's f^
rule requires facilities with interim
status to comply with substantive
-------
Federal Ragister / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations TIP
^mission controls for metals. HCl Cla
Ksrticulates. and CO (and, where
'applicable. HC and dioxins and furana).
Owners and operators must certify
compliance with the emissions controls
under a prescribed schedule, establish
limits on prescribed operating
parameters, and operate within those
limits throughout interim status.
Given that interim status requirements
are self-implementing, the Agency has
developed comprehensive interim status
requirements to ensure that the
standards are implemented effectively.
To assist the regulated community in
complying with the requirements. EPA is
developing a guidance document
entitled Interim Status Guidance
Document for BIFs (ISCO). The guidance
document will be available shortly after
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. The ISGD will
summarize the provisions of the rule.
provide example forms that may be used
to submit data and information required
by the certifications of precompliance
and compliance (see discussions below),
and provide guidance on developing a
compliance test protocol. To provide
further assistance to the regulated
community, EPA plans to conduct a
series of workshops open to the public
o explain how the interim status
tandards work. The workshops are
scheduled to begin shortly after
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. To obtain a copy of the
ISGD or information on the dates and
locations of the workshop, contact the
sources identified at the beginning of
this preamble under "FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT".
The following sections summarize
how the interim status standards work.
.A. Certification Schedule
l. Certification of Precompiiance
The BIF rule is effective 6 months
after the date of promulgation. By the
Directive date, an owner/operator must
submit a certification of precompliance
providing prescribed information
supporting a determination that
emissions of individual metals. HCl. Cl».
and paniculates are not likely to exceed
a.iowable levels. See t 266.103(b)(2). For
certification of orecompliance. the
owner,' operator must use engineering
judgment to evaluate available
miormauon and data (cr must use EPA-
rrcscnbed default data provided in
aecticr.s 6.0 and 9.0 of Methods Manual
for Compliance with the BIF
Reculaiiar.8. incorporated in today's rule
| AS Appendix IX of part 2S6) to determine
that, under the operating limits (for EPA*
prescribed parameters) that the owner/
operator establishes, emissions are not
likely to exceed the allowable emissions
provided by §§ 286.105.266.106. and
286.107. The owner and operator must
then comply with these operating
conditions (see discussion in section
VII.B below) submitted in the
precompliance certification during the
interim status period of operation until a
revised precompliance certification is
submitted or until a certification of
compliance is submitted as discussed
below.
In addition, by the effective date of
the rule, the owner or operator must
submit a notice for publication in a
major local newspaper of general
circulation providing the general facility
information prescribed by
§ 266.103(b)(6). The information that
must be provided in the notice includes:
The name and address of the owner and
operator of the facility, the type of
facility, the type and quantity of
hazardous waste burned: the location
where the operation record of the
facility can be viewed: a notification
that a facility mailing list is being
established so that interested parties
may notify the Agency that they wish to
be placed on the mailing list to receive
future information and notices about the
facility, a brief summary of the RCRA
regulatory system for BIFs: and the
address of the EPA Regional Office
where additional information on the
RCRA regulatory system may be
obtained. EPA is requiring this public
notice to ensure that the local citizenry
is aware that the BIF la burning
hazardous waste and that to the extent
desired, the local citizenry may become
better informed about the facility
operations through site inspections and
review of data in the operating record.
In turn, this opportunity for local
involvement in facility operations
should provide an added incentive for
the owner and operator to comply with
the spirit and letter of the interim status
standards.
EPA notes that facilities that meet the
definition of "in existence" of
5 206.103(a)(l](ii) but that are not
burning hazardous waste on the
effective date of the rule must
nonetheless submit a certification of
precompliance based on planned
operations. The certification may be
revised at any time in the future if
necessary. See § 266.1Q3(b)(8).
2. Certification of Compliance
Within 13 months of promulgation, the
owner/operator must conduct
compliance testing '* and submit a
certification of compliance with the
standards for individual metals
(5 266.106). HCl and Cb (| 266.107).
particulates (i 286.105), and CO, and.
where applicable. HC and dioxins/
furana (i 266.104 (b) through (e)). The
certification of compliance is based on
emissions testing and establishes
operating limits for EPA-prescribed
parameters based on the compliance
test See ( 286.103(c)(l).
If the owner/operator cannot submit
the certification of compliance within 18
months of promulgation however, he
must either, (l) Notify the Director that
he is taking an automatic 12-month
extension under which hazardous waste
burning is limited to a total of 720 hours:
(2) obtain a case-by-case extension of
time for reasons beyond his control: or
(3) stop burning hazardous waste and
begin closure of the hazardous waste
portion of the facility. See
§ 286.103(c)(7).
The case-by-case time extension will
be provided by the Director if he
determines that the owner or operalor
has made a good faith effort to comply
with the requirements in • timely
manner but for reasons beyond his/her
control are not able to meet the
certification of compliance deadline.
Reasons could include inability to
complete modifications to an air
pollution control system in time to
conduct the compliance test to support
the certification, or a major, unplanned
outage of the facility (e.g.. need to
replace refractory in a kiln) just prior to
scheduled compliance testing, or as
discussed earlier, HC levels attributable
to organics in raw materials. The
Director may use his discretion to
determine the length of the extension.1*
The Director also may impose
conditions that ensure that the boiler or
industrial furnace will be operated in a
manner that protects human health and
the environment provided that the
Director documents the basis for adding
such a condition and provides the
applicant opportunity to comment on it.
'' We now that compliance tntinf may b«
conducted only under openUm condiUont for
which tha facility hat tobmittad a cartiBcatton of
precompliance. Thif it btcauia (he facility may only
operate after tha eBactin data of the rula and prior
to tubmitlal of a certification of compliance under
condition* (or which it hat certified procompliance.
If any applicable emiuion ttandard it exceeded
during the compliance ten lor during, prattiting). the
facility moat Immediately eubmit a revlaad
certification of precompliaoca eiiablithiat raviaed
(i.e.. more ttnngent) operauns limita.
" \V« would not expect for the Director, normally
to limit the noun that hazardout watte may be
burned under a cata-by-cait extension tnren that
tha owner/operator mat eupport tha o*wd for tha
extaotion and. if (ranted, the exteatMM mutt be for
a legitimate need. In contratt. tha hourt of burning
m limited for the automatic 12-month exteoaton
oecauaa there vino MfVM«t by the Director that
in fact tha axttnnom la warranted.
-------
7182 FedartJ Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
In addition, we note that a case-by-
case extension may be requested and
granted for any interim status
certification deadline under { 266.103 (c)
or (d). A case-by-case extension may be
granted after an owner/operator has
elected to take the 12-month automatic
extension, an extension may be granted
if the owner/operator cannot comply
with the recertification schedule (see
discussion below), and an existing
extension may be extended.
3. Recertification
Owners and operators must
periodically conduct compliance testing
and recertify compliance with the
standards for individual metals. HCl and
CU participates, and CO, and. where
applicable. HC and dioxins/furans
within three years of the previous
certification while they remain in
interim status (i.e., until an operating
permit is issued under f 270.66). See
§ 266.103(d). EPA is requiring
recertifications primarily to ensure that
air pollution control systems do not
deteriorate over time.
4. Failure to Comply with the
Certification Schedule
If the owner or operator does not
comply with the certification schedule,
all hazardous waste burning must cease
as of the date of the missed deadline.
and closure must commence. See
§ 266.103(e). Any burning of hazardous
waste by such a device after failure to
comply with the certification schedule
must be under a RCRA operating permit.
See § 270.66.
To comply with the certification
schedule, complete and accurate
certifications of precompliance and
compliance must be submitted by the
applicable deadlines. (Although the
deadline for certification of compliance
may be extended (see | 266.103(c)(7)),
the deadline for certification of
precompliance may not be extended.) In
addition to terminating interim status if
the owner and operator do not comply
with the certification schedule, EPA will
also take appropriate enforcement
action.
When closing a BIF. all hazardous
waste and hazardous waste residues.
including, but not limited to, ash.
scrubber water, and scrubber sludges.
must be removed from the affected BIF.
In addition, the owner/operator must
comply with the general interim status
closure requirements of {§ 285.111-
£65.115, as amended. These
requirements, which are incorporated by
reference into today's rule, specify
closure performance standards:
submission of and compliance with a
written closure plan: disposal or
decontamination of equipment
structures, and soils: and certification
procedures for closure.
We note that under amended
§ 265.112(d)(2), for an owner or operator
who fails to submit a complete
certification of compliance by the
applicable compliance deadline
(including the automatic 12-month
extension or the case-by-case extension
under § 266.103(c)(7)(i), the date that he
"expects to begin closure" is within 30
days after the applicable deadline.
Therefore, for example, for an owner
who takes the automatic 12-month
extension, the closure notification
requirements of § 265.112(d)(l) or the
closure activity requirements of
§ 265.113 would not be triggered unless
and until the owner fails to submit a
complete certification of compliance by
the 12-month extended deadline and a
case-by-case extension beyond the 12-
month extension was not obtained.
For any other BIF owner or operator
closing during interim status operation
(i.e.. one who closes between the
effective date of the rule but before the
interim status compliance deadline of 18
months after promulgation of the rule, or
one who submits a complete
certification of compliance by the
applicable 18-month compliance
deadline, the 12-month automatic
extension, or case-by-case extension.
and closes during interim status), the
date when he "expects to begin closure"
under i 265.112(d)(2) will remain either
within 30 days after the date on which
any hazardous waste management unit
receives the known final volume of
hazardous waste, or if there is a
reasonable possibility that the unit will
receive additional hazardous waste, no
later than one year after the date on
which the unit received the most recent
volume of hazardous waste.
5. Development of the Certification
Schedule
In the 1989 supplemental notice, the
Agency requested comment on
alternative schedules for requiring
compliance with the emissions
standards during interim status. The
Agency selected a certification deadline
of 18 months (with provision for
extensions) because we believe that
most facilities will be able to install the
necessary monitoring equipment
conduct any precompliance testing that
may be necessary, and conduct
compliance testing within that time
period. Although 18 months from the
date of promulgation is a fairly short
period of time, we note that Agency
staff have made numerous public
presentations and have had numerous
discussions T4 with the regulated M
community, including, in particular. thj|
development of interim status
compliance procedures. Thus, facility
owners/operators have had some
advance indication of the general
regulatory approach taken in the final
rule.
The Agency received a comment that
the air emission standards for cement
kilns should be instituted more quickly
than the schedule proposed. The
commenter believed that accelerating
the schedule will not place an excessive
burden on these facilities because the
regulations were proposed far enough in
advance for cement kilns to come into
compliance. The Agency has considered
this comment and: (1) Sees no
compelling reason to single out cement
kilns from other BIFs for an accelerated
schedule: and (2) continues to believe
that an IB-month compliance period is
representative of the time required to
implement necessary plant design or
process modifications, install monitoring
and compliance equipment conduct
facility compliance testing, and submit a
certification of compliance testing that
documents key operating limits during
the remainder of the interim status
period. In fact the Agency is concer
that in some situations, where, for
example, the air pollution control
system may need to be modified, an 18-
month deadline may not provide enough
time to complete modifications, "shake-
down" the system, conduct pre-
testing '*, conduct compliance testing.
and analyze test data and submit a
certification of compliance. Thus, the
final rule includes provisions for time
extensions to all certification deadlines
except for certification of precompliance
under § 266.103(b).
B. Limits on Operating Parameters
Limits on operating parameters during
interim status are established at
certification of precompliance and at
certification of compliance following
emissions testing 18 months (unless
extended) after promulgation of the rule.
The operating conditions can be revised
prior to certification of compliance by
submitting a revised certification of
precompliance. The operating conditions
can be revised after certification of
i
ernasfe
'• See tht public dock*! for thif rulemaking for
lummariM of ""««"»i« htld with group* «u-iuin*f
Cinimt Kiln lUcydiai Coalition. Chemical
Manufacturer! Allocution. National Solid Wait*
Management Allocution. Council of Industrial
Boiler Operators, end Hasardou* Watt* treati
Council.
'• Although pretesting ia not required. EPA
betteree that moet faclliUee wUl conduct pratettlng
before conducting the formal compliance letting
with all ita attendant QA/QC reqmnamta.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7183
compliance by conducting emissions
testing and submitting a revised
certification of compliance.
After the effective date of the rule and
prior to certification of compliance with
the emissions standards based on
emissions testing, a facility may operate
only under those conditions for which
the facility has submitted a
"precompiiance" certification
demonstrating that emissions of
individual metals, HC1. CU, and
participates are not likely to exceed
allowable levels. The operating
conditions for which limits are
established by precompiiance are (see
§ 266.103(b)(3)):
• Feed rate of each of the 10 metals
in:
—Total feed streams, except for
furnaces that recycle collected
particulate matter (see discussion in
section VI1.I below)
—Total hazardous waste feed streams
—Total pumpable hazardous waste feed
streams:
• Total feed rate of chlorine and
chloride in all feed streams:
• Total feed rate of ash in all feed
streams, except for cement and light-
weight aggregate facilities for which ash
content of feed streams is not an
operating parameter
• Total feed rate of hazardous waste
and feed rate of pumpable hazardous
waste; and
• Maximum capacity in appropriate
units such as heat input steam
production, or raw material feed rate.
In addition, the following parameters
must be considered in demonstrating
precompiiance and must be
continuously monitored (and records
maintained in the operating log) when
monitoring systems are installed (see
§ 266.103(b)(6)):
• Maximum combustion zone
temperature:
• Maximum flue gas temperature
entering the PM APCS: and
• Limits for APCS-specific operating
parameters.
Once a facility has conducted
compliance testing and certified
compliance with the emissions
standards, limits for all of the above
parameters, as well as for CO (and.
where applicable. HC) are established
based on the compliance test and
remain in force until recertification
under new conditions. See
S 266.103(c)(l).
C. Automatic Waste Feed Cutoff
Upon certification of compliance, an
automatic hazardous waste feed cutoff
system must engage when the limits
(established in the certification) for the
following operating parameters are
exceeded (see { 266.103(g)):
• Total feed rate of hazardous waste
and feed rate of pumpable hazardous
waste;
• Limits on CO and, where
applicable. HC
• Maximum production rate in
appropriate units such as heat input
steam production, or raw material feed
rate:
• Maximum combustion zone
temperature;
• Maximum flue gas temperature
entering the PM APCS: and
• Limits for APCS-specific operating
parameters.
Facilities operating during interim
status after certification of compliance
must test the automatic waste feed
shutoff system once every 7 days to
ensure that it is operating properly,
unless an owner/operator can document
that weekly testing will result in unsafe
conditions. See S 266.103(j)(3). In all
cases, testing at least every 30 days is
required. Owners/operators are
required to document the results of
these tests and all automatic waste feed
shutoffs that occur during normal
operations.
D. Sham Recycling Policy
The BIF rules supersede the Agency's
sham recycling policy (see 48 FR11157
(March 16.1983)) after the owner or
operator certifies during interim status
compliance with the emissions
standards for metals. HCL CU.
participates, and CO (and. where
applicable, HC and dioxins and furans).
Thus, after certification of compliance, a
BIF may bum hazardous waste (other
than waste fed solely as an ingredient or
solely for material recovery) with a
heating value lower than the 5.000 Btu/
Ib limit generally considered heretofore
to be the minimum for a legitimate
hazardous waste fuel. Although the
Agency considers such burning to be
treatment we believe that confonnance
with the emissions standards upon
certification of compliance under
S 266.103(c) will ensure protection of
human health and the environment
(Prior to today's rule, BIFs burning a
hazardous waste that was not
considered to be a legitimate fuel were
subject to the subpart O incinerator
standards of parts 264 and 265.
assuming burning was not for some
other legitimate recycling purpose, such
as material recovery.)
Although we indicated above that a
BIF may bum hazardous waste for the
purpose of treatment upon certification
of compliance, today's rule allows BIFs
to bum such hazardous waste for a total
period of time not to exceed 720 hours
prior to certification of compliance. See
S 266.103(a)(6). The rule allows such
burning only for purposes of compliance
testing (and pretesting to prepare for
compliance testing) to determine that
the device can comply with the
emissions standards while burning
waste for treatment. The rule limits such
burning to a total of 720 hours because
we believe that period of time is
adequate to complete any pretesting and
compliance testing, and it is the same
period of time that new BIFs may burn
hazardous waste during the pretrial
burn period under S 270.66(b)(l).
The Agency discussed three options in
the 1989 supplemental notice for
superseding the sham recycling policy:
Rescinding the sham recycling policy on
the effective date of the final rule;
rescinding the sham recycling policy
when a facility comes into compliance
with the interim status emission
standards; or leaving the sham recycling
policy in effect until a RCRA operating
permit is issued.
The Agency received comments.
supporting all three of the options. Eight
commenters supported the first option.
rescinding the sham recycling policy on
the effective date of the final rule,
because the policy is considered
guidance. Eight commenters supported
the second option, rescinding the sham
policy when facilities come into
compliance with the interim status
emission standards, because the
standards are protective of human
health and the environment. Five
commenters supported the third option.
leaving the sham recycling policy in
effect until a facility is issued a RCRA
operating permit because the permit
writer oversight during the permit
process is necessary to ensure that a •
facility complies with the appropriate
regulations.
The Agency believes that the
procedures required for certification of
the interim status emissions standards
are adequate to ensure effective
implementation and enforcement of the
standards. The only emissions standard
applicable to permitted facilities that is
not required during interim status is the
destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) standard requiring a trial bum to
demonstrate 99.99% ORE. The Agency
does not believe that this is necessary
because emissions testing of boilers and
industrial furnaces indicates that
facilities with CO and HC levels within
the limits established by today's rule
also are likely to achieve 99.99% ORE.
It should be noted that in rescinding
the sham recycling policy for these types
of regulated boilers and industrial
furnaces, the Agency is not altering in
-------
TIM FsdenJ Register / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21 IflM / Rules and Repdati
any way what secondary materials are
defined as solid and hazardous wastes
when burned for legi&mate energy
recovery. Thus, all spent materials,
sludges, and by-products are solid
wastes when burned for recovery, as are
off-specification commerical ^harniml
products which are burned as fuels (or
used as a component of fuels) in lieu of
their original intended use. See
S1281.2(c)(2) and 261.33. (Non-listed
hazardous commercial chemical
products (La, those that exhibit a
characteristic but are not listed in
I 261.33) are likewise solid wastes when
they are recycled in ways that differ
from their normal use. SO FR at 14219
(April It 1985).) With respect to the
issue of what constitutes a normal
manner of use for an off-specification
commercial chemical product that h"«
some Btu value, or the issue of when
such a material is used "in lieu of {its]
original intended use" (S 261.33) and so
is a solid and hazardous waste, the
Agency notes that not every type of
burning ostensibly for energy recovery
is considered to qualify. Inappropriate
modes of burning thus do not render
such materials non-wastes. For example,
if ignitable off-specification natural gas
condensate is burned as a motor fuel or
reactive jet fuel (U133, hydrazme) is
burned as conventional fuel oil, such
materials are solid and hazardous
wastes and subject to subtitle C
controls. This is because the mode of
burning is not at all like these materials'
original intended use.
E Submiitai of Part B Applications
Permit writers wifl require owners and
operators to submit part B applications
for operating permits on a schedule
considering the relative hazard to
human health and environment the
facility poses omapared to other storage,
treatment and disposal facilities within
the Director's purview.
F. ORE Testing
As proposed, testing to demonstrate
99.90% destruction and removal
efficiency (ORE) of organic compounds
in die waste is not required under
interim status. The complexity and costs
of ORE testing, as well aa the
substantial interaction needed between
owners/operators and regulatory
officials, make such testing
impracticable during interim status. EPA
expects that the control requirements for
CO and HC will result in low levels of
emissions of organic compounds.
G. Chlorinated Dioxint and Parana
As proposed, hazardous, waste
containing or derived from any of the
following dienan lasted wastes cannot be-
burned in a boiler or industrial furnace
operating under interim status: EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. FOzQ. F02L FQ22,
F023, F02B. and F027. Burning these
dioxin-containing wastes during interim
status is prohibited because boilers and
industrial furnaces cannot be assumed
to achieve the 99.9999 percent ORE
required for these wastes.
Even though these wastes may not be
burned during interim status,
chlorinated dioxins and furans may be
emitted as PICs under certain conditions
(i.e.. when the PM control device is
operated within the temperature range
of 450-750'F. or when HC
concentrations exceed 20 ppmv) as
discussed in section ILE of part three of
the preamble. EPA believes that the
emissions testing and risk assessment
requirements of | 266.104(e) can be
effectively implemented during interim
status without significant EPA
interaction. Thus, the rule requires, the
owner or operator to certify compliance
with those requirements, as applicable.
H. Special Requirement* for Aunoce*
Today's rule provides special interim
status requirements for industrial
fumances that feed hazardous waste,
except hazardous waste fed soferjr as an
ingredient** at locations other than the
"hot" end when the product is
discharged and fuels an normally find
to ensure adequate combustion of
hazardous waste prior to conducting a
trial burn during the part B permit
process (see f 266.103(aH5)) as foQows:
(1) The combustion gases mnst have a
minimum temperature of 1800 *F at the
point where the waste is introduced;"
ialmadioMyaaaB,
"Hasanfaoa
ingredient if it U
(la. it hM a baating valua last tfamn MOD Btu/lb)
nor treatment or destruction (La. It contain* • tout
of laae than SOS ppm toxic nonaetal eonMttaett*
lilted in appendix vm. part an).
" "* 'T 11 • i thit raaient rfMipmla* hare
experimented With Mia* OOBUiaeriMd e*M *B9)
the upptr. taw autarial bad and of to* kiln aims
feed cfautM that prop*! UM conttinm down into tlu
kiln before they rupture and expo** At waita to the
combu»Uoo gas (and begin to releeee
hydrocarboal. In each a tituaooe. In* tmparatan
liinitapptoet the pota that the weateaiey begin
to ralaata hydrocarbon*—the point whan ew
contaiaar impact* tha chaisa bad. Tha taaiptmtuM
limit doaa not apply to tb* point wbm tha
container i* actually charged into the (dm. (tt
however, a noncontainariaad waata I* firad into tha
kiln at tha upper and tba 1SOD t teamaratm noil
appliaeat tha location whan UM waata exit* tha
filing tyctaoL) Althougb '**'* »""-""'"B p»»«-i~« \o
cement klhii, EPA nota* th«t tha iubjtct
raqmaBMnt* apply to any indntrial fuiuauta that
at • lacaatoa athar tbam tk«
(2) the owner or operator must
determine (and include such
determination in the operating record)
that there is sufficient oxygen present to
combust the waste: (3) the continuous
hydrocarbon monitoring control*
provided by i 266.104(d) apply: and (4)
for cement Irilna, hazardous waste must
be fed into the kirn itself;
EPA established a minimum
temperature of 1600 *F for the location of
hazardous waste firing and is requiring
that the owner/operator demonstrate
that adequate oxygen is present to
sustain combustion given that it is
generally accepted that organic
compounds are readily destroyed at
temperatures above 1800 *F hi the.
presence of adequate oxygen. The
demonstration of adequate oxygen is
particularly important for cement fains
because they are operated dose to
stoichiometric oxygen levels (i.e.. with
little excess oxygen in the Itiht) to
efficiently maintain the Kigh
temperatures necessary to calcine and
sinter the raw materials. Although -
higher excess oxygen levek would
better ensure more complete combustion
of fuels, operating at higher oxygen
levels is less thermally efficient and
reduces the kiln production capacity.
In addition, continuous hydrocarbon^
(HC) monitoring is required to •
demonstrate that HC levels do not "
exceed the regulatory limit of 20 ppmv
on a hearty roiling average basis (or
alternative level established andar
i 28&104(f)) irrespective of whether the
CO level is less than 100 ppmv where
HC monitoring is not normally required.
See I 266.103(a)(5). EPA is requiring HC
monitoring because of the concern that
CO monitormg alone may not be an
adequate indicator of good combsBtion
conditions when hazardous waste is fed
at locations other than where
(nonhazardous) fuels are normally find.
See discussion in part three, section
HB.4.a of this preamble. Continuous
monitoring of HC and compliance wim
the applicable operating limit is required
upon certification of compliance (or. for
fumances that feed raw materials
containing organic matter and that
receive a time extension to certify
compliance, upon receipt of the time
extension."
The Agency considered whether the
hydrocarbon controls were redundant to
the operating requirements specified
above and concluded that HC
monitoring is needed to effectively
*• Wa nota. a* dteuMad aUawaara in tha t
tha ttma fxtanatoo will ba conditional on. among \
othar thine*. HC(*»dOp) hmbaataxoMClag en'
-------
Federal Register / Vol. SO. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulation* 7185
plement and enforce the controls on
tic emissions. Although the
Derating requirements alone should be
adequate to limit organic emissions,
absent HC monitoring there would be no
continuous verification that the
operating requirements were, in fact,
adequate and that the owner/operator
maintained compliance with the
operating requirements.
Finally, the rule requires that
hazardous waste be fired into a cement
kiln itself to ensure that the waste is not
introduced at a location that may not be
conducive to complete combustion of
the waste. For example, cement
companies have considered burning
hazardous waste in the precalciner of a
cement kiln. Although such practices
may prove during the permit process to
be acceptable. EPA has not tested
emissions from a kiln burning waste at
locations other than in the kiln itself,
and is concerned that complete
combustion of organic constituents may
not be ensured Thus, burning hazardous
waste in a cement kilns precalciner is
not allowed during interim status. (This
restriction is limited to cement kilns
because this is the only type of kiln of
which the Agency is aware where
hazardous waste may be fired at a
ocation that is clearly not designed for
Yimum combustion conditions. A
_ nent kiln precalciner is designed
primarily to achieve calcining of raw
materials and may not provide adequate
combustion of hazardous waste.)
The special requirements do not apply
to hazardous waste that is burned
(processed) solely as an ingredientT*
because such waste does not contain
significant levels of hazardous nonmetal
constituents (i.e., compounds listed in
appendix VIII. part 261) and. thus.
nonmetal emissions will not pose
significant risk to human health and the
environment. (Metal emissions will be
adequately controlled by today's rule
irrespective if where the waste is fed
into the system because metals are
controlled by a PM control device.)
Thus, emissions of nonmetal compounds
are not of concern when a waste is
burned (processed) solely as an
ingredient. EPA considers a waste to be
burned solely as an ingredient in a kiln
if it is not burned partially as a fuel.or
" Under tbt RCRA hazardous wait* regulatory
program. EPA contiden • hazardoua waita to b«
burned or proettMd a* an ingrtditnt if it it utad to
product a product EPA contidan a hazardou*
waita to be burnad or proeetted for malarial
recovary if ona or mora coaitituanU of tha waata ia
recovarad aa a product Nonetheleaa, tha critaria ara
tana for datanniniiif whan a waita it bumad
prooaaaad) at an ingredient or for matarialt
vanna whan it la bumad for tha partial
purpota of anargy recovery or conventional
treatment
for conventional treatment (i.e.,
destruction). The Agency considers a
waste that is fed to boilers and
industrial furnaces to be burned at least
partially for energy recovery and not as
an ingredient if it has a heating value of
5,000 Btu/lb or greater, as-generated.
and at least partially for treatment (i.e..
destruction) if it contains more than a
total of 500 ppm (by weight) of appendix
VUI. part 261, nonmetal hazardous
constituents. See 54 FR at 43731-32
where EPA discussed use of a 500 ppm
standard for distinguishing between
recycling activities tantamount to
production and those constituting
conventional treatment
The Agency notes in addition that it
ordinarily does not consider metal-
bearing wastes hazardous wastes to be
used as ingredients when they are
placed in industrial furnaces
purportedly to contribute to producing a
product (The use of metal-bearing
wastes for material recovery is
discussed earlier in the preamble, and
this discussion does not deal with the
issue of when such wastes are burned
for legitimate material recovery in
industrial furnaces.) To be considered
legitimate use as an ingredient it would
normally need to be demonstrated to
EPA (or an authorized State) pursuant to
§ 261.2(f) that the hazardous metal
constituents in the waste ara necessary
for the product (i.e.. ara contributing to
product quality) and are not present in
amounts in excess of those necessary to
contribute to product quality. See 50 FR
at 638 (Ian. 4.1985). This would
normally require some demonstration
that these hazardous metal constituents
do not render the product unsafe for its
intended use. (The other sham recycling
criteria discussed frequently by EPA
would also have to be satisfied. See.
e.g.. 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8.1988).) The
types of uses of hazardous wastes in
industrial furnaces to produce waste-
derived products of which the Agency is
aware, such as using hazardous wastes
to produce aggregate or cement (the
Agency is not actually aware of cement
kilns using hazardous wastes ostensibly
as ingredients, although some facilities
have contemplated engaging in the
practice) do not appear to satisfy these
criteria. In addition, the Agency notes
the discussion earlier in this preamble
(in the context of hazardous waste used
as slurry water) to the effect that the
more common and less valuable the raw
material the hazardous waste is
replacing, the mora likely the activity is
to be some form of surrogate treatment
/. Special Metals Controls for Furnaces
that Recycle Collected Particulate
Matter
For reasons discussed in section
IV.C.4 of this preamble, the final rule
requires owners and operators of
furnaces (e.g., cement kilns, light-weight
aggregate kilns with dry paniculate
matter (PM) control systems) that
recycle collected PM back into the
furnace to implement the metals
emissions controls of i 266.106 (c) or (d)
under one of the three alternative
methods. The discussion in section
IV.C.4 of the preamble summarizes
procedures for certification of
compliance under the methods. For
certification of precompliance, the
standard procedures will be used for
both the "daily emissions testing"
option, and the "conditioning prior to
compliance testing" option.
Precompliance procedures are different
however, for the "monitoring metals in
collected PM" method, as discussed
below.
Under the "monitoring metals hi
collected PM" method, operating limits
will be established for all of the
parameters listed in section VDLB. above
except for the feed rate limit on each
metal in total feedstraams. In lieu of that
parameter, the special procedures limit
the concentration of each metal in
collected PM. See "Alternative
Methodology for Implementing Metals
Controls" in Methods Manual for
Compliance with the BIF Regulations
(incorporated in today's rule as
appendix IX of part 266).
For certification of precompliance, the
owner/operator must estimate the
enrichment factor for each metal using
engineering judgment or EPA prescribed
default values. EPA default values are
100 for mercury and 10 for all other
metals. The enrichment factors are then
used to calculate precompliance dust
metal concentration limits using the
allowable emission rate for each metal
and the applicable PM standard using
the same procedures applicable for
certification of compliance. Daily (or
weekly for noncritical metals) analysis
of dust samples is required. If more than
3 of the previous 60 samples fail, the
owner/operator must notify the
Director. The owner/operator is then
allowed to bum hazardous waste for up
to 720 hours before a revised
certification of precompliance must be
submitted that revises the estimated
enrichment factors and establishes
revised precompliance dust metals
concentration limits. The revised
enrichment factors must be based on
testing or engineering judgment using
-------
71» Fadarcl Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thanday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
data or information not considered in
the original estimate.
/. Recordkeeping
Over the period of interim status,
facilities will be required to generate
and maintain data and records designed
to demonstrate routine compliance with
established limits on operating
parameters. These records must be
sufficient to allow a RCRA inspector to
review and evaluate recent and past
operation of the facility for compliance
purposes. Records must be maintained
for a period of three yean or until an
operating permit is issued under
§ 270.68. whichever is later.
Vin. Implementation of Today's Rule
There are three types of treatment
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
which may be affected by today's rale:
(1) Facilities which are subject to RCRA
permit requirements for the first time as
a result of today's rule; (2) facilities
which are already operatiag wider
interim status; and (3) facilities that
have been issued a RCRA permit The
following sections describe the
compliance obligations for facilities that
have units subject to permitting due to
today's rule.
A. Newly Regulated Facilities
Prior to receiving a permit newly
regulated facilities (La* facilities which
only contain the types of units newly
regulated by today's final rule) must
qualify for interim status by the effective
date of the rule in order to continue
managing hazardous wastes in units
newly regulated by today's rule. To
obtain interim status, the eligible facility
must meet three criteria: {!) On the
effective date of the BIF rule, the facility
moat be "in existence" with respect to
hazardous waste burning or processing
activities; (2) within 90 days of the date
of publication, the owner or operator
must notify EPA or an authorized State
(if not previously required to do so) of
the facility's hazardous waste burning or
processing activities: and (3) within 180
days of the date of publication, the
owner or operator must submit part A of
the permit application.
1. Definition of "In Existence".
To meet the definition of an existing
facility, die boiler or industrial furnace
must either be in operation burning or
processing hazardous waste on or
before the effective date of the rule, or
construction of the facility (including the
hazardous waste burning or processing
equipment) must have commenced on or
before the effective date of the rule. See
1266.103
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thunday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7187
November 8.1988). See RCRA section
300S(c)(2).
EPA amended iti regulations on July
IS, 1985 to incorporate these and other
HSWA changes. See 50 FR at 28703.
EPA's intention in promulgating these
amendments was simply to reflect the
new statutory provisions; for the most
part the Agency simply codified into the
regulations the new HSWA language. Id.
at 28703. In light of the largely
ministerial nature of the regulations, and
in view of the need to move quickly to
incorporate HSWA. EPA published
these 1985 regulations without
opportunity for public comment Id. (The
D.C. Circuit eventually sustained the
legality of these procedures in United
Technologies Corp. v. EPA, 821 F.2d at
714 (D.C. Cir. 1987).)
Section 270.73 (f), (g) sets forth the
dates on which interim status for
incinerators and other non-land disposal
facilities terminates if the facilities fail
to submit their part B applications.
However, in contrast to the HSWA
amendments, the sections by their term*
apply to all incinerator and other non-
land disposal facilities, instead of being
limited only to those facilities which had
obtained interim status on November 8,
1984. the date of the HSWA
amendments. In fact it is impossible for
units newly subject to regulation after
the specified dates for submission of
part B permit applications (such as the
boilers and furnaces regulated by
today's rule, or certain facilities newly
subject to regulation under the recent
Toxicity Characteristic rule) to comply
with the rules as codified. EPA did not
intend for these rules to deviate from
statutory language. As the preamble to
the 1985 codification regulations stated.
the Agency simply intended for section
270.73 (f). (g) to reflect the HSWA
termination-of-interim status provisions.
Id. at 28723.
The Agency is today making a
technical correction to these sections to
correct this mistake, and to avoid the
unintended (and possibly illegal) result
that large classes of newly regulated
units are ineligible for interim status
because they failed to submit part B
applications at a time they were
unregulated. EPA is proceeding without
proposing the correction for public
comment and believes that public
comment is unnecessary, for the
following reasons: (1) This correction
simply conforms the language of the
regulations to the Agency's original
expressed intent in promulgating the
1985 regulations, which themselves were
validly promulgated without the
opportunity for comment (2) this
correction simply conforms the
regulations to HSWA's plain language;
(3) the amendment conforms the
regulations to the Agency's actual
practice in implementing the regulations
and RCRA 3005(c)(2); (4) the amendment
is necessary to avoid rendering units
newly regulated after specified part B
permit application submittal dates from
being ineligible for interim status even
though they meet ail of the statutory
interim status eligibility criteria; and (5)
the amendment can be viewed as an
interpetative rule, which does not
require prior notice and public comment
C. Permitted Facilitiet
Some permitted facilities contain
boiler and furnace units that are newly
subject to subtitle C regulation as a
result of today's rule. These permitted
facilities must therefore submit permit
modifications to EPA Regional offices,
and comply with federal permit
modification procedures in order to
continue to manage hazardous waste in
these units. The modification will be
processed under Federal permit
modification procedures rather than
authorized state procedures because
this rule is promulgated under HSWA
authority.*0 However, because the
permit undergoing modification is most
likely a jointly issued EPA-state RCRA
permit a copy of the modification
request should also be submitted to the
state if it is an authorized state.
1. Amendment to 1270.42(g)
Today's rule contains a new permit
modification procedure in 1270.42 for
the addition of any newly regulated
waste management units used to
manage hazardous wastes (SM
{ 270.42(g)). This two-step procedure
essentially allows the permittee to notify
the Agency of its newly regulated
boilers and furnaces using the Class 1
permit modification procedures, and to
continue to handle hazardous wastes.
Subsequently, the permittee must submit
a Class 2 or 3 permit modification
request to initiate a permanent change
to the permit The self-implementing
interim status standards of 1286.103
would apply until the permit waa
modified using the Class 2 or 3
modification procedures. This new
permit modification provision only
applies to newly regulated units that
were not previously subject to the
permitting requirements of subtitle C of
RCRA.
Today's new permit modification
provision for newly regulated units is
•• Bxo»pt bowavar. tht proviafcMa far (Me*
dtyan, canoQ fayatMFatioQ mitt, tanvno
IndMMton. and plaama tie tndnaratara an not
proeviliatad •adar HSWA amtfcocity.
essentially identical to the special
procedure in 1270.42(g) for newly
regulated wastes. The purpose of
today's amendment is to extend the
same opportunities and procedures that
are available for newly regulated waste
streams (and any units used to manage
them) to those situations where the unit
becomes newly regulated in absence of
a new waste identification. (See 53 FR
37922, September 28,1988.) EPA believes
that the same rationale applies to newly
regulated types of units, and is therefore
clarifying this provision hi today's rule.
Without the procedure in 9 270.42(g),
the facility would need to obtain an
approved permit modification if the
facility were to continue managing
hazardous wastes past the effective date
of today's rule, which establishes
management standards for boilers and
industrial furnaces. If the modifications
wen not approved within six months.
these facilities would be barred from
handling hazardous wastes, disrupting
the ongoing operations of many of these
facilities as well as other RCRA
facilities that would then need to
manage the wastes. As discussed below.
EPA believes that the addition of •
boiler or industrial furnace to a facility's
permit is a Class 3 modification.
Because of the time allowed for
preparation of the modification request
by the facility and public participation
in the permit modification procedures,
the Agency would be unable to review
and make a final determination on the
modification request in the six month
period.
Today's technical correction rectifies
a potential inequity between permitted
facilities and newly regulated facilities.
Newly regulated facilities are required
only to submit part A of the permit
application, and submit the RCRA
section 3010 Notification form, if
necessary, to obtain interim status. Both
activities can be easily completed by the
effective date of today's rule, allowing
them to continue operations, while
permitted facilities, who have undergone
the scrutiny of the permitting process,
would likely be barred from doing so.
2. Procedures to Modify Permits
Under today's new procedures in
{ 270.42(g). a unit that is "in existence"
as a unit by managing hazardous waste
on or before the effective date of today's
rule must submit a Class I modification
by that date. Essentially, this
modification is a notification to the
Agency that the facility is managing
hazardous wastes in these newly
regulated units. It could consist of a
revised part A application form-clearly
indicating all activities that are newly
-------
7138 Federal Register / VoL 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
regulated as a result of today's rule. As
part of the Class 1 procedure, the
permittee must also notify the public
regarding the modification within 90
days of submittal to the Agency.
Next, within 180 days of the effective
date, the permittee must submit a Class
2 or 3 modification request to the
Agency. It is at this time that the
detailed part B information must be
submitted. The Agency believes that the
Class 3 permit modification procedures
are mostly likely applicable to the
addition of boilers or industrial furnace
units. The Class 3 modification requires
an initial public notice by the facility
owner of the modification request, a 60
day public comment period, and an
informal meeting between the owner
and the public within the 60 day period
After the end of the 60 day public
comment period, the Agency will
develop a draft permit modification.
open a second public comment period of
45 days and hold a public hearing. After
the public comment period, the Agency
will make a final decision on the
modification request
Today's rule also amends appendix I
to { 270.42 to classify the permit
modifications for boilers and industrial
furnaces. Section L is revised to include
boilers and industrial furnaces with
incinerators, and to specify additional
permit conditions to conform with
today's rule (and the conditions added
to incinerator permits under the
omnibus authority of 1270.32(b)(2). For
more information on these permit
modification procedures, see S3 FR
37912, September 2& 198&
D. Addition of Storage Units as Direct
Transfer Facilities That Obtain Interim
Status
As discussed in section XILC of part
Three of this preamble, the requirements
for boilers and industrial furnaces an
being promulgated under section 3004(q)
of RCRA, which is a HSWA provision.
As a result under section 3008(g). EPA
will implement these requirement* in
both authorized and unauthorized States
until the State is authorized to
implement these requirements in lieu of
EPA. Based on comments received
during the rulemaking. EPA is aware
that many interim status facilities
newly-regulated under this rule may
wish to add storage units to their
facilities in the future rather than.
continue direct transfer operations
(direct firing of the burner from the
transport vehicle). Furthermore. EPA
recommends that facilities install tanks
and reduce or eliminate direct transfer
practices because of the additional
hazards associated with the practice. As
discussed in more detail below, EPA
believes that such units can be added to
the facility without awaiting complete
permitting.
1. Unauthorized States
Facilities that wish to shift to storage
from direct transfer operations and that
are located in unauthorized states, will
generally be able to add such units to
the facility as a change in interim status
under 40 CFR 270.72(a)(3). In order to
qualify for addition of units under this
provision, the facility must: (1) Obtain
interim status for the boiler or industrial
furnace; and (2) submit a revised part A
application to the EPA Regional Office
prior to adding the storage units with a
justification for the change. Because
EPA strongly encourages the
discontinuation of direct transfer
operations at boilers and industrial
furnaces, EPA believes that the addition
of storage units at such facilities
constitutes a change necessary to meet
federal requirements under 40 CFR
270.72(a)(3)(u). The Regional Office must
approve the interim status change,
unless it is covered by amended
S 270.72(a)(6) just discussed. Although
40 CFR 270.72(b) limits the extent of an
addition that can be made during
interim status, the addition of associated
storage units under today's rule would
be exempt from this limitation pursuant
to $ 270.72(b)(2).
2. Authorized States
Interim status facilities located in
authorized states that wish to
discontinue direct transfer operations
will also generally be able to add such
units to the facility pursuant to 40 CFR
270.72(a)(3). In states which are not
authorized to implement the HSWA
storage requirements for boilers and
industrial furnaces, the procedure for
adding storage units at new interim
status boilers or industrial furnaces is
the same as described above for
facilities located in unauthorized states.
Because EPA is implementing both the
rule promulgated today and the
associated storage requirements in such
states, the federal rules governing
changes in interim status apply to both
the boilers and industrial furnaces and
the addition of associated storage
facilities.
In states which have been authorized
to implement the HSWA storage
requirements for boilers and industrial
furnaces, facilities newly regulated
under today's rule must comply with the
authorized state requirements
concerning the addition of associated
storage units. In some cases, the
authorized state may require the facility
to obtain a permit prior to constructing
or operating such storage units.
E. Compliance with BIF Versus
Incinerator Rules
Existing rules (see i 266.31(c)) require
that cement kilns burning hazardous
waste that are located in urban areas
must comply with the hazardous waste
incinerator standards. In addition,
existing rules allow owners/Operators
of any boiler or industrial furnace to
obtain an incinerator permit These
provisions exist because the Agency had
not yet established regulatory controls
for BEFi. In fact the statutory provision
(section 3004(q)(2)(c)) requiring that
cement kilns in urban areas be regulated
as incinerators states that the "* * *
regulations remain in effect until the
Agency develops substantive standards
for cement kilns burning hazardous
waste." Therefore, on the effective date
of the BIF rule, both of these regulatory
provisions will be rescinded except as
discussed below.
Commenters questioned what
regulations should more appropriately
apply under three scenarios: (1) If a BIF
is operating in interim status under the
subpart O, part 265, incinerator
standards; (2) if a BIF has already been
issued an incinerator operating permit
under subpart O. Part 264; and (3) if a A
BIF has previously submitted a part B •
application for an incinerator permit ancr
the permit review process has
progressed substantially by the effective
date of the BIF rule. A BIF currently
operating under the interim status
incinerator regulations must comply
with the BIF regulations on their
effective date in lieu of the incinerator
regulations so that it is subject to the
more stringent BIF rule. A BIF currently
operating under an incinerator permit
will continue under that permit until it is
reviewed or the permit term otherwise
expires. At that time, the BIF rule will
apply. Although the Agency's general
policy is that BIFs are to be regulated
only under the BIF rules, we believe
permit officials should use their
discretion to determine whether to grant
exceptions for the third situation given
the protectiveness of the standard*, and
the desirability of avoiding further delay
and expense by having to duplicate the
permit process under these BIF rules.
For example, if a BIF is operating under
the incinerator interim status standard*
but has submitted part B of the
incinerator permit and the permit
proceedings have progressed
substantially, the Director may continue
processing the permit (and issue it) ™
under the incinerator standards and use
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7189
omnibus authority il to add conditions
to the permit as necessary to conform
with the BIF rule.
DC. Permit Procedures
A. Part B Information
As proposed on May 6,1987 (52 FR
17015), S 270.22 provides specific
information requirements for part B of
the permit application. Paragraph (a)
requires a trial bum to demonstrate
conformance with the performance
standards of S S 266.104 through 266.107.
except where the trial bum is waived.
Although the regulatory language is
substantively the same as proposed, it
has been restructured for clarity, by
specifying the documentation required
to support a waiver from each type of
trial bum: ORE trial burn, paniculate
matter trial burn, metals trial bum. and
HQ/Cb trial bum.
In addition, the rule specifics under
S 270.22(a)(6) that owners and operators
may submit data from previous
compliance testing of the device, or from
testing of similar boilers or industrial
furnaces burning similar wastes, in lieu
of a trial bum provided that the data is
determined adequate and sufficient
documentation of similarity is provided.
Paragraph* (b) through (e) were added
to 1270.22 to provide information
requirements related to other regulatory
provisions being promulgated today for
boilers and industrial furnaces.
Paragraph (d) requires information
describing the automatic waste feed
cutoff system. Paragraph (e) requires
owners and operators using direct
transfer operations to feed hazardous
waste from transport vehicles directly to
the boiler or industrial furnace to submit
information supporting conformance
with the direct transfer standards at
S 266.111. Under paragraph (e), owners
and operators that claim their residues
are excluded from regulation under
§ 266.112 must submit information
adequate to demonstrate conformance
with those provisions.
B. Special Forms of Permits
As proposed, the final rule adds
S 270.66 to subpart F of part 270. This
section establishes special forms of
permits (see discussion below) for new
boilers and new industrial furnaces, and
•' EPA notat that ptrmit writer* chooainf to
invoke the oninibua permit authority of
127033b)(2) to tod condition* to • RCRA permit
must ahow that luch condition* an naoaaaary to
•mure protection of human health and the
envtrooJMnt and moat provide tupport for the
condition* to intereated partiea and accept and
retpond to comment In addition, permit writer*
moat juaofy in the administrative record aupportinf
the permit any dedatana baaed on omniboa
sets forth requirements for the various
periods of operation under which a
boiler or industrial furnace operates,
depending on applicable trial burn
requirements. This section also
establishes trial burn procedures.
Finally, this section discusses special
procedures for permitting existing
facilities. Although these provisions
were described in the preamble to the
proposal, at 52 FR 17016, they are
described briefly below, in order to
highlight minor changes from the
proposed requirements.
1. Permits for New Boilers and Industrial
Furnances.
Paragraph (b) specifies four operating
periods of a permit for a new facility.
The provisions have been restructured
from those proposed in recognition of
the fact that all boilers and industrial
furnaces subject to a permit must
undergo some type of trial burn.
Although a facility could conceivably
meet the requirements for a waiver of
the DRE trial burn, participate matter
trial burn, metals trial bum, and HCl/Qa
trial bum. all regulated facilities must
demonstrate conformance with the
carbon monoxide, and where applicable.
hydrocarbon limits or 5 266.104.
In addition, minor revisions to this
section have been made to make the
permit process for new boilers and
industrial furnaces consistent with the
way the hazardous waste incinerator
permitting process is implemented, to*
one permit with four periods of
operations rather than an individual
permit for each period of operation.
Thus, the final rule provides for
permits addressing four periods of
operation for all boilers and furnaces:
The pre-trial burn period, the trial bum
period, the post-trial bum period, and
the final permit period.
Conditions addressing compliance
with each performance standard (or
corresponding waiver requirement) will
be set in the permit for each period of
operation. Applicants must submit a
statement with part B of the permit
application that suggests the condition*
necessary to operate in conformance
with the performance standards of
S 5266.104 through 266.107. For those
performance standards for which a trial
bum is required, the Director will use
his engineering judgment and
consideration of the applicant's
proposal, in setting operating condition*
in the permit sufficient to meet the
performance standards. Once the trial
bum data are available, they will be
used to modify, if necessary, the final
operating conditions in the permit For
those performance standards for which
a trial burn demonstration is not
required (for example, when the
applicant has chosen to comply with
Tier I of the metals limitations under
{ 266.106(b)), appropriate conditions (in
the above example, metals feed rate
limits specified under § 266.102(e)(4))
will be set for all periods of operation.
The pre-trial bum period begins with
initial introduction of hazardous waste
into the boiler or industrial furnace and
extends for the minimum time required,
not to exceed 720 hours of hazardous
waste burning, to bring the device to a
point of operational readiness to
conduct a trial burn. This period may be
extended once by the Director if good
cause is shown. The trial bum period
covers the period when the trial bum is
conducted. This period is followed by
the post-trial bum period, which extends
for the minimum time necessary to allow
analysis, data computation, and
submission of the Mai bum results and
modification of the permit by the
Director if necessary to reflect the trial
bum results. Such modifications will
proceed under the permit modification
provisions at § 270.42.
Paragraph (c) specifies information
that must be included in the trial burn
plan. Paragraph (d) establishes trial
bum procedures, including criteria for
approval of trial bum plans and
requirements for submission of trial
bum data. Paragraph (e) establishes
procedures for selection of POHCs when
a DRE trial bum is required. Finally,
paragaph (f) establishes the
determinations that the applicant must
make based on the trail bum results—
the data, analyses, and computations
that must be submitted to support
conformance with the applicable
emissions standards.
2. Permit Procedures for Interim Status
Facilities.
Applicants owning or operating
existing boilers or industrial furnaces
will be permitted under i 270.66(g). This
paragraph addresses submission of trial
bum plans and trial bum data for
existing boilers and furnaces. These
provisions differ from the proposal in
that they specifically require that the
applicable trial burn data be submitted
and considered prior to permit issuance.
This language conforms with the
January 30,1989 change to the
hazardous waste incinerator regulations
promulgated at 54 FR 4288 providing
clarification of this point.
X. Exemption of Small Quantity Burner
Section 3004(q)(2)(B) of RCRA
provides EPA with explicit authority to
exempt from regulation facilities that
burn small quantities of hazardous
-------
7190 Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
wastes if the wastes are burned at the
same facility at which they are
generated. The Administrator is to
ensure that such waste fuels are burned
in devices designed and operated in a
manner sufficient to ensure adequate
destruction and removal to protect
human health and the environment
The Agency has carefully evaluated
the risks posed by small quantity
burning snd concluded that a
conditional exemption for small quantity
turners should be allowed where
hazardous waste combustion poses
insignificant risk. A discussion of the
original May 1987 proposal and the
subsequent October 1989 proposed
revisions is presented below.
On May 6.1987 (52 FR 17034). the
Aaency proposed to exempt facilities
that burn small quantities of hazardous
wjsie that they generate on site because
even in the absence of regulatory
control, the health risk posed by such
burning would not be significant
Eligibility for the exemption would have
been base on the quantity of waste
burned per month, established as a
function of device type and thermal
capacity. In order to be exempt in
addition to restricting the quantity of
waste burned, a facility was required to
notify the Regional Administrator that it
is a small quantity burner. Limit the
maximum instantaneous waste firing
rate to 1% of total fuel burned, and
refrain from burning acutely toxic waste
containing dioxin.
On October 26.1989 (54 FR 43730), the
Agency proposed several revisions to
the exemption in the 1987 notice. Rather
than establish hazardous waste quantity
limits as a function of device type and
capacity, EPA proposed quantity limits
that vary as a function of effective stack
height The exempt quantities proposed
in October 1989. and promulgated today.
include several changes to the risk
assessment methodology. In particular.
the quantities are based on evaluation
of risks from hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions instead of a PIC/POHC ratio
as originally proposed. This change was
made to better account for organic
emissions from combustion, in addition.
the procedures for evaluation of
facilities with multiple stacks were
revised to reduce over-regulation in
these situations.
A. Response to Comments
Numerous commenters to the 1987 and
1989 proposals objected to conservatism
of the calculated quantity Limits and/or
the 1% limit on hazardous waste firing.
The commenters stated that the
assumptions used in calculating the
exempt limits are overly conservative.
and that the 1% limit on firing of
hazardous waste it based on unrealistic
and unjustifiable conclusions. The
commenters. however, did not provide
data or analysis to support their
arguments that assumptions used in the
small quantity burner exemption (SQBE)
calculations and conditions (including
limits on the waste to be burned) for
exemption eligibility were too
restrictive. Absent technical support for
alternate approaches, the Agency
continues to believe that the approach
proposed in October 1989 is reasonable
and Appropriate. In addition, using less
conservative assumptions to derive the
exempt quantities could allow relatively
large amounts of hazardous waste to be
burned, a result somewhat at odds with
the statutory language referring to small
"quantities" of hazardous waste. See
J 265.108(a)(2) which limits the
maximum hazardous waste firing rate at
any time to 1% of the total fuel
requirements of the device on a volume
basis. See also I 266.108(a)(3) which
requires the hazardous waste to have a
minimum heating value of 5.000 Btu/lb,
as-generated, to ensure that the
exemption is limited to fuels as intended
by section 3004(q)(2)(3) and to ensure
adequate destruction of toxic organic
constituents.
One commenter requested credit for
the presence of air pollution control
devices (APCDs). The Agency believes
that it is no appropriate to allow credit
for APCDs because, without
requirements for an oversight of the
operation and maintenance of the
devices, there is no assurance that
collection efficiencies are being met
Four commenters to the 1987 proposal
urged EPA to delete the small quantity
burner exemption. These commenters
were concerned that the large number of
boilers and industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste that do not have to
meet any design requirements would
have a detrimental effect on human
health and the environment. The Agency
continues to believe that the exemption
is protective of human health and the
environment because it is health-based,
incorporating quantity limits and
conservative assumptions designed to
be protective regardless of size and
location of the device, or conditions of
operation.
Two commenters stated that the
exemption should apply to facilities that
generate hazardous waste at off-site
facilities under the same ownership and
operational control. The Agency is
concerned, however, that contrary to
Congress's intent this approach could
allow a large quantity generator to
distribute their hazardous wastes in
small quantities to TSDFs (including
entities that are parent corporations.
joint ventures, subsidiaries of the
generator, etc.) that would then bum the
wastes without regulation.
Consequently, the final rule limits the
exemption to facilities that burn only
hazardous waste generated on-site.
One commenter to the 1987 proposal
urged the Agency to clarify that the 1%
limit on the hazardous waste firing is to
be applied only to unmixed hazardous
waste fuel not to a mixture of
hazardous and non-hazardous fuel The
Agency acknowledges the ambiguity in
the proposed rule language and intended
the proposal to require that the quantity
determination take into account only the
hazardous waste fuel prior to mixing
with a nonhazardous waste fuel
Today's final rule contains language to
that effect and requires the exempt
facility to keep records to document that
the quantity of hazardous waste prior to
mixing with a nonhazardous fuel
complies with the quantity limitations.
Six commenters to the 1988 proposal
suggested that quantity limits be baaed
on \% of the total fuel burned and not
the stack height which relies upon
dispersion only. The Agency, however.
continue* to believe that terrain-
adjusted stack height is the important
criterion, because it is possible that
even a 1% limit with large dispersion
and low stack height could pose a
threat to human health and the
environment
B. Basis for Today's Final Rule
In order to calculate allowable
exempt quantities under today's rule.
worst-case dispersion coefficients
(based on incinerator modeling), and an
HC unit risk factor of 2 x 10~* m'/jig
(baaed on a 10~* risk limit) wen
assumed, as proposed in the October
1989 supplemental notice. Allowable
emission rates of hydrocarbons (HCs)
were then back-calculated as a function
of effective stack height terrain type,
and land use. The assumption used in
this back-calculation was an HC
concentration in the stack gas of 150
ppmv at 99.99% ORE. Finally, the exempt
quantities were calculated using the HC
emission rates and an empirically-
derived ratio of combustion gas volume
to mass of waste. The most conservative
allowable emission rates calculated for
each stack height were then used as the
established quantity limits.
A detailed description of the
methodology used to derive quantity
limit* for the exemption is available in
the docket for the supplemental notice.
Aa mentioned above, the use of |
effective stack height to determine
eligible quantity limits reflect* one of
the revision* proposed in the October
-------
Fodertl Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7191
28.1989 supplemental notice. The
Agency notes that we have not
established separate exempt quantity
limits for the different terrain types and
land use classifications. Rather, the
revised quantities are based on
assumptions of terrain and land use that
result in the lowest (i.e., most
conservative) exempt quantities. We
believe that this conservative approach
is appropriate given that there would be
no EPA or State agency oversight of an
operator's determination of a facility's
terrain and land use classification. Some
key assumptions used to arrive at the
quantity limits are described below.
EPA evaluated the risks posed by
emissions of organic compounds, metals,
and hydrogen chloride, the parameters
controlled in the substantive regulations
promulgated in today's rule.** The
analysis demonstrates that the risks
posed by organic emissions from waste-
as-fuel activities are overwhelmingly
dominated by the risks posed by
carcinogenic (as opposed to
noncarcinogenic) waste constituents.
Accordingly, the initial evaluation
performed in support of the small
quantity burner exemption focused
exclusively on carcinogenic risks, on the
assumption that controls ensuring
insignificant risks from organic
carcinogenic emissions will ensure
protection against non-cardnogenic
releases. This assumption was
confirmed by evaluating the potential
risks from metals and hydrogen chloride
that would result when those quantities
of waste indicated by the risk analysis
for organic carcinogens were burned.
The risks from burning small
quantities of hazardous waste are
determined primarily by the following
factors:
• Composition of the waste stream
being burned:
• Toxicities and concentrations of
hazardous constituents in the waste
stream:
• Destruction and removal efficiency
achieved by the device:
• Local meteorology, which influences
the amount of dispersion of stack
emissions;
• Clustering and size of sources: and
• The effective stack height of the
device.
The values of these parameters can
and do very widely. Reasonable, worst-
case assumptions were made for these
parameters in the Agency's calculations
of exempt quantities and evaluation of
risks. In the risk analysis, EPA assumed
an acceptable cancer risk level of 1.0 X
•• UA EPA. "Analyata for Calculates • d»
Minimli Exampthm for Buminj Small Quantttiaa of
Waata la Cambwttaa DwrioM". Auswt 1SSS.
10~* to an individual residing for 70
years at the ground level point of
maximum exposure to reasonable,
worst-case stack emissions. Reasonable,
worst-case dispersion coefficients based
on effective stack heights were used.
The dispersion coefficients were those
developed in the risk analysis for the
proposed amendments to the hazardous
waste incinerator regulations (See 54 PR
43752 and 55 FR17871). The dispersion
coefficients differ by terrain type, land
use, and effective stack height Separate
calculations were made for noncomplex
and complex terrain and urban and rural
land use. resulting in three different sets
of quantity eligibility limits for each
effective stack height. The rationale for
the assumptions used in the risk
analysis is discussed below.
1. Composition of Hazardous Waste
Stream
Composition data on hazardous
waste-derived fuels is scarce.
Information gathered by the mail
questionnaire survey and other industry
contacts indicate that most of the
materials burned are organic solvents
that are usually classified as hazardous
based on ignitability and/or toxicity.
The actual concentrations of
carcinogens in wastes burned by 21
facilities during EPA's field testing
program for boilers and industrial
furnaces ranged from 0 to 17% with an
average of approximately 4%.
The quantity of PICs measured In EPA
test burns was found to be independent
of specific POHC species and was •
function of hydrocarbon (HC] content of
the fuel only. This is supported by
comparisons made by MRI of PICs from
hazardous waste and fossil fuel
combustion. Since it is impossible to
differentiate between the PICs from fuel
and those from hazardous waste during
most tests, it was assumed that the
boilers in the EPA test burns were using
fuels of 100% HC and all PICs are the
result of hazardous waste burning.
Additionally, HC emissions are
presumed to be an acceptable
measurement of PICs; historic data
indicate that HC measures from 75 to
95% of all PICs emitted.
The hazardous waste was assumed to.
contain concentrations of cadmium.
chromium, nickel and lead that wen
obtained from the state sampling report*
of the Keystone Cement Company.
Arsenic, barium, and mercury
concentrations were based on 90th
percentile levels from the Engineering
Science Background Document
2. Toxicity of Hazardous Constituents
The average unit risk of those PICs
that were identified during EPA trial
burns was 1.0x10"* m'/pg. However, it
is likely that the PICs resulting from
incineration under the 99% DRE
assumption for the small quantity burner
analysis would have a higher toxicity
than those measured under the 99.99%
DRE in the EPA boiler tests. EPA
therefore estimates the unit risk for total
HCs to be 2.0X10'* mVpg. This
corresponds to a carcinogenic potency
of Qi* =0.07 for hydrocarbons (HC). As
explained in the October 1986 notice,
this potency factor was used rather than
a Qi* value of 1.0 for products of
incomplete combustion as originally
proposed in the May 6,1987 proposed
rule because the Agency was concerned
about possible nonconservative features
of PIC estimation. (See 54 FR 43730.)
3. Destruction Efficiency
The burner destruction efficiency
determines the quantity of unburned
hazardous wastes that will be emitted
from the stack. Assumed values for
boiler and furnace performance were
selected based upon review of test data
generated in support of this rule and
based on the professional judgment of
Agency staff members familiar with the
destruction and removal efficiencies
(DRE) typically achieved by boilers. It
was assumed that, in the worst case.
boilers and furnaces would only achieve
99% DRE •* of organic constituents. This
represents a very poorly performing
combustion device. In fact as explained
previously, most boilers and furnaces
can be expected to achieve 99.99% DRE
of organic waste constituents even when
operated under less than optimal
conditions.
4. Assumptions Regarding Metals and
Chlorine in Waste Fuels
A similar reasonable, worst-case
analysis was performed to evaluate the
potential risks posed by emissions of
toxic metals (including carcinogens) and
hydrogen chloride from small quantity
burners. As a result it was determined
that at the volume cut-offs specified by
the exemption and the assumed waste
concentrations as discussed above,
metals emissions caused by cofiring of
hazardous wastes would not pose a
significant risk. The analysis also
considered hydrogen chloride emissions
assuming a chlorine content of 50% in
the hazardous waste fuel The chlorine
•» Wa DOM that wa aaaonad S9% ORE to dariva
th« aoall quantity bamar axaaapt qoantttka rathar
than tha SSM that tha ownar/optntor emit
•mma andar tha low riak waata adaption of
12SS.U0 battoaa mooitorint of CO it not nquirad
Ior tha anall quantity bonar axaaptiaa la aaau*
that sood coBbmtkn eondittoM an maintainad
CO Meaitartac la taqaind ondar tha km riak walvat
of tha DRE Mai ban.
-------
7192 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
content in actual hazardous wastes
seldom exceeds 3%; however, the
highest chlorine content measured in a
hazardous waste fuel fired in a boiler of
which EPA is aware was 43%. Predicted
ground level concentrations of HC1 also
did not exceed the reference aid
concentrations.
The assumptions used to determine
the effect of local meteorology/
dispersion and the clustering of sources
(stacks at the facility) are discussed in
the following section.
C. How the Exemption Is Implemented
1. Use of Terrain-Adjusted Effective
Stack Height
In the 1987 proposal, the Agency used
a set of assumptions about local
meteorology, dispersion modeling,
terrain conditions, etc., to determine
eligible quantity limitations. As
mentioned above, today's rule uses
terrain-adjusted effective stack height
along with the most conservative
assumptions of terrain and land use to
determine quantity limits for exemption
eligibility. See § 266.108.
2. Multiple Stacks
As explained in the October 1989
notice, in today's final rule the exempt
quantities for a facility with multiple
stack* from boilers or industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste are
limited according to the following
equation:
n Actual Quantity Burnedu)
T _ .
i»1 Allowable Quantity Bumedu)
Where:
• n means the number of stacks
• Actual Quantity Burned, meanj tbt
waste quantity per month burned in
stack "I"
• Allowable Quantity Burned, meant the
maximum allowable exempt quantity for
lUck "l"
For example, if a site had two stacks
with effective stack heights [ESH] of 30
end 10 meters, the following equation
would hold:
X Y
— + —
140 40
Whew
• 140 and 40 an the exempt quantities
from I 286.108 for itack height* of 30 and
10 meters, respectively
• X Is the waste quantity burned in the
device with the 30 meter stack
• Y is the waste quantity burned In the
device with the 10 meter stack
In this example, if Y is burning 15
gallons/month, then X could burn no
more than 87.5 gallons/month.
D. Wastes Ineligible for Exemption
Boilers and furnaces burning
hazardous waste fuels containing or
derived from any of the following
dioxin-containing hazardous wastes are
not eligible for the exemption: EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021. F022.
F023. FO28. and F027. See
S 266.108(a)(4). Given the toxicity of
these wastes, EPA does not believe it is
appropriate to exempt facilities burning
them from regulation. Hazardous waste
fuels containing or derived from these
dioxin-containing wastes must be
burned at a 99.9999% destruction and
removal efficiency (ORE). We cannot
expect boilers and furnaces to achieve
that level of ORE when operating
outside of the Agency's regulatory
system.
£ Exemption of Associated Storage
Hazardous fuel storage practices prior
to burning vary from site to site. Many
facilities burning relatively large
quantities of hazardous waste fuels hold
the fuels in a storage system and then
pump the waste fuels through a
dedicated line into the combustion zone
of the boiler. Other facilities mix
hazardous waste fuels with other fuels
(typically virgin fuel oil) in • storage/
mixing tank prior to burning the blended
material. These tanks are not feasibly
emptied of hazardous waste every 90
days and so are in most cases ineligible
for the generator accumulation
provisions in § 262.34.
Under today's rule, facilities storing
unmixed hazardous waste fuels are
responsible for complying with all
applicable standards for the storage of
the hazardous waste fuel. Owners and
operators that are eligible for the small
quantity burner exemption and who mix
toxic hazardous waste fuels would.
however, be exempt from the storage
standards after such mixing, as
proposed. See $ 268.101 (c)(2). The basis
for this exemption is discussed below,
The Agency is promulgating an
exemption for storage of such storage/
mixing tanks (for small quantity
burners) in order for the small quantity
burner exemption in section
3004(q)(2)(6) to have a practical
application. Congress evidently
envisioned a class of facilities capable
of burning small amounts of hazardous
wastes safely absent regulation and
viewed such burning as a superior
means of managing these small amounts
of waste. Furthermore, assuming that
small quantity waste storage is
conducted safely, the Agency assui
that Congress also envisioned
exemption of the storage since
permitting storage would discourage
safe on-site burning just as much as
regulating the burning itself.
We believe that storage of small
amounts of hazardous wastes mixed
with virgin fuels would pose no
significant incremental risks over
storage of the virgin fuels. The monthly
volumes of hazardous waste hie!
covered by the small quantity burner
exemption, for example, represent less
than 1% of the fuel flow rate through
these tanks. Under these circumstances,
we think the statutory exemption can
reasonably be read to encompast this
limited class of storage practices as
well.
We note further that the Agency is
studying other situations where
hazardous waste-containing mixtures
may not be appropriately subject to
regulation and will consider whether to
issue rules addressing the issue . -
genetically. It appears to us justifiable to
address the question for the limited
class of burning facilities in advance of
other types of situations because
Congress has singled out small quantity
burning facilities for exemption whei
appropriate. We note further that to/
extent these small quantity waste-vi
fuel tanks are underground storage
tanks (as defined in RCRA section
9001(1)), they would be subject to
regulation under Subtitle I if they
contain petroleum.
F. Notification ojid Recordkeeping
Requirements
As proposed in the October 28.1989 •
supplemental .notice, the final rule
requires (conditionally) exempt small
quantity burners to provide a one-time
written notification to EPA (see
§ 266.108(d)) of their status as a small
quantity burner and a certification that
they are in compliance with the
requirements of 1266.108. To assist
enforcement efforts, the owner or
operator must also indicate in the
notification the maximum allowable
quantity that may be burned per month
as provided by { 266.108(a)(l). In
addition, the final rule requires small
quantity burners to keep records to
document that they comply with the
conditions of the exemption including:
quantities of hazardous waste burned
per month; quantities of hazardous
waste and other fuels burned at any
time to demonstrate conformance witim
the 1% hazardous waste firing rate lifl
and heating value of the hazardous ™
waste).
-------
Federal Ragtag / Vol 56, No. 35 / Thuriday. February 21.1991 / Roles and Regulation* 7193
XL Exemption of Low-Risk Waste from
IpRE Standard and Partkulate Matter
^Emission SUndud
The final rule define* two type* of
"low-risk" wastes: (1) waste that is low
risk with respect to feed rate of
hazardous (Le.. appendix VHL part 281)
nonmetal constituents and, thus, is
exempt from the requirement to
demonstrate 9959% ORE; and (2) waste
that is low risk with respect to both
nonmetal constituents and metals (i.e-,
the waste meets the Tier 1 feed rate
limits for metals provided by
J 266.106(b)) and, thus, is exempt from
both the ORE standard and the 0.08 gr/
dscf particulate standard. See | 280.109.
The following sections explain these
exemptions and how they operate.
A. Exemption from Compliance with the
ORE Standard
In the May 6. 1987 proposed rule, the
Agency proposed a risk-based, site-
specific waiver of the ORE trial bum
and the flue gas CO limits for facilities
burning waste that poses insignificant
health risks absent those controls (52 FR
17002). Today's final rule retains the
exemption from the ORE standard, but
requires the facility to monitor CO
continuously and to comply with the
Tier I PIC controls of 126&104(b) (Le,
CO cannot exceed the 100 ppmv limit on
an hourly rolling average basis).
In the 1987 proposal. EPA explained
the basis for the ORE exemption for
boilers or industrial furnaces that burn
low-risk waste (52 FR 17002). After
further consideration, however, the
Agency believes that controls on
emissions of PICs are needed. This is
because a waste with low levels of toxic
organic constituents can nonetheless
pose significant health risk if it is burned
under poor combustion conditions
conducive to formation of PICs. Toxic
PICs can form from poor combustion of
nontoxic organic compounds.
The final rule does not allow a burner
to operate under the alternative CO limit
provided by S 266.104(c). which allows
higher CO levels provided that HC
levels do not exceed 20 ppmv, because
the Agency believes that only those
devices operating under best
demonstrated technology combustion
conditions should be granted an
exemption from the ORE requirement
(We note that this is consistent with the
CO restriction for the automatic waiver
of the ORE trial burn for boilers
operating under the special operating
conditions provided by f 266.110.)
Devices operating at CO levels above
100 ppmv on an hourly rolling average
are not operating under best
demonstrated technology combustion
conditions even if they can show that
hydrocarbon levels do not exceed 20
ppmv (or the HC limit established under
S 268.104(0). As discussed at proposal
(see 54 FR 43723 c.3). the 20 ppmv HC
level represents a demarcation between
good and poor combustion conditions.
HC levels under best demonstrated
technology combustion conditions
would generally be less than 5 ppmv on
an hourly rolling average basis.
B. Exemption from Compliance with the
Particulate Standard
Today's final rule provides a waiver
of the particulate standard for facilities
that both obtain the DRE standard
waiver and meet the Tier I requirement*
for all metals. (Because the PM standard
guards against risks from both adsorbed
organic compounds and metals, only
facilities with waste that is low risk for
both organic constituents and metals an
eligible for the PM waiver.)
The basis for imposing a particulate
standard on boilers and industrial
furnaces firing hazardous waste, a*
explained hi the October 28,1989
supplemental notice (54 FR 43710), is
primarily the concern over adsorption of
toxic organic* and metals onto the
emitted particulates. Consequently, the
Agency believes that an exemption from
the particulate standard for boiler* and
industrial furnaces is appropriate
provided that the facility can
demonstrate that emissions of toxic
organic* and metals do not pose
unacceptable human health risk*.
C. Eligibility Requirements
Three eligibility requirement* for the
low-risk waste exemption were detailed
in the 1987 proposed rule. Many
commenten objected to the first of these
requirements, that 50 percent of the fuel
fired in the boiler or industrial furnace
must consist of oil. natural gas, coal, or
other fossil fuels derived from these
fuel*. These commentera requested that
EPA allow the cofiring of various other
fuels, including tall oil off-specification
fuel oils, and wood chips.
Although some of these fuel* may
provide a hot stable flame that will
support good combustion, the Agency is
concerned that others may not In
today'* rule, the Agency is requiring for
this exemption the same condition* on
the primary fuel a* required for the
special operating requirement* for
boilers seeking the automatic waiver
from a DRE trial burn (see section HA3
of part three of this preamble): a
minimum of 50% of the fuel fired to the
boiler must be high quality "primary"
fuel consisting of fossil fuel* or fuels
derived from fossil fuels, tall oil. or, if
approved by the Director on a case-by-
case basis, other nonhazardous fuel
comparable to fossil fuel, and all such
primary fuels must have a minimum as-
fired heating vahie of 8.000 Btu/lb.
The two remaining eligibility
requirement*, that the hazardous waste
must have an as-fired heating value of at
least 8,000 Btu/lb, and that the waste
must be fired into the flame zone of the
combustion chamber, are being
promulgated as proposed in 1987. The
reasons for these requirements are the
same as discussed in section ILA.3 of
part three of this preamble in the
context of the automatic waiver of the
DRE trial bum for boiler*.
D. How the Low-Risk' Waste Exemption
Works
1. Constituents of Concern
The low-risk waste exemption is
intended to exempt a waste from either
or both the DRE standard and the
particulate standard if the owner/
operator demonstrate* that absent
regulatory controls (i.e, under a
reasonable, worst-case emissions -
scenario), emissions from the facility
will not result in ambient level* of toxic
organic compound* and/or metals that
exceed acceptable levels. The organic
constituents of concern are the
hazardous organic compound* listed in
appendix Vm of 40 CFR part 261 and the
metal* of concern are the 10 regulated
metal*.
2. Estimation of Worst-Case Emissions
The requirements for estimating
wont-case emissions were discussed in
the May 1987 proposed rule and are
being promulgated in today's rule with
slight modifications.
To estimate reasonable, wont-case -
emissions of toxic organic constituent*
in hazardous waste fuel an owner or
operator must (1) Identify every
nonmetal appendix VIH constituent that
could reasonably be expected to be
found in the waste: and (2) assume a
reasonable, worst-case destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) for each
constituent of 99.9 percent in calculating
the wont-case emissions (by
considering waste concentration and
feed rate) from the stack for each
constituent This assumed DRE of 99.9
percent is less conservative than the
proposed 99 percent assumption in the
1987 notice. The Agency is making this
change in response to the many
commenten who objected to the 98
percent DRE assumption. Specifically.
the commenten' objection waa that 99J0
percent was the wont DRE measured by
the Agency in it* non»teady-etete testing
of boiler* operated 'irMVt* intentionally
-------
7194 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
upset (i.e., high CO and smoke)
conditions. The Agency believes that
changing the assumed ORE from 99
percent to 99.9 percent is justified
because today's rule, unlike the 1987
proposal does not provide a waiver of
the continuous CO emission monitoring
(GEM) requirements. Compliance with
continuous CO monitoring requirements
will ensure that these devices do not
operate under upset conditions and will
achieve a ORE of at least 99.9 percent
The Agency has eliminated the
proposed requirement that emissions of
products of incomplete combustion
(PICs) be estimated using a ratio of PICs
to principal organic hazardous
constituents (POHCs). As explained hi
the April 1989 notice (54 FR 43730), use
of the PIGPOHC ratio may not be a
conservative method for estimating PIC
emissions.
An estimate of worst-case emissions
is not necessary for metals. To be
eligible for the exemption from the
participate standard, the waste must be
low-risk with respect to organic
compounds and must meet the Tier I
metals feed rate limits. See 1266.106(b).
Those metals feed rate limits assume
that all metals fed into the device are
emitted.
3. Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling must be used to
predict the maximum annual average
ground level concentration of each toxic
nonmetal compound La the waste using
procedures identical to those required to
implement the Tier III metds controls.
See 26e.l09(a)(2)(iii)(A).
4. Acceptable Ambient Levels
Predicted maximum annual average
ground level concentrations of each
toxic nonmetal compound may not
exceed levels the Agency proposed as
acceptable for purposes of this rule. The
acceptable ambient concentrations wen
developed for carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic compounds using die
same procedures used to develop the
RACs and 10~* RSDs for the 10 toxic
metals.
To demonstrate that the
noncarcinogenic nonmetal compounds
listed in appendix IV of the rule do not
pose an unacceptable health risk, the
predicted ground level concentrations
cannot exceed the levels established in
that appendix.
To demonstrate that the carcinogenic
nonmetal compounds listed in appendix
V of the rule do not pose an
unacceptable health risk, the sum of the
ratios of the predicted ground level
concentrations to the levels established
in the appendix cannot exceed 1.0. This
is because the acceptable ambient levels
established in appendix V are based on
a 10"' risk level To ensure that the
summed risk from all carcinogenic
compounds does not exceed 10~» (i.e., 1
in 100.000), the sum of the ratios
described above must be used.
To demonstrate that other compounds
for which the Agency does not have
adequate health effects data to establish
an acceptable ambient level are not
likely to pose a health risk, the predicted
ambient level cannot exceed 0.1 M8M*
This is the 5th percentile lowest
reference air concentration for the
compounds listed in appendix IV of the
rule.
5. Constituents with Inadequate Health
Effects Data
At the time of the 1987 proposal, the
Agency had data adequate for
establishing RACs and RSDs for only
about 150 of the over 400 compounds
listed in appendix vm, part 261. In the
preamble to the May 1987 proposal, EPA
stated that to be eligible for the
exemption, health effects data (i.e*
RACs and RSDs) must be available for
each constituent in the waste. In
response to comments concerning the
inadequacy of current health effects
data to establish a RAC or RSD for a
large number of compounds, we have
established in today's rule a
conservative RAC value for such
constituents determined as the 5th
percentile lowest RAC for all of the
nonmetal appendix VDL part 281.
constituents—0.1 jig/m* (see note to
appendix IV of the final rule). EPA
believes that this approach will be
protective of human health and the
environment and will not unreasonably
restrict owners/operators from
eligibility for the exemption,
XIL Storage Standards
A. Permit Standards for Storage
Under the administrative controls for
hazardous waste marketers, burners,
and blenders of hazardous waste burned
in boilers and industrial furnaces
promulgated on November 29,1985. and
codified in subpart D of part 286, EPA
subjected existing burner storage
facilities (effective May 29,1986) to only
the interim status standards of part 265.
The permit standards of part 284 were
not applied to existing storage facilities
in order to avoid two-stage permitting,
given that today's rule for permitting
boiler and industrial furnace facilities
was under development at that time.
The Agency wanted to avoid requiring a
boiler or industrial furnace owner or
operator to obtain a permit for then*
hazardous waste fuel storage facility
and to soon thereafter obtain another
permit for operation of the boiler or
industrial furnace under today's rule.
Today's rule does, therefore, subject
such existing burner storage facilities to
the permit standards of part 284. See
{ 266.101(c).
Numerous comments on the May 6,
1987 proposed rule to subject burner
storage units to the permit standards of
part 264 agreed that the interim status
standards currently in force are not
adequate and permit standards are
needed Several commenters were
concerned about the potential
mishanding of waste fuels stored on-site
in and around residential areas. One
cbmmenter requested that prebum
transport and storage regulations for
hazardous waste apply to all hazardous
waste blends, mixtures, or diluted
hazardous materials.
With the promulgation of today's rule.
all hazardous waste storage units will
be subject to applicable part 264 and 265
standards. Since hazardous waste
storage units standards are designed to
be protective of human health and the *
environment regardless of the location
of the facility, on-site storage associated
with boilers and Industrial furnaces
burning hazardous waste is not
restricted to areas in or around
residential areas. These standards apply.
to the storage of any hazardous waste
blends, mixtures, or dilutions that will
be burned at these facilities, due to the
"mixture rule" of 40 CFR 281A Whereas
nonindustrial boilers were previously
prohibited from burning hazardous
wastes unless they were operated in
conformance with the incinerator
standards of subpart O of parts 264 or
285, today's rule eliminates the
distinction between industrial and
nonindustrial boilers. Consequently,
today's rule establishes standards that
are protective when hazardous waste is
burned in any boiler.
One commenter recommended that
the final rule allow the 90-day "on-site"
accumulation provision to include
wastes received at the DIP from off-site.
company-owned locations. The 90-day
accumulation provision referred toby
the commenter is contained in 40 CFR
28i34(a) and only applies to generators
of hazardous wastes. The Agency does
not intend to apply this provision to
hazardous waste treatment storage, or
disposal facilities.
B. Consideration of Requirement for
Liquid Waste Fuel Blending Tank*
In the October 26,1980 supplemental
notice, the Agency requested comment
on a requirement that all boiler and
industrial furnaces use blending and
surge storage tanks (Le, other than other
-------
Federal Register / Vol 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7195
•modei of watte fuel transfer) to avoid
Bow interruptions and waste
Stratification which could affect the
ability of a combustion device to meet
performance standards. The majority of
commenten opposed requiring blending
and surge storage tanks for BIFs and
suggested that such a requirement
would not be necessary to ensure
compliance with performance
standards. Several commenters believed
that a uniform requirement for tanks,
containers, and/or surge tanks may not
be universally appropriate. These
commenters noted that some secondary
materials such as lead add batteries,
flue dust and various scraps and slags
cannot be transferred to furnaces from a
tank or container system. Another
commenter suggested that in some
instances, such as feeding incompatible
wastes, direct transfer may be
preferable due to health and safety
concerns. A few commenten concurred
with this view, but felt that storage and
blending tanks should be required in all
other instances. One commenter
suggested that storage tanks should be
required only if transport vehicles do
not meet Department of Transportation
requirements, secondary containment it
not used in transfer operations, and if
Operations are not covered by site-
•petific contingency or SPCC plans. One
Commenter agreed that hazardous
wastes should generally be fed from
storage tanks and supported a final rule
that would allow a "window of
opportunity" to install storage tanks,
thus providing an incentive for a
company to reduce their reliance on
direct burning from transport vehicles.
In today's rule, the Agency is not
requiring storage and blending tanks for
boilers and industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste because we continue
to believe that such tanks are not
requisite to demonstrating conformance
with the emission standards of
8I 260.104 through 266.107. However, as
indicated in the supplement to the
proposed rule. EPA believes that
facilities that install blending and
storage tanks may be better able to
control flow interruptions and waste
stratification. Consequently, boilers and
industrial furnaces with blending and/or
storage tanks may operate with greater
efficiency and thereby may more readily
meet performance standards for
emissions.
We also note that, once an owner/
operator is in interim status, the part A
application may be revised to convert
Ifrom direct transfer operations to the
Pise of storage units. See discussion in
section VTILD of Part Three of the
preamble.
C. Standards for Direct Transfer
Operations
In the October 28.1989, supplement to
the proposed rule. EPA identified
permitting authorities' concerns about
the practice of feeding hazardous waste
fuels directly from transport vehicles to
boilers and industrial furnaces. These
concerns included: (1) The potential for
fires, explosions, and spills during
transfer operations; and (2) the
stratification of waste in the transport
container and the potential for waste
fuel flow interruptions which, in turn,
could affect the ability of the burner to
consistently provide efficient
combustion of the waste. EPA requested
comment on two approaches to regulate
direct transfer operations. One approach
was for permit writers to use the RCRA
omnibus authority to establish
additional permit conditions as
necessary to ensure adequate protection
of human health and the environment
from such operations. The other
approach was to require that facilities
burning hazardous waste use blending
and surge storage tanks to avoid the
flow interruptions and waste
stratification, which would address
permit writers' concerns.
In the April 27.1990 Federal Register
notice, EPA noted that commenten on
the October 1989 notice stated that
controls on transfer operations were
needed during interim status. As a
result, the Agency requested comment
on the need and appropriateness of
regulating direct transfer operations
under interim status standards for
containen and tank systems of subparts
I and I of part 265. EPA received
numerous comments in response to
these solicitations. The majority of
commenten recommended that EPA
allow direct transfer with proper
controls and restrictions, such as: (1)
Allow direct transfer approval for
facilities granted interim status or a
RCRA operating permit; (2) establish
direct transfer standards similar to
subparts I and) of 40 CFR part 265 for
facilities with a contingency or SPCC
plan; and (3) allow direct transfer during
test burns alone. Some respondents
suggested that instead of allowing direct
transfer. EPA should require storage and
blending tanks for all facilities burning
hazardous waste.
The Agency is today promulgating
standards regulating direct transfer
operations. See i 266.111. The Agency
believes that these standards will
adequately address potential risks to
human health and the environment
EPA considers direct transfer
operations to be a part of the hazardous
waste firing system, not a storage
activity. Hence, facilities that are not
subject to the burner standards of
S i 266.102 (permit standards) or 266.103
(interim status standards) are not
subject to the direct transfer standards.
Examples of facilities not subject to the
direct transfer standards are small
quantity burners exempt from regulation
under I 266.108, metals reclamation
furnaces deferred under | 266.100(c),
and coke ovens exempt under
S 266.100(b)(4).
These direct transfer standards
reference extensively the subpart I
container standards and the subpart I
tank standards of parts 264 and 265 and
will apply equally to facilities operating
under a permit as well as those
operating under interim status. The
regulations address the area in which
transport vehicles are located and
piping and other ancillary equipment
(termed "direct transfer equipment" in
today's rule) used to transfer waste from
the vehicle to the burner. The standards
provide general operating requirements
and controls on equipment integrity,
containment and detection of releases,
response to leaks or spills, design and
installation of new direct transfer
equipment and closure.
1. General Operating Requirements
Facilities that directly transfer
hazardous waste to boUen and
industrial furnaces from transport
vehicles must comply with general
operating requirements that specify safe
management practices for handling
incompatible wastes, spill prevention
controls, and automatic waste feed
cutoffs. These general operating
requirements apply to both
containerized and bulk hazardous
waste. General performance standards
for safe operation in today's rule include
measures for conducting direct transfer
operations such that fire, explosion.
violent reactions, and other conditions
that could threaten human health or the
environment do not occur. Direct
transfer from open-top containen is
prohibited. Direct transfer equipment
which is any device that distributes,
meters, or controls hazardous waste
flow between a transport vehicle and a
BIF. must also be closed except when
necessary to add or remove the waste.
Safe management practices for handling
incompatible wastes are also required.
Transport vehicles or direct transfer
equipment holding ignitable or reactive
hazardous waste must be located at
least 50 feet from the receiving facility's
property IUM*
-------
7196 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and RegolatiotM
2. Inspections and Recordkeeping
All equipment and areas where direct
transfer occurs must be inspected hourly
for leaks during direct transfer
operations. Control equipment direct
transfer equipment monitoring data, and
other equipment ensuring compliance
with direct transfer standards must also
be inspected hourly. Finally, the rule
provides recordkeeping requirements to
document results of inspections.
We note thst only daily inspection is
required under subpart J of parts 264
and 265 for tank systems (i.e., piping.
valves and other direct transfer
equipment). EPA is requiring hourly
inspections of direct transfer operations
because, unlike tank systems that use
hard piping, direct transfer operations
use flexible hoses and quick change
coupling devices that have a greater
potential for leaks or spills.
3. Equipment Integrity
Equipment integrity requirements
address direct transfer equipment (e.g.,
piping or conveyors from the transport
vehicle to the burner). The standards
promulgated today require the transfer
of waste to other equipment if
equipment holding hazardous waste
leaks or is in poor condition, and specify
safe management practices for
transferring wastes to other containers
or transport vehicles. An assessment is
required of existing direct transfer
equipment that does not meet the
secondary containment requirements
discussed below to determine if the
direct transfer equipment is leaking or
unfit for use and must be certified by a
qualified, registered professional
engineer. If equipment is found to be
leaking or unfit for use. the owner/
operator must comply with the
requirements addressing responses to
leaks or spills.
4. Cont&inment and Detection of
Releases
The rule requires secondary
containment for underground direct
transfer equipment. See { 266.111(e)(l).
Inspections and leak tests of direct
transfer equipment and recordkeeping
requirements are also required. Existing
direct transfer equipment subject to the
secondary containment requirements of
§ 265.193 (by reference in 8 266.111(e)(l)
of today's rule) must comply with those
secondary containment requirements
within two yean after the effective date
of the rule. EPA believes that two yean
(30 months from promulgation) is a
reasonable amount of time to enable
wnen and operators to retrofit existing
equipment with secondary containment
as necessary given that direct transfer
operations generally do not involve the
use of extensive equipment subject to
secondary containment
5. Response to Leaks or Spills
Action required to be followed in the
event of a leak or spill are based on
those required in subpart), part 265. See
I 266.11(e)(5). Should a leak or spill
occur, equipment use must cease (to
prevent the Cow or addition of wastes
into the direct transfer equipment or
secondary containment system) and the
system must be inspected to determine
the cause of the release. The waste must
be removed from the direct transfer
equipment or secondary containment
system and visible releases to the
environment must be contained. In the
event of a leak or spill the Director must
be notified of the incident in writing.
Secondary containment repair, or
closure of the leaking equipment and
certification of major repairs must be
provided.
6. Design and Installation of New
Equipment
New direct transfer equipment must
meet the design and installation
standards specified in today's rule as
defined in 8 265.192 for tank systems.
See | 266.111(e)(4) in today's rule
referencing that section. The standard*
include: Specifications for assessing the
design of new direct transfer equipment:
backfill requirements for new
underground direct transfer equipment
tightness tests; equipment support and
protection requirements; corrosion
protection; and written certification that
these requirements have been met
7. Closure
Today's rule applies by reference the
closure requirements for direct transfer
equipment provided by { 265.197 (except
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(4)). See
5 286.111(e)(6). That section requires the
removal or decontamination of waste
residues, system components, and
contaminated soils, structures, and
equipment
XHL Applicability of the Bevill
Exclusion to Combustion Residues
When Burning Hazardous Waste
Under the Agency's existing
regulations, wastes that are derived
from the treatment of listed hazardous
wastes are also considered to be
hazardous unless and until they are
delisted (see 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) and
(d)(2)J. The combustion or processing of
hazardous waste in a device that uses
elevated temperatures as the primary
means to change the chemical physical
or biological character or composition of
the hazardous waste, is a type of
treatment no matter what type of davice
is used in the process, or for what
purpose the waste is burned or
processed. Accordingly, under the
Agency's existing rules, residues from
thermal combustion (or processing) of
listed hazardous wastes remain the
listed hazardous wastes until they are
delisted.
When the device burning hazardous
waste is (1) a boiler burning primarily
coal or other fossil fuels. (2) an
industrial furnace processing primarily
ores or minerals, or (3) a cement kiln
processing primarily raw materials, the
applicability of the Bevill exclusion must
be considered (see RCRA section
300l(b)(3)(A)(i-iii)). The Bevill exclusion
refers to residues resulting from burning
or processing certain materials whereby
the residues are not considered to be
hazardous waste at this time because
they require special study to determine
whether they should be regulated under
subtitle C.
To determine whether the Bevill
exclusion continues to apply when the..
devices described above bum or process
hazardous waste, today's final rule
promulgates the case-by-case
determination involving a two-part test
as discussed in the October 1989
supplement to the proposed rule. See
i 266.112. Under this test owners and
operators must determine on a site-
specific basis whether the co-
combustion of hazardous waste has
significantly affected the character of
the residue. The residue is considered to
be significantly affected if both: (1)
Concentrations of toxic (appendix VIIL
part 261) compounds in the waste-
derived residue an significantly higher
than in normal (i.e.. without burning/
processing hazardous waste) residue:
and (2) toxic compounds are present in
the waste-derived at levels that could
pose significant risk to human health. If
the case-by-case determination
demonstrates that the residue has been
significantly affected (or if the owner or
operator does not obtain data and
Information adequate to support a
demonstration that the residue has not
been significantly affected), such
derived-from residues are subject to
regulation as hazardous waste because
the residues are no longer the type of
material Congress commanded the
Agency to study before regulation. Such
residues are no longer deemed to be
from processing ores or minerals.
burning fossil fuels, or making cement
Rather, they are from treating hazardous
waste.
The following sections discuss the
basis for applying the Bevill exclusion to
derived-from residues, the evolution of
-------
Fatten* Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Roles and Regulations 7197
^he Agency's interpretations on the
Applicability of the Bevill exclusion to
'waste-derived residues, and how
today's case-by-case determination
works.
A. Basis for Applying the Bevill
Exclusion to Derived-From Residues
A number of comments questioned
whether the Agency has the legal
authority to determine that some
residues from coprocessing hazardous
waste with Bevill raw materials could
remain excluded under the Bevill
amendment pending completion of the
section 8002 studies. Because the
Agency's previous determination of this
question (50 PR 49190 (Nov. 29.1985))
could have been more fully explained,
the Agency has decided to reopen the
question in this rule and to respond to
the public comments.
The Agency's consistent position on
this issue is that so long as the
processing of hazardous waste does not
significantly affect the character of the
waste residues as high volume/low
hazard, then those wastes can remain
excluded under the Bevill amendment
Put another way, the wastes can
potentially remain the type of material
that Congress told the Agency to study
before imposing subtitle C regulation.
Instead of focusing on the question of
whether coprocessing hazardous waste
affects the composition of the residues
from a Bevill device, some commenters
would have it that the mixture and
derived-from rules apply to the residues,
so that the residues are subject to
subtitle C (assuming listed wastes are
coprocessed) regardless of the actual
effect of burning hazardous waste. At
the least the statute does not compel
this result In the case of utility boilers
burning fossil fuels, the statute states
explicity that wastes "generated
primarily from the combustion of coal or
other fossil fuels" is to be excluded. See
section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i). Thus, some type
of co-combustion is expressly
authorized. With respect to the two
remaining categories of Bevill waste
(wastes from processing ores and
minerals and cement km dust), the
Bevill amendment (section
3001(b)(3)(A}) does not use the term
"primarily", but does not expressly
address the question of whether the
exemption applies when the residues
are produced in part from burning
hazardous waste. Thus, read literally,
dust from a cement kiln that bums
hazardous waste along with normal raw
materials could be termed "cement kiln
dust" •«
If there were doubt on this point the
Agency is convinced that it is dispelled
by the 1984 amendments. Sections
3004(q)(l) and 3010(a) both state
explicitly that "(n)othing in this
subsection shall be construed to affect
or impair the provisions of section
3001(b)(3)" (the Bevill amendment). This
language would be meaningless unless it
allowed some residues from Bevill
devices burning hazardous wastes
(specifically hazardous waste fuels) to
remain within the scope of the Bevill
amendment Although commenters
argued, based on passages from the
legislative history, that the provision
should not be given this natural
meaning, the Agency does not find the
argument persuasive. Rather, the
legislative history appears to state that
Bevill devices burning hazardous waste
fuels will be subject to the emission
standards developed pursuant to section
3004(q). See H. Rep. No. 198,98th Cong.
1st Sess. 41: S. Rep. No. 284,98th Cong.
1st Sess. 37. Today's rules accomplish
that result
At the same time, the Agency is
concerned about reading the Bevill
amendment in a manner that gives it
undue scope, such as by allowing Bevill
devices to serve as a dumping ground
for other hazardous wastes. We do not
view the interpretation adopted today
as allowing the exemption to have
undue scope. In the first place.
emissions from the Bevill device itself
are regulated. Second, the facility
becomes subject to the facility-wide
corrective action provisions of sections
3008(h) and 3004(u) by virtue of
regulation of the combustion activity.
Thus, potential problems relating to
mismanagement of waste residues must
be evaluated and addressed no later
than during the permitting process.
Most importantly, the Agency believes
that the reading adopted strikes a
reasonable balance between the terms
of the Bevill amendment and other
provisions and regulations relating to
hazardous waste management A
reading that would disqualify residues
from the Bevill amendment if any
hazardous waste is burned in the device
would exalt form over substance by
barring from Bevill eligibility a residue
that was not discernably affected by
burning hazardous waste. Given that
such material could be exactly the high
volume/low hazard residue that
Congress told the Agency to study
before regulating, EPA does not agree
with an interpretation that automatically
forecloses it from Bevill status.11 In
addition, use of Bevill devices for
combusting hazardous wastes provides
needed treatment capacity for a number
of hazardous wastes, and the Agency
would be reluctant to adopt an
interpretation that discouraged safe
processing of hazardous waste by
necessarily Imposing hazardous waate
disposal costs on residues that might not
be affected by the hazardous waste
combustion.
For all of these reasons, therefore, the
Agency is reading the statute in a way
that does not automatically disqualify
residues from coprocessing hazardous
wastes in Bevill devices from eligibility
for Bevill exempt status.
B. Evolution of Interpretations
To determine whether the Bevill.
exclusion continues to apply when the
devices described above •• burn
hazardous waste fuel the Agency stated
in 1985 (see 50 FR 49190 (Nov. 29,1985))
that the exclusion continues to apply as
long as the hazardous waste is burned
for energy recovery (i.e., not for
destruction). The underlying principle
for this determination was that when
hazardous waste is used as fuel the
character of the residue would continue
to be determined by the Bevill material
(e.gn coal, ores or minerals, or cement
raw materials) being burned or
processed. Thus, the residue should
remain within the Bevill exclusion
pending special study before it could be.
regulated under subtitle C.
In the May 0,1987 proposed rule (52
FR 17012-013), the Agency suggested
refining these determinations to address
residues from industrial furnaces
processing ores or minerals and that
also process hazardous waste for
material* recovery, and residues from
cement kilns that may process
hazardous waste as an ingredient
" EPA doeenoi accept the argument that the
iofdttword"prtmariiy'
-------
7198 Federal Register / VoL 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Under that proposal, such residues
would remain within the Bevill
exclusion provided that at least 50
percent of the raw material fed to the
device consisted of a virgin ore. mineral.
or normal raw material. However.
residues from devices burning
hazardous waste for the purpose of
destruction (i.e.. for neither energy nor
materials recovery) would not qualify
for the Bevill exclusion.
The Agency has evaluated these
interpretations of the applicability of the
Bevill exclusion to waste-derived
residues in light of its stated principle
that residue that results from cobuming
hazardous waste and Bevill raw
materials should remain within the
Bevill exclusion provided that the
character of the residue is determined
by the Bevill material (i.e., the residue is
not significantly affected by the
hazardous waste). As discussed in the
October 1989 supplement to the
proposed rule (54 PR 43733-36), the
Agency does not believe that its data
base for making these interpretations is
sufficient to ensure that, in every case,
the residue would not be significantly
affected by the hazardous waste.
Further, the Agency has reconsidered
whether the interpretation that residues
generated by the subject devices when
burning waste for destruction are not
within die Bevill amendment is
consistent with the stated principle.
Consequently, the Agency proposed in
the supplemental notice to require case-
by-case determinations of the effect of
burning hazardous waste on residuals.
That case-by-case approach is
promulgated in today's rule.
C. Case-By-Case Determinations
We discuss below which devices are
eligible for the Bevill exclusion of
residues and how the two-part test
works for determining whether
combustion of the waste has
significantly affected the residue.
1. Eligible Devices
Until further studies were completed.
Congress intended to exclude from
subtitle C regulation residues from: (1)
Devices that burn primarily fossil fuel;
(2) industrial furnaces that process ores
or minerals: and (3) cement kilns. As the
Agency reads these provisions, to be
eligible for exclusion from subtitle C
regulation under the Bevill amendment
the waste-derived residue must be
generated from: (1) A boiler burning
primarily coal *T (2) an industrial
furnace processing primarily ores or
minerals (otherwise, residues could not
be said to come from processing ores
and minerals, but rather from processing
other materials), or (3) a cement kiln
processing primarily raw materials. To
implement the provision that, to be
eligible for the Bevill exclusion the
device must burn primarily Bevill
material. EPA is requiring that a boiler
must bum at least 50 percent coal an
industrial furnace must process at least
50 percent ores or minerals, and at least
50 percent of the feed stock to a cement
kiln must consist of normal raw
materials. This requirement also
confirms the Agency's long-standing
interpretation that the Bevill exclusion
applies only to primary facilities and not
to secondary facilities such as
secondary smelters.** See { 286.112(a).
2. Two-Part Test
Today's rule requires a case-by-case
determination as to whether the
hazardous waste being burned or
processed significantly affects the
character of the residue with respect to
inorganic and organic toxic (i.e..
appendix VllL part 261) constituents.
The residue is considered to be
significantly affected if both: (1)
Concentrations of toxic (Appendix VIII)
compounds in the waste-derived residue
are significantly higher than in normal
(i.e., without burning/processing
hazardous waste) residue: and (2) toxic
compounds are present in the waste-
derived residue at levels that could pose
significant risk to human health. Part
One of the test need not be conducted if
the waste-derived residue passes Part
Two of the test (i.e.. if the health-based
concentration limits are not exceeded).
Such a waste would still meet the high
volume/low hazard Bevill threshold
a. Part One—Comparison with
Normal Residues. Part One of the test
requires a comparison of hazardous
waste-derived residues with normal
residues to determine if toxic
compounds are present at statistically
significant higher levels. See
5 266.112((b)(l). The toxic compounds of
concern are any compound listed on
appendix VIIL part 261. that may
reasonably be expected to be a
constituent in the hazardous waste plus
the list (see appendix VIII to the rule), of
" The Agancy hi* determined that residues from
cofiring henrdons wMte with oil or (at tn not
excluded under th* Bevill amendment because the
character of the r»udu* would tw determined by the
hazardous wests. Thlt Is because oil »d gas
generally product little residue when burned end.
thai, toxic conitltaentt from the hanrdoas wail*
can significantly affect any mtdue generated See
SO FR 48190 (Nov. 20,1989). The Agency I* not
reopening this determination In today's rule.
'• In support of this reading, one court hat held
that residues from a secondary lead emeter are not
uitsied by the Bevill amendment tlco Co. i
EPA IW.D. Ala. 1980).
organic compounds that are common
products of incomplete combustion ,
(PICs) from burning hazardous waste.
The total concemtration of each
compound of concern in the residues
must be determined.*' Analytical
procedures are provided in Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-C46)
incorporated by reference in $ 260.11(a).
The rule requires the use of a
statistical test to compare the
concentrations of toxic constituents in
samples of normal (without burning/
processing hazardous waste) residues
with samples of waste-derived residues.
In the statistical test the 95th percent
confidence interval about the mean of
the normal residue concentrations (using
a "t" distribution) is used to determine
the upper 95th percent confidence
interval about the mean. Procedures that
must be used to determine the upper
95th percent confidence interval about
the mean are prescribed hi "Statistical
Methodology for Bevill Residue
Determinations" in Methods Manual for
Compliance with the BIF Regulation,
incorporated in today's rule as appendix
IX of part 266. A minimum of ten
composite samples must be obtained
and analyzed to represent the normal
residue in order to effectively calculate^
the upper 95th percent confidence
interval about the mean. This is the
concentration that the waste-derived
residue may not exceed to pass Part
One of the test The waste-derived
residue must be characterized by
composite samples with a composite
period not to exceed 24 hours to ensure
that residues are managed properly and
promptly (i.e.. as exempt residues or
hazardous waste) and to provide for
effective enforcement The sampling
approach must be based on (and be
consistent with) representative sampling
protocols described in SW-846 and must
be documented by recordkeeping.
If operating conditions change so that
concentrations of toxic compounds in
normal residue may (would have)
decrease(d). the owner and operator
must re-establish the "baseline"
concentrations in normal residue and
use the lower baseline levels for the test
This is necessary to ensure that owners/
operators do not use the most
contaminated raw materials in order to
burn more hazardous waste, and then
switch back to their normal raw
materials.
•• We note that Part One of the ted considers tkaj
total concentration of each compound, while Part H
Two of the test considers, for metals, the ™
concentration n en extract generated from the
Toxfcity Characteristic Uachate Piuce
-------
Federal Register / VoL 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7199
b. Part Two,—Comparison With
Health-Based Limits. Part Two of the
test requires a comparison of the
concentration of toxic constituents in
the waste-derived residues with health-
based limits the Agency has established
in appendix VII to the rule. The
comparison is made to determine if
toxic compounds in the waste-derived
residue are present at levels higher than
the health-based limits. The toxic
compounds of concern are the same as
for Part One of the test—any compound
listed on appendix VIII. part 261. that
may reasonably be expected to be a
constituent in the hazardous waste plus
the list (see appendix Vin to the rule) of
organic compounds that are common
products of incomplete combustion
(PICs) from burning hazardous waste.
The total concentration of each
nonxnetal compound of concern in the
waste-derived residue must be
compared with the health-based limit In
addition, the concentration of each
metal of concern in an extract from the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) must not exceed the
health-based limits.
The Agency does not have adequate
health effects data (e.g.. MCLs. RfDs,
unit risk values) to establish health-
based limits for many compounds listed
in appendix VUL part 261.
Consequently, we have conservatively
established a health-based limit for such
compounds based on the 5th lowest
percentile value of the health-based
values for nonmetal compounds
established in appendix VII to the rule.
That value is 0.002 ug/kg. This is the
same approach EPA used to establish a
RAC for compounds where insufficient
health effects data were available to
establish a RAC or RsD for the
compound.
The rule requires the use of total
concentrations of nonmetal compounds
rather than extract concentrations for
the test of health significance because of
burning toxic nonmetal compounds in
these devices should be to destroy the
compounds. (Use of total nonmetal
concentrations thus serves as a partial
check that combustion is being
conducted properly.] The health-based
limits for the metals in appendix VII of
the rule are the Toxicity Characteristic
(TC) limits (see I 281.24) for those
metais for which TC limits have been
established. To establish health-baaed
limits for the other metals, the Agency
applied the came 100 fold dilution factor
to leachate concentrations used to
establish the TC limits. The Agency has
also used this same dilution factor in
assessing whether mineral processing
wastes satisfy the low hazard prong of
the Bevill test See 54 FR 38630 (Sept 1,
1989).
To determine if the concentrations of
toxic compounds in the waste-derived
residues are higher than the health-
based limits, owners and operators must
obtain and analyze composite samples
of waste-derived residues with a
composite period not to exceed 24 hours.
The sampling approach must be based
on (and be consistent with]
representative sampling protocols
described in SW-846 and must be
documented by recordkeeping.
D. Recordkeeping
Owners and operators must maintain
for a period of three years records of
sampling and analyses of residues to
support claims that the waste-derived
residue retains the Bevill exclusion.
E. Other Consideration*
l. Generic Determinations
In the October 26,1988 supplement to
the proposed rule, the Agency requested
data and information that it could use to
support: (1) Generic determinations of
levels of toxic constituents in normal
(i.e.. generated without burning/
processing hazardous waste) residues:
and (2) generic determinations that
certain waste-derived residues are not
significantly affected by burning/
processing hazardous waste, and, thus.
remain excluded without the need to
make the case-by-case demonstration.
a. Normal Residues. After review of
comments on the 1989 supplemental
notice, the Agency concluded that it is
not practicable to establish generic
concentrations of toxic constituents in
normal residues. Commenten noted that
then were so many site-specific
variables that affect the concentration of
toxic constituents in normal residues
that this approach was not workable.
Variables include the type of industrial
furnace, type of fuels burned, and type
and source of raw materials used by
industrial furnaces. The Agency initially
considered establishing generic
concentration levels in normal residues
to avoid giving an advantage to facilities
that use fuels or raw materials with high
(i.e.. higher than normal for the industry)
levels of toxic constituents. Normal
residues from such facilities would have
high levels of toxic constituents. Thus.
waste-derived residues from such
facilities could also have high levels of
toxic constituents. Consequently, such
facilities could burn/process hazardous
waste with high levels of toxic
constituents without losing the Bevill
exclusion of residues. We note that
enforcement officials will give priority
consideration to those facilities whose
residues fail part 2 (health-based limits)
of the test to determine Bevill
applicability and rely on part 1
(comparison with normal residues) to
retain the exclusion. Owners and
operators must be able to support at
any time, that the nonhazardous waste
feedstreams being fed into the device
when hazardous waste is fired are the
same (or would not decrease the
concentrations of toxic constituents in
residues) as those Tired when the
concentrations of toxic constituents in
normal residues were determined. If the
concentrations of toxic constituents in
nonhazardous feedstreams decrease
significantly from those concentrations
when the normal residue was generated
for purposes of establishing normal
concentrations of toxic constituents (or
if design or operating conditions change
such that levels of toxic constituents in
normal residue could decrease
significantly), then the owner/operator
must establish new. lower,
concentrations for normal residue.
b. Excluded Residues. The Agency
also concluded that it is not practicable
to make generic determinations that
certain waste-derived residues are not
significantly affected by burning or
processing of hazardous waste and, so,
remain excluded. This approach is not
workable given that the exclusion would
have to be conditioned on a number of
factors including: (1) The composition.
foetTrlte, and method of feeding the
/harzardoui waste: (2) the type of device;
(3JJheycomposition. feed rate, and
- method of feeding any other fuels: and
(3) the composition, feed rate, and
method of feeding any raw materials.
The data base to support such
determination is not available.
Moreover, any such generic exclusion
that is necessarily conditioned on so
many factors would be of little practical
use to the regulated community given
the variability of normal operations.
2. Burning for Destruction
The case-by-case approach to
determine the effect of cobuming on
residues from Bevill devices focuses on
the residues that are actually generated
rather than on the purpose for which the
hazardous waste is burned. Thus,
residues generated from burning
hazardous waste in boilers and
industrial fumances for the purpose of
destruction *° an eligible to retain the
•• For ixnpb. wiitM with low bollat vilu*
that tr* not burned for materUU recovery or «t u>
ingredient en burned (or dettructioo. Wt note mat
luch waitee nay be burned only by new facilities
M iaciMntort under an operating pumitoc by
thoeeexutint UdlittM operating tutor laUnm
(tatos th»t alao have certified coapUanca with (be
ippllcibta •flUMioQs standards.
-------
7200 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Bevill exclusion. The Agency's historic
approach to the issue of cogenerated
residues has been to focus on the
character of the residues to ascertain
what determines their character—the
Bevill material or the hazardous waste
being burned/processed (see 50 FR
49190 (November 29.1987)). The statute
itself does not directly specify that the
purpose of the burning is a relevant
criterion, but instead states that certain
types of waste are excluded from
subtitle C regulation pending completion
of required special studies. Since the
Bevill devices would still be engaged in
the Bevill activity, and composition of
the residues would potentially be
unaffected, the Agency sees no absolute
bar to allowing Bevill status for such
residues.
Pirt Four Miscellaneous Provision*
I. Regulation of Carbon Regeneration
Units
A. Basis for Regulating Carbon
Regenerating Units as Thermal
Treatment Units
In today's rule. EPA is clarifying the
regulatory status of carbon
regeneration •» units. Since 1980.
controlled flame (direct flame) carbon
regeneration units which destroy
organic contaminants adsorbed onto
activated carbon have met the definition
of incinerator and were subject to
regulation as such, while carbon
regeneration nonflame thermal units
were treated as exempt reclamation
units. Today's rule defines carbon
regeneration unit and incinerator (see
§ 260.10) to ensure that both direct flame
and nonflame thermal carbon
regeneration units are regulated as
thermal treatment units under the
interim status standards of part 285.
subpart P. and the permit standards of
part 264 subpart X.
One commenter expressed concern
that the thermal treatment standards of
subpart X were vague. EPA disagrees
and points out that subpart X. part 264
coven miscellaneous hazardous waste
management units that do not or may
not fit the description of any of the units
covered by other pnrt 264 regulations.
Without subpart X, these unregulated
units could only operate as interim
status facilities and could not be fully
permitted, thereby preventing the
construction of new units or some
expansions of existing units. EPA
recognized that some types of new units
that were not previously allowed to be
constructed could reduce risks to human
health and the environment from the
management of hazardous waste.
Promulgation of subpart X generic
permitting standards was intended to
allow such construction and flexibility
for technical development and
innovation and to cover diverse
technologies and units. The subpart X
standards specify that health and
environmental safety must be a primary
concern during the management of
hazardous wastes in miscellaneous
units. If the need arises, the Agency may
develop specific technology standards in
the future (see 52 FR 48964, December
10,1987). Although several commentera
supported the application of part 264,
subpart O incinerator standards to
direct flame and nonflame devices, EPA
has decided against this since
demonstration of confonnance with the
ORE standards (and the proposed CO/
THC standards) may not be achievable
or warranted for carbon regeneration
units considering the relatively low
levels of toxic organic compounds
adsorbed onto the activated carbon.
B. Definition of Carbon Regeneration
Unit and Revised Definition of
Incinerator
Several commenters requested that
EPA consider revising the definition of a
carbon regeneration unit so that certain
units used for air emissions control wet
oxidation, and general recycling, would
not be regulated. Activated carbon unit*
used as air emission control devices of
gaseous industrial process emission!
will not necessarily be regulated
because trapped organics in such
columns are not hazardous wastes
because the gas originally being treated
is not a solid waste (it is an uncontained
gas ••). and therefore any condensed
organics do not derive from treatment of
a hazardous waste. (The nongas
residues from these devices could be
hazardous wastes if they are listed or if
they exhibit a characteristic, however.)
However, regeneration or reactivation of
carbon used to control air emissions
from hazardous waste treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities (e.g.. under
40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subpart AA.
June 21.1990.55 FR 25454) is subject to
regulations as a RCRA thermal
treatment unit.
We considered whether other units
truly are engaged in reclamation, or
whether the regeneration of the carbon
is just the concluding aspect of the
waste treatment process that
commenced with the use of activated
carbon to adsorb waste contaminants,
which are now destroyed in the
"regeneration" process (just as rinsing
•' Tbt tttm "numntton" InchidM iMcttattoa
of a*«d cuban far raus*.
•• SM 47 FR it 27330 OVUM 30.US2) uul 54 PR at
SOSra(Dtc.l1.19S»).
out a container of hazardous waste is a
stage in the storage process and does
not constitute recycling of the
container). Irrespective of whether these
units are better classified as waste
treatment or recycling units (or whether
the units are flame or nonflame devices),
we are concerned, as indicated above,
that emissions from the regeneration
process can pose a serious hazard to
public health if not properly controlled.
and therefore are clarifying today that
they are regulated as thermal treatment
units.
We note that this revision also applies
to those carbon regeneration units that,
while in active service treating
wastewater, meet the definition of
wastewater treatment units in { 280.10.
Such units are exempt from RCRA
permitting standards while treating
wastewater. However, these units are
not exempt from RCRA regulation when
they are being regenerated because they
are not treating wastewater during the
regeneration process. Rather, the
activated carbon columns themselves .
are being treated thermally. The thermal
regeneration unit is subject to part 285,
subpart P (existing units) or part 264,
subpart X (new units).
C. Units in Existence on the Effective
Date of the Rule are Eligible for Interim
Status
Although certain carbon regeneration
units may technically have met either
the 1980 or 1985 definitions of
incinerator, the Agency believes that
then has been legitimate doubt as to
these units' regulatory status (which is
why the Agency undertook this
rulemaking to clarify the status). The
units might potentially have been
classified as incinerators, thermal
treatment units, or perhaps exempt
recycling units. It would also have been
confusing to interpret the rules in a
manner that carbon regeneration units
were not all regulated in the same way,
given that their functions and activities
are roughly identical whether or not the
units are direct-fired. In fact the most
natural classification of these units, and
the one the Agency intended, is as
thermal treatment units. (EPA does not
believe that these are recycling units,
but rather that regeneration is a
continuation of the waste treatment
process, that process consisting of
removal of pollutants by adsorption
followed by their destruction. Ncr does
the Agency believe that incinerator
standards make technical sense for
these devices, as noted above). In
addition, few if any of these units have
actually been regulated as incinerators
in practice.
-------
Federal togutet / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February ZL. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7201
For these reasons. EPA is Ending
pursuant to § 270.10(e)(2) that there was
substantial confusion as to which
owners or operators of carbon
regeneration units were required to
submit a part A application and that this
confusion is attributable to ambiguities
in the subtitle C rules. Accordingly, such
owners and operators may submit part
A applications by the effective date of
today's regulations and be eligible for
interim status under pan 265, subpart P
(assuming they meet remaining
requirements for interim status
eligibility, and the facility is not already
subject to interim status for other units).
U. Sludge Dryers
In today's rule, the Agency is
clarifying the regulatory status of sludge
dryers. In particular, the rule adds a
definition of "sludge dryer" to $ 260.10
and amends the definition of
"incinerator" in § 260.10 to specifically
exclude sludge dryers.
On November 17.1980 (45 FR 76074),
EPA suspended the applicability of the
RCRA permitting requirements (40 CFR
part 122, which is now codified as part
270) and hazardous waste management
facility standards (40 CFR parti 284 and
265) to owners and operator* of devices
meeting the definition of "wastewater
treatment unit" in 40 CFR 280JO and
270.2.
Since promulgation of this wastewater
treatment unit exclusion from RCRA
permitting requirement*, the Agency has
received numerous requests to
determine if certain types of units
satisfy the definition of "wastewater
treatment unit" and. therefore, would
not require a RCRA permit. Many of
these requests have concerned the
regulatory status of thermal treatment
units, particularly sludge dryers.
Commenters have also requested
clarification of the regulatory status of
sludges from thermal treatment units.
Most of the requests have been from
owners and manufacturers of sludge
dryers. The Agency believes that
approximately 40 sludge dryers are
currently being used in the metal
finishing industry to dehydrate metal
hydroxide sludges (EPA Hazardous
Waste F006) generated in the treatment
of wastewater.
In response to these inquiries. EPA
distributed policy memoranda to the
Regional offices explaining that a sludge
dryer is included within the scope of the
wastewater treatment tank exclusion.
provided that it meets the definition of
"wastewater treatment unit" (See
OSWER Policy Directives 9501S2-1A
and 950&51-1A. available upon request
from tha RCRA Hotline.) In addition.
with respect to the status of Uw sludges
themselves, they are hazardous waste if
identified or listed (including by
application of the mixture and derived-
from rules) and are subject to regulation
when removed from the tanks.
Despite the original November 17.
1980 preamble discussion and the policy
clarification, the regulatory status of
sludge dryers has continued to be
unclear. One reason for the confusion is
because it is not clear whether a sludge
dryer satisfies the third component of
the definition of wastewater treatment
unit (i.e.. whether it meets the definition
of a "tank" or "tank system"). The
Agency has determined that sludge
dryers that are integrally equipped with
feed or discharge hoppers that provide
for an accumulation of waste satisfy the
definition of "tank system." '* Based on
information available to EPA at this
time, it appears that most sludge dryers
are so equipped. (Those sludge dryers
that are not so designed may still be
considered tanks, but a case-by-case
decision must be made.) The Agency
has also determined that other types of
equipment not obviously meeting the
"tank" definition, such as presses.
filters, sumps, and other types of
processing equipment are covered
within the meaning of the term "tank" or
"tank system" when used in the context
of this exclusion (see OSWER Policy
Directive 9503.52-lA).
Another reason that tha regulatory
status of sludge dryers has been the
subject of many questions may be
because some sludge dryers technically
meet the current definition of an
"incinerator." although EPA never
intended to regulate direct-flam* (or
nonflame) sludge dryers as incinerators.
When EPA amended tha definition of
"incinerator" to use physical design
criteria rather than a primary purpose
test (i.e> purpose of burning) to define
an incinerator, it did not intend to bring
sludge dryers under regulatory control
a* incinerators. (See 50 FR 625, |anu*ry
4.1985. indicating that the revised
definition would not bring large
numbers of devices other than
incinerators under incinerator
standards.) Under the former primary
purpose definition, sludge dryers were
not incinerators. Although under the
1985 revised definition of incinerator
sludge dryers could be classified as
incinerators, this was not EPA's
intention. The Agency is clarifying this
ambiguity by clearly regulating all
•• W« no* that tludf* drym that u» • pan of •
w««t»w«wr ttMlnnt facility (hit to tubiMt to •
nguUtton undtr •ith«r Mctkm 402 or 307(b) of th«
ClM» Wittr Act «nd that do not omt uw dtflnlttoo
of • tank lyittm «r» >«bt«et to RCRA rvguUtton u
UtfOMi tmtBHOt unit*, tod Uka abtd** dfy«n *•»
•ra o*t • part of a wwMwiut trwa
nonexempt sludge dryers (i.e.. those not
meeting the definition of "wastewater "
treatment unit" under today's rule, as
discussed below) under the interim
status standards of part 285, subpart P
('Thermal Treatment"), and the permit
standard* of part 284. subpart X
("Miscellaneous Units"). See 55 FR
17866 (April 27.1990) for details. Given
that such units managing hazardous
waste always were subject to some type
of regulation, they are not newly eligible
for interim status as a result of today's
clarification.
Even though as a result of this
amendment sludge dryers are
potentially subject to regulation under
subpart P of part 265 and subpart X of
part 284 as other thermal treatment
units, sludge dryers that meet the
$ 260.10 definitions of "wastewater
treatment unit" and "tank" or "tank
system" continue to be exempt
wastewater treatment units under
{§ 264.1(g)(6) and 283.1(c)(10). The
Agency believes that virtually all sludge
dryers meet the tank/tank system
definition and. therefore, would be
exempt when used as part of a
wastewater treatment system.
A. July 1990 Proposed
To better clarify the regulatory status
of shidge dryer*, the Agency proposed
on July 18,1990 (55 FR 29280) a
definition for "sludge dryer" to clearly
distinguish them from other thermal
treatment units: Sludge dryer means any
enclosed thermal treatment device that
is used to dehydrate sludge and that has
a maximum total thermal input of 1.500
Btu/lb of sludge treated on a wet-weight
basis.
In the same notice, the Agency also
proposed to amend the definition of a
wastewater treatment unit to say that
sludge dryers were the only thermal
treatment devices (heretofore) meeting
the definition of a wastewater treatment
unit that were exempt from regulation.
Today's rule clarifies that sludge
dryers meeting tha definition of a
wastewater treatment unit are exempt
from regulation (by promulgating a
definition of sludge dryer and revising
the definition of incinerator to exclude
sludge dryers). EPA also proposed a
further clarification that other devices
that use heat to treat wastewaters were
not to be considered eligible for the
wastewater treatment tank exemption.
The Agency indicated without
discussion, that it had not intended for
such units to be eligible for the
exemption and mat the proposal was a
simple clarification which reflected
common understanding within the
Agency and the regulated community.
-------
7202 Federal Regbter / VoL 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rulet and Regulations
Commenters disagreed with this
asseismeat of the regulations, and the
Agenc- has since studied the issue in
more c ":th. It appears that the Agency
was mi.-.aken in its assessment both of
the current intended scope of the rule
and of common understanding of what
the rule covers. With respect to such
devices as evaporators and steam
strippers used in wastewater treatment
the Agency has in fact traditionally
regarded such units as eligible for the
wastewater treatment exemption. See 55
FR at 25467 (June 21.1990). Commenters
likewise indicated their understanding
that current rules exempt such devices.
Given the narrow scope of the
proposal, the clear indication that any
change would not be a clarification of
existing rules (as indicated) but rather a
potentially far-reaching alteration, and
the absence of any discussion (or study)
of whether a substantive change in
regulatory status of these devices is
warranted, EPA cannot go forward.
Consequently, we are not adopting any
other part of the definition of
wastewater treatment unit discussed in
the 1990 notice.
B. Summary of Public Comments
EPA received comments regarding the
status of sludge dryers in response to
the April 27,1990 BIF notice and the July
18,1990 notice discussed above.
Many of the Commenters to these
notices supported the inclusion of sludge
dryers in the wastewater treatment unit
(WWTU) definition. The commenters,
however, requested clarification on
whether units similar to sludge dryers
(e.g.. evaporators) would also be eligible
for the WWTU exclusion. As discussed
above, other devices using heat that
meet the definition of wastewater
treatment unit would continue to be
exempt from RCRA regulation (except,
of course, an incinerator, boiler, or
industrial furnace burning hazardous
waste).
Eleven commenters to these proposals
stated that the maximum 1.500 Btu/lb
thermal input requirement in the sludge
dryer definition is too low. Citing low
thermal efficiencies (especially for
indirect-fired dryers), these commenters
recommended thermal input
requirements ranging from 1.700 to 3,300
Btu/lb.
After consideration of the
commenters' concerns and further
review of the technical background
information on the thermal input limit,
the Agency is today revising the thermal
input limit to 2,500 Btu/lb wet sludge.
"he Agency believes that depending on
the nature of the treatment system, the
thermal input to a bonafide sludge
dryer (i.e., • device that is not an
incinerator) can be as high as 2.500 Btu/
Ib.
Several commenters also requested
that EPA clarify that the total thermal
input limit was not to include the
heating value of the sludge itself given
that a number of sludges that are dried
have as-fired heating values of 1,000 to
2.700 Btu/lb. The Agency agrees. The
final rule explicitly excludes the heating
value of the sludge from the 2£00 Btu/lb
limit on thermal input With this
clarification, however, we note that the
primary purpose test—dehydration—is
the primary distinction between a
sludge dryer and an incinerator. This is
because a sludge incinerator can readily
meet the thermal heat input limit of 2.500
Btu/lb when the heating value of the
sludge itself is not included. However,
the primary purpose of a sludge dryer is
dehydration while the primary purpose
of an incinerator is volume reduction to
produce an ash residue. Thus, we
believe that the definition in today's rule
adequately distinguishes between
sludge dryers and incinerators.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that
any person claiming the wastewater
treatment unit exemption for a sludge
dryer must have documentation to
support that the primary purpose of the
device is to dehydrate sludge, not to
destroy sludge to produce an ash
residue.
The Agency received many responses
to its request for comments on whether
it is necessary to specify a minimum
percent volume reduction in the
definition of a sludge dryer. Although
one commenter stated that a percent
volume reduction should be specified in
the sludge dryer definition, twelve of the
commenters stated that such a
requirement would be arbitrary,
confusing, unworkable, and costly to
enforce. Two of the commenters stated
that a minimum percent weight
reduction would be more appropriate. In
today's rule, the Agency has decided not
to specify a minimum percent volume
(or weight) reduction in the definition of
a sludge dryer. The Agency believes that
such a specification would be difficult to
support and would not be needed to
distinguish sludge dryers from
incinerators.
Several commenters stated that the
Agency should address emissions of
volatile organics from units such as
sludge dryers. In addition, two
commenters recommend a 1,000 Btu/lb
thermal input limit for the device to
control volatile emissions from sludge
dryers. EPA recognizes the need to
address volatile emissions from sludge
dryers and intends to evaluate
alternatives for regulating these units at
a later date. However, because this rule
simply clarifies that EPA intended for
sludge dryers that meet the definition of
a wastewater treatment unit to be
exempt from the RCRA rules, it would
be inappropriate to address volatile
organic emissions at this time.
Nonetheless, sludge dryers that do not
meet the definition of a wastewater
treatment unit (e.g., sludge dryers that
are not a part of a wastewater treatment
facility that is subject to regulation
under either section 402 or 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act) are subject to
regulation as thermal treatment units
under subpart X of part 264. Under those
standards, the Agency may apply
controls on volatile organic (and other)
emissions as necessary to protect
human health and the environment
After considering comments on the
proposed sludge dryer definition, EPA is
today promulgating the following
definitions:
Sludge dryer means any enclosed
thermal treatment device that is used to
dehydrate sludge and that has a
maximum total thermal input excluding*
the heating value of the sludge itself, of
2,500 Btu/lb of sludge treated on a wet-
weight basis.
Incinerator mean* any enclosed
device that (1) uses controlled flame
combustion and neither meets the
criteria for classification as a boiler,
carbon regeneration unit or a sludge
dryer, nor is listed as an industrial
furnace: or (2) meets the definition of
infrared incinerator or plasma arc
incinerator.
HL rififTlffostiog of Coke f1"* By*
Product Coal Tar
A. AISI Petition
The American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI) petitioned EPA with respect to
the practice of recycling tar decanter
sludge by the following means:
1. Applying the sludge to coal prior to
or just after charging the coal into the
coke oven; and
2. Combining the sludge with coal tar
prior to its being sold.
The coke and the coal tar are often
used as fuel and so have been classified
as solid wastes and hazardous wastes
since they are fuels produced or
otherwise containing a hazardous
waste— EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K087. tar decanter sludge. See
9 281.2(c)(2)(t)(B). These hazardous
waste fuels have been exempt from
regulation under | 291.6(a)(3)(vii) and 50
FR 49170-171 (November 29. 1985). The
AISI has requested that EPA not classify/
such coke or coal tar as solid wastes.
AISI submits that recycling the decanter
sludge in this manner does not
-------
Federal Regular / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7203
Scantly affect the concentration of
: metal and organic constituents of
5e coke or coal tar. EPA has indicated
that waste-derived fuels could be
classified as products under such
circumstances, "since the more waste-
derived fuels from a process are like
products from the same process
produced by virgin materials, the less
likely EPA is to classify the waste-
derivsd fuel as a waste." SO FR 49189
(Nov. 29,1985). To support its request,
the AISI submitted data on the metals
and organic constituents in coke, coal
tar, and tar decanter sludge both with
and without sludge recycling, the data
and the Agency's response are
discussed below.
B. Process Description
Coke used for making iron is
manufactured through the destructive
distillation of coal in ovens. A typical
oven holds aproximately 13 tons of coal
which is heated to a temperature of
about 2000'F. Generally 20 to 100 ovens
are located adjacent to each other in a
"coke oven battery." The destructive
distillation or "coking" process takes
about 15-18 hours. During that time
period, about 20-35 percent of the coal is
converted to coke oven gas (COG)
•hnsisting of water vapor, tar. light oils.
Havy hydrocarbons, and other chemical
Compounds. The COG is collected from
the top of the coke oven and. in most
cases, sent to the by-product plant via
the coke battery main. The COG is then
cleaned by removing wastes and by-
products prior to being burned, generally
in the coke oven under-filing system. As
a first step in the COG cleaning process,
the coal tars, consisting of heavy
hydrocarbons, are condensed from the
gas. In addition, most of the participate
that escapes from the ovens is collected
in the tar. This paniculate is believed to
consist principally of coal fines. The
particulate or solids are then removed
from the tar in the tar decanter. The coal
tar is then burned as fuel or sold for UM
in various products such as roofing
cement The sludge has been listed as
EPA Hazardous Waste No. K087 and is
disposed of or recycled either by mixing
with coal prior to being charged to the
coke oven or mixing with coal tar after
physical processing (grinding) prior to
sale.
Approximately 8-12 gallons of tar are
produced per ton of coke. In addition.
approximately one pound of tar
decanter sludge is produced for every 40
pounds of tar produced.
fe Basit for Approval of the AISI
petition
The AISI submitted data from metal
and organic chemical analyses for the
coke, coal tar, and tar decanter sludge
from four plants. The Agency reviewed
these results and determined the
following:
1. The recycling of tar decanter sludge
by application to the coal charge does
not appear to have a significant effect
on the chemical composition of coke:
2. The organic chemical composition
of the tar decanter sludge does not
appear to be significantly different from
the coal tar; and,
3. The concentration of one metal,
lead, in the sludge appears to be slightly
higher than in the coal tar. However, the
increase does not appear to be
statistically significant due to the high
variability of the concentration values.
Based on the above and the fact that
there is such a small quantity of sludge
relative to the quantity of coke and coal
tar produced by the coking process. EPA
believes that sludge recycling, as
described here, does not significantly
affect the concentration of toxic metals
and organic constituents in coal tar or
coke. Furthermore, coke, coal tar, and
the decanter tank tar sludge are similar
materials formed in a single process and
contain the same contaminants. In this
circumstance, when the coke and the
decanter tank tar sludge are very nearly
the identical substance and. moreover.
come from a single process, the Agency
is warranted in exercising its discretion
to determine that this management of
the sludge is "not part of the waste
diposal problem", and hence that the
coke product is no longer a RCRA solid
waste. American Mining Congress v.
EPA. 907 F. 2d 1179,1186 (D.C Cir. 1990).
Therefore, in today's rule. EPA is
classifying such coke and coal tar as
products, not wastes. Aa a result the
coke and coal tar will be excluded under
40 CFR 261.4 from the definition of solid
waste and not subject to RCRA
hazardous waste management
regulations, when used as a fuel. A
necessary corollary to this action is also
to exclude the coking process from
regulation when K087 is used as an
ingredient to produce coke. Given that
K087 is for practical purposes just like
other materials used to produce coke
and comes the the same process as
these other materials, it would be
anomalous to assert RCRA control over
the coking process. Again, this form of
sludge management—which is the same
as raw material management—does not
appear to EPA to be part of the waste
disposal problem.*4 (In addition, coke
"Th* Astncy U not *wut of any other
hatutiou* WMIM ttut tn burned la ook* ovm M
•a tatndint that «• to*t Uk* other nuurtab «Md
to product ook*. U Mich miMrUli an uMd, Ih*
Af«icy would Mcoungt UM Industry to provide the
ovens are subject to a special regulatory
regime under amended section 112(0(8)
of the Clean Air Act and RCRA
regulation of this particular practice
could disrupt the Clean Air Act
regulatory scheme. Thus, the Agency
views RCRA regulation of this practice
as inappropriate in any case.)
This exemption applies only to the
waste-derived fuels and only when
derived from tar decanter sludge. K087.
Thus the tar decanter sludge. K087. is
subject to full RCRA regulation prior to
recycling. In addition, the exemption
does not extend to coke or coal tar
produced from hazardous waste (e.g.,
spent solvents) other than tar decanter
sludge, EPA Hazardous Waste K087.
IV. Regulation of Landfill Gns
In the November 29,1985 final rules
regulating hazardous waste burned for
energy recovery, the Agency indicated
that gas recovered from hazardous
waste landfills that is burned for energy
recovery in boilers or industrial furnaces
is not regulated under the waste-as-fuel
rules. 50 FR 49171. EPA took this action
in order to study further the extent to
which there might be jurisdictional
limits on the Agency's authority under
section 3004(n) of RCRA to regulate
gaseous emissions from hazardous
waste. Id In today's rule, we are
amending this language slightly by
indicating that the exemption also
applies to gas recovered from solid
waste landfills. Therefore, gas recovered
from a solid waste landfill that exhibits
a hazardous characteristic would also
be exempt from today's rule when
burned for energy recovery in a boiler
and industrial furnace.
In addition, the Agency solicited
comment in the May 6,1987 proposed
rule, on whether the hydrocarbon phase
of the condensate removed from
recovered gas should also be exempt
from regulation when burned as fuel (52
FR 17021). Two commenters responded
that the condensate contains chemical
constituents similar to fossil fuels such
as kerosene or gasoline and that the
handling and burning of the gas
condensate poses no significant hazard
to human health. The commenters
encouraged the Ageny not to regulate
the hydrocarbon phase of the landfill
gas condensate unless the hydrocarbons
exhibit a subtitle C characteristic of a
hazardous waste. However, data ou
condensate composition provided by
one respondent was vague and
represented only one source of
condensate. Absent adequate data EPA
whether the «xchi»ion
fat order to determine
•bouid be modified.
-------
7204 Federal Register / Vol 56, No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
'i not promulgating an exemption from
>gulation of the hydrocarbon phase of
the landfill gas condensate at this time.
Facilities that wish to burn a landfill gas
condensate may consider whether they
are eligible for the small quantity burner
exemption promulgated in this rule.
V. Definitions of Infrared and Plasma
Arc Incinerators
Today's rule establishes definitions
for infrared and plasma arc incinerators
and revises the definition of incinerator
to explicitly include these devices. As
discussed in the April 27.1990 proposed
amendments to the incinerator
standards (55 FR at 17869-70), EPA is
clarifying that these devices are
incinerators rather than (other) thermal
treatment units subject to regulation
under subpart X of part 264 (or subpart P
of part 265 for interim status units)
because: (1) although these devices use
nonflame sources of thermal energy to
treat waste in the primary chamber, they
invariably employ controlled flame
afterburners to combust hydrocarbons
driven off by the primary process (and,
thus, they meet the definition of an
"incinerator" under (260.10); and (2) the
incinerator standards are workable and
protective for these units.
We note that today's action merely
.arifies the regulatory status of these
devices. It does not subject them to
regulation for the first time: they have
been regulated since 1980. Thus, interim
status is not reopened for these devices.
Part Rv* Administrative, Economic, and
Environmental Impacts, and List of
Subjects
I. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization. EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008.7003 and 3013 of RCRA. although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
id EPA could not issue permits for any
-adlities in the State which the State
was authorized to permit When new,
more stringent Federal requirements
were promulgated or enacted, the State
was obliged to enact equivalent
authority within specified time frames.
New Federal requirements did not take
effect in an authorized State until the
State adopted the requirements as State
law.
In contrast under section 3006(g) of
RCRA. 42 U.S.C. 6926(g). new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out those requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to achieve or retain final authorization,
the HSWA applies in authorized States
in the interim.
The majority of today's rule is
promulgated pursuant to section 3004(q]
of RCRA. a provision added by HSWA.
(The provisions that are not
promulgated pursuant to HSWA are the
provisions for sludge dryers, carbon
regeneration units, infrared incinerators,
and plasma arc incinerators.) Therefore,
the Agency is adding the requirements
(except the non-HSWA provisions) to
Table 1 in i 271.1(j) which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
that take effect in all States, regardless
of their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions
identified in Table 1. as discussed in the
following section of this preamble.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
the majority of the provisions of today's
rule in authorized States until they
modify their programs to adopt these
rules and the modification is approved
by EPA. Because these provisions of the
rules an promulgated pursuant to
HSWA. a State submitting a program
modification may apply to receive either
interim or final authorization under
section 3008(g)(2) or 3000(b),
respectively, for these provisions on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that all HSWA interim
authorizations will expire January 1,
1993. (See | 271.24(c).)
The provisions of today's rule that an
not promulgated pursuant to HSWA—
provisions for sludge dryers, carbon
regeneration units, infrared incinerators,
and plasma an incinerators—are not
effective in authorized States. Thus,
these requirements will be applicable
only in those States that do not have
final authorization. In authorized States,
the requirements will not be applicable
until the State revises its program to
adopt equivalent requirements under
State law.
40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes, and must
subsequently submit the modifications
to EPA for approval. The deadline by
which the State must modify its program
to adopt the HSWA portion of today's
rule is July 1.1993 if a statutory change
is not needed, or July 1,1994 if a
statutory change is needed. The
deadline by which the State must
modify its program to adopt the non-
HSWA portion of today's rule is July 1.
1992 if a statutory change in not needed,
or Jury 1,1993 if a statutory change is
needed These deadlines can be
extended in certain cases (40 CFR
271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
rule. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course, States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law.
In implementing the Federal program
for the HSWA portion of today's rule.
EPA will work with States under
cooperative agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States in
their efforts to implement their
programs, rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit their official
applications for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards are not required to
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. However,
the State must modify its program by the
deadlines set forth in i 271.21(e). States
that submit official applications for final
authorization 12 months after the
effective date of these standards must
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. 40 CFR
271.3 sets forth the requirements a State
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 35 / Thuraday. Febroary 21. 1091 / Rulet and Regulation* 7205
a^ni
I
ust meet when submitting its final
tuthorization application.
IL Regulatory Impact*
A. Cost Analysis
I. background
publication of the proposed
regulations in May 1987, the Agency
cxjunined the projected compliance
cojits. economic impacts, and risk
reductions associated with the proposed
rules. This effort consisted of a detailed
elimination of the pre-proposal draft as
it was drafted in mid-1988 and a
supplement prepared in late 1986 •* that
exiimined several changes in tax policy
anil regulatory approach that occurred
aftijr the first analysis was completed.**
The analyses estimated that of the
approximately 1.000 BIFs identified as
firing hazardous wastes, approximately
20 percent were likely to discontinue
buiaing hazardous wastes because of
the rules, 60 percent would burn small
amounts of waste and would qualify for
the small quantity burner exemption
(SCjBE], and the remaining 15 percent
would obtain full permits. Because the
Fund IS percent of devices represent
larjje facilities, however, the impact on
the total quantity of waste burned
»Jd be small For example, under the
ise case" scenario, although 20
rcent of the devices would
discontinue burning hazardous wastes
and a number of other devices would
reduce the quantity of hazardous waste
they combust in order to qualify for the
SQ13E. only 3 percent of the quantity of
wante combusted in the absence of
regilations would be diverted to other
devices. The mid-1986 analysis
estimated that under this scenario, the
aggregate after-tax cost of compliance to
Individual firms would be $&2 million
per year and that the before-tax social
cost would be $8.2 million per year.
Uruter other sets of assumptions (Le>
othisr scenarios), these costs were likely
to t« higher, but in all cases were
estimated to be less than $100 million
per year.
Based on these analyses, the Agency
concluded that the total social costs,
impact on market competition, and die
impact on small businesses were such
thai; the proposed regulations did not
constitute a major rule, and that a
formal Regulatory Impact Analysis as
described in Executive Order 12291 was
not required.
" US. EPA. -Rtgulatory AwdyiU lor WuM-A*-
kfud Ttchniul SUndirdi". Draft Report October
f
•• U.S. EPA. "EfftcU of Recant Changw on In*
Eittiuttd Cotti and Btntfiu of th« PrapOMd
Wwte A> Foal Twhakal Steader*". >«nuiy 10B7.
A number of comments on the
economic analysis were received from
affected businesses and other groups.
Most of these commenters contended
that the cost of compliance had been
underestimated by the Agency. Based
on these comments, as well as changes
made in the final regulation compared to
the proposed requirements, the Agency
has reexamined and updated the earlier
analyses.
2. Revised Cost Analysis
As indicated earlier, there have been
a number of changes made in the
regulations mat are expected to increase
the tost of compliance." In addition, the
Federal tax code was changed in late
1986. the cost of goods and services to
the economy as a whole has increased
due to inflation, and the estimated cost
of specific requirements associated with
the BIF regulations have been
reexamined. The new analysis focused
on assessing the impact of changes in
compliance costs on typical facilities,
and did not reexamtne the impact of
these changes on the selection of
regulatory options by individual
facilities. In addition, no effort was
made to explicitly examine the impact of
the final rules on the economic
competitiveness of individual firms or
industries, nor on the reduction in public
health risks.
The primary changes that have
occurred hi the regulations subsequent
to proposal have been revised
requirements for continuous emission
monitoring of CO and HC; addition of
the PM standard, interim status
compliance procedures, and limits on
emissions of several additional metals
and Ck and increases inrecordkeeprng.
sampling, and analysis requirements.
The impact of these changes plus the
impact of tax code changes and inflation
on the before- and after-tax costs of the
BIF regulations axe summarized in Table
1. When combined with the original
"base case" cost estimates prepared in
198*. the revised cost estimate for the
promulgated rule is $15.2 million per
year before taxes and $10.3 million per
year after-taxes.
The increased cost for CO and HC
monitoring reflects the costs for
installation of a more comprehensive
CO monitoring system than was
originally estimated and the cost of
installing HC monitors on an estimated
20 devices (primarily cement kilns) that
will operate under the Tier II CO and
HC limits. The zero cost increase
associated with the PM emission
standard reflects the expectation that
BIFs complying with the metals
standards will achieve the O.08 gr/dscf
standard, and that most existing
industrial furnaces and some boilers are
already subject to this emission level (or
a more stringent level] as the result of
State Implementation Plans or New
Source Performance Standards. As a
result no incremental increase for
compliance with the PM emission limit
is projected
Tha additional costs for interim status
compliance reflects the increase in
annualized costs (over a 10 year period)
for preparation of the precompliance
and compliance certification packages
(including compliance testing) by
approximately 150 BIFs. The additional
cost for the CU standard is based on the
incremental cost of analysis for Cli
beyond that already required to
determined HC1 emissions.
The increase in annual recordkeeping.
sampling, and analysis costs reflects a
reassessment of the estimated costs in
the 1986 analysis. These increased costs
reflect a before-tax increase of
approximately $2.4 million for
recocdkeeping anH S0£ million for
sampling and analysis.
The impact of the 1986 tax code
changes was to reduce the p»atyn«l tax
rate imposed on before-tax profits and.
thus, has the affect of increasing the
impact of compliance costs oa afteMax
profits. As a result the change in the
1986 tax coda is to increase the after-tax
cost of the regulations by an estimated
$0.6 million per year. The increase in
costs due to inflation reflects an
estimated increase in compliance cost of
20 percent between the time of the
initial analysis (based on 1985 dollars)
and 1990.
TABLE 1
Co«aiamant
COandHC
PM Standard _
Irnartm Status
CompHanoa..
OtStandardt.
ToM
1.930.000
0
960.000
30.000
3.050.000
0
1,640,000
7.630.COO
Attar taxas
1.200.000
0
$90.000
20.000
1.700.000
600.000
96aooo
S.090.000
Not**
1. Baaad on meaning 20 CO monitor* uang cap-
AM and QAM etna tram v» raviaad rCB. ^
2. No incrafflantal conts ftaoauas 8JFa alraaoy
mam standard by maaang rtatatt kma and anMng
SIP ana NSPS ImM.
3. Aaaumas al not »mall quantity bumar Bf*
•ubmrt pracomplianoa ana comptianoa carwca»on
paokagam. 50% ol BS?s aubmX • rawaad ean»eaaoa
of praoompkanoa, and 75% of uumatanoa Mat can
ba uaad in Mu of t» Mai bwn to ottain an oparat-
ing parmt ttiua reducing tha ooat ol 0w Part 8
-------
7206 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
4. Assumes aN BIFs comptylng with emissions
Knits (and not Tier I feed rate kmfts) conduct Cd
testing during comoftance certification and trial bum
taats
-------
Fadoal Begiiter / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, Febraary 21.1891 / Rules and Regulation 7207
the combuiion of coal or other foMil
ls. except as provided by i 266.112 of
chapter for facilities that burn or
process hazardous waste.
*****
(7) Solid waste from the extraction.
beneficiation. and processing of ores
and: minerals (including coal phosphate
rode and overburden from the mining of
uraiium ore), except as provided by
5 206.112 of this chapter for facilities
that burn or process hazardous waste.
* * *
(£,) Cement kiln dust waste, except as
pro'/ided by 5 266.112 of this chapter for
facilities that bum or process hazardous
waj te.
• * * • •
4. Section 261.6 is amended by
removing paragraph (a)(3)(vii) and
redi'signating paragraphs (a)(3) (viii)
and (be) as (a)(3) (vii) and (viii)
respectively.
PART 284—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
01. In part 264:
1. Hie authority citation for part 264
Ktinues to read as follows:
uthority: 42 U.S.C 6905. 6912(a). 6624, and
2. Section 264.112 is amended by
revuing paragraph (d)(l) to read as
follows:
§264.112 C!omireofplan;anMndnwntof
plan.
• • • » •
(d] Notification of partial closure and
final closure. (1) The owner or operator
must notify the Regional Administrator
in wilting at least 60 days prior to the
date on which he expects to begin
closure of a surface impoundment.
waste pile, land treatment or landfill
unit or final closure of a facility with
such a unit The owner or operator must
notify the Regional Administrator in
writing at least 45 days prior to the date
on which he expects to begin final
closure of a facility with only treatment
or storage tanks, container storage, or
incinerator units to be closed. The
owner or operator must notify the
Regional Administrator in writing at
least 45 days prior to the date on which
he expects to begin partial or final
closure of a boiler or industrial furnace.
whichever is earlier.
• • • • •
ma. Slection 264.340 is amended by
Revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
§264J40
(a) The regulations of this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
hazardous waste incinerators (as
defined in 8 260.10 of this chapter).
except as S 264.1 provides otherwise.
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
IV. In part 265:
1. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 0005.6912(a), 6924.
6925. and 6935.
2. Section 265.112 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a). (d)(l). and (d)(2)
to read as follows:
{265.112 Cto«ur*plan;aflwndnwMof
(a) Written plan. By May 19.1961. or
by six months after the effective date of
the nrie that first subjects a facility to
provisions of this section, the owner or
operator of a hazardous waste
management facility must have a
written closure plan. Until final closure
is completed and certified in accordance
with { 265.115. a copy of the most
current plan must be furnished to the
Regional Administrator upon request
including request by mail In addition.
for facilities without approved plan*, it
must also be provided during site
inspections, on the day of inspection, to
any officer, employee, or representative
of the Agency who is duly designated by
the Administrator.
*.«**•
(d) Notification of partial closure and
final closure. (1) The owner or operator
most submh the closure plan to the
Regional Administrator at least 180 day*
prior to the date on which he expects to
begin closure of the first surface
impoundment waste pile, land
treatment or landfill unit or final
closure if it involves such a unit
whichever is earlier. The owner or
operator must submit the closure plan to
the Regional Administrator at least 45
days prior to the date on which he
expects to begin partial or final closure
of a boiler or industrial furnace. The
owner or operator must submit the
closure plan to the Regional
Administrator at least 45 days prior to
the date on which he expects to begin
final closure of a facility with only
tankf, container storage, or incinerator
"«<«•- Owners or operators with
approved closure plans must notify the
Regional Administrator IB writing at
least 60 days prior to the date on whkh
he expects to begin closure of a surface
impoundment waste pile, landfill or
land treatment unit or final closure of a
facility involving such a unit Owners or
operators with approved closure plans
must notify the Regional Administrator
in writing at least 45 days prior to the
date on which he expects to begin
partial or final closure of a boiler or
industrial furnace. Owners or operators
with approved closure plans must notify
the Regional Administrator in writing at
least 45 days prior to the date on which
he expects to begin final closure of a
facility with only tanks, container
storage, or incinerator units.
(2) Except for boilers and industrial
furnaces that operate under interim
status as specified by i 286.103(c)(7)(i)
(B) or (C). the date when he "expects to
begin closure" must be either within .10
days after the date on which any
hazardous waste management «'«**
receives the known final volume of
hazardous wastes, or, if there is a
reasonable possibility that the
hazardous waste management unit win
receive additional hazardous wastes, no
later than one year after the date on
which the unit received the most recent
volume of hazardous waste. If the owner
or operator of a hazardous waste
management unit can demonstrate to the
Regional Administrator that the
hazardous waste management unit or
facility has the capacity to receive
additional hazardous wastes and he has
taken, and will continue to take, all
steps to prevent threats to human health
and the environment, including
compliance with all interim status
requirements, the Regional
Administrator may approve an
extension to this one-year limit For
boilers and industrial furnaces that
operate under Interim status as specified
by | 266.103(c)(7)(i) (B) or (C), the date
when he "expects to begin closure" must
be within 30 days after failure to submit
a complete certification of compliance
by the applicable deadline under
|266.103(c)(7)(i)(B)or(C).
* • * • *
3. Section 265,113 Is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), introductory
text and (b). introductory text to read
as follows:
fMS.113 dotura; fen* aftowad for
(a) Within 90 days after receiving the
final volume of hazardous wastes at a
hazardous waste management unit or
facility, or within 90 days after approval
of the closure plan, whichever is later.
or, for a boiler or industrial furnace that
does not submit a complete certification
-------
7208 Federal Register / VoL 56, No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
of compliance by the applicable
deadline under i 286,103(c)(7)(i) (B) or
(Q, within 90 days after the applicable
deadline, the owner or operator must
treat, remove from the unit or facility or
dispose of on-site, all hazardous wastes
in accordance with the approved closure
plan. The Regional Administrator may
approve a longer period if the owner or
operator demonstrates that*
• * • • •
(b) The owner or operator must
complete partial or final closure
activities in accordance with the
approved closure plan and within 180
days after receiving the final volume of
hazardous wastes at the hazardous
waste management unit or facility, or
180 days after approval of the closure
plan, if that is later, or, for a boiler or
industrial furnace that does not submit a
complete certification of compliance by
the applicable deadline under
9 266.103{c)(7)(i) (B) or (C), within 180
days after the applicable deadline. The
Regional Administrator may approve an
extension to the closure period if the
owner or operator demonstrates that:
• • • • •
4. Section 285.340 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
9265440 AppfcaMtty.
(a) The regulations of this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
hazardous waste incinerators (as
defined in { 260.10 of this chapter),
except as 8 269.1 provides otherwise.
PART 26«—STANDARDS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
V. In part 266:
1. The authority citation for part 266
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1000,2002(a), 3004, and
3014 of the Solid Wait* Disposal Act as
amended bv the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978, ai amended (42 U.S.C.
6905.0912(3). 6924. and 0834).
2. Subpart D is hereby removed and
reserved and subpart H is added to read
as follows:
SubMrt H—Hazardous Waste Burnt* hi
Botora and Industrial Furnaces
Sw.
206.100 Applicability.
200.101 Management prior to burning.
200.102 Permit standards for burners.
200.103 Interim status standards for burners.
200.104 Standards to control organic
emissions.
See.
200.105 Standards to control paniculate
matter.
260.100 Standards to control metals
emissions.
206.107 Standards to control hydrogen
chloride (HC1) and chlorine gas (O.)
emissions.
266.108 Small quantity on-site burner
exemption.
268.109 Low risk waste exemption.
266.110 Waiver of ORE trial bum for boilers.
280.111 Standards for direct transfer.
266.112 Regulation of residues.
5266.100 Applicability.
(a) The regulations of this subpart
apply to hazardous waste burned or
processed in a boiler or industrial
furnace (as defined in $ 260.10 of this
chapter) irrespective of the purpose of
burning or processing, except as
provided by paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)
of this section. In this subpart the term
"burn" means burning for energy
recovery or destruction, or processing
for materials recovery or as an
ingredient The emissions standards of
S S 266.104.266.105.266.106. and 266.107
apply to facilities operating under
interim status or under a RCRA
operating permit as specified in
Si 266.102 and 266.103.
(b) The following hazardous wastes
and facilities are not subject to
regulation under this subpart
(1) Used oil burned for energy
recovery that is also a hazardous waste
solely because it exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste
identified in subpart C of part 261 of this
chapter. Such used oil is subject to
regulation under subpart E of part 286
rather than this subpart;
(2) Gas recovered from hazardous or
solid waste landfills when such gas is
burned for energy recovery.
(3) Hazardous wastes that are exempt
from regulation under S| 261.4 and
261.6(a)l3) (v-viii) of this chapter, and
hazardous wastes that are subject to the
special requirements for conditionally
exempt small quantity generators under
{ 261.5 of this chapter.
(4) Coke ovens, if the only hazardous
waste burned is EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K087. decanter tank tar sludge from
coking operations.
(c) Owners and operators of smelting.
melting, and refining furnaces (including
pyrometallurgical devices such as
cupolas, sintering machines, roasters.
and foundry furnaces, but not including
cement kilns, aggregate kilns, or halogen
acid furnaces burning hazardous waste)
that process hazardous waste solely for
metal recovery are conditionally exempt
from regulation under this subpart
except for || 266.101 and 266.112.
(1) To be exempt from { 8 286.102
through 266.111, an owner or operator
must i
(i) Provide a one-time written notice
to the Director indicating the following:
(A) The owner or operator claims
exemption under this paragraph:
(B) The hazardous waste is burned
solely for metal recovery consistent with
the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this
section;
(C) The hazardous waste contains
recoverable levels of metals: and
(D) The owner or operator will comply
with the sampling and analysis and
recordkeeping requirements of this
paragraph;
(ii) Sample and analyze the hazardous
waste and other feedstocks as
necessary to comply with the
requirements of this paragraph under
procedures specified by Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/
Chemical Methods. SW-646,
incorporated by reference in i 260.11 of
this chapter and
(iii) Maintain at the facility for at least
three years records to document
compliance with the provisions of this
paragraph including limits on levels of
toxic organic constituents and Btu value
of the waste, and levels of recoverable
metals in the hazardous waste
compared to normal nonhazardous
waste feedstocks.
(2) A hazardous waste meeting either
of the following criteria is not processed
solely for metal recovery:
(i) The hazardous waste has a total
concentration of organic compounds
listed in part 261. appendix Via. of this
chapter exceeding 500 ppn by weight
as-generated, and so is considered to be
burned for destruction: or
(ii) The hazardous waste has a
heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb or more,
as-generated or as-fired into the furnace.
and so is considered to be burned as
fuel.
(d) The standards for direct transfer
operations under 1266.111 apply only to
facilities subject to the permit standards
of | 266.102 or the interim status
standards of { 266.103.
(e) The management standards for
residues under 1266.112 apply to any
boiler or industrial furnace burning
hazardous waste.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0073)
r to burning*
92M.101 Management
(a) Generators. Generators of
hazardous waste that is burned in •
boiler or industrial furnace are subject.
to part 262 of this chapter. "
(b) Transporters. Transporters of
hazardous waste that is burned in •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7209
Jb-slier or industrial furnace are subject
Itci part 263 of this chapter.
(c) Storage facilities. (1) Owners and
operators of facilities that store
hazardous waste that is burned in a
bailer or industrial furnace are subject
to the applicable provisions of aubparts
A through L of part 284. subparts A
through L of part 265, and part 270 of
Uiis chapter, except as provided by
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. These
standards apply to storage by the burner
aii well as to storage facilities operated
by intermediaries (processors, blenders,
•distributors, etc.) between the generator
and the burner.
(2) Owners and operators of facilities
that burn, in an on-site boiler or
industrial furnace exempt from
regulation under the small quantity
burner provisions of 9 268.108,
hazardous waste that they generate are
exempt from regulation under subparts
A through L of part 284, subparts A
through L of part 265, and part 270 of
this chapter with respect to the storage
of mixtures of hazardous waste and the
primary fuel to the boiler or industrial
furnace in tanks that feed the fuel
mixture directly to the burner. Storage of
hazardous waste prior to mixing with
the primary fuel is subject to regulation
jag prescribed in paragraph (c)(l) of this
'section.
S:!M.102 Permit standards for burners,
(a) Applicability—(I] Genera!.
Owners and operators of boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste and not operating under interim
status must comply with the
requirements of this section and
S !i 270.22 and 270.68 of this chapter,
unless exempt under the small quantity
burner exemption of 8 266.108.
(2) Applicability of part 264
standards. Owners and operators of
boilers and industrial furnaces that bum
hazardous waste are subject to the
following provisions of part 264 of this
chapter, except as provided otherwise
by this subpart:
(i) In subpart A (General), 284.4;
(ii) In subpart B (General facility
standards). SS 264.11-284.18:
(iii) In subpart C (Preparedness and
ptevention). {$ 264.31-284.37;
(iv) In subpart 0 (Contingency plan
and emergency procedures), SS 264.51-
2£4.56;
(v) In subpart E (Manifest system.
recordkeeping. and reporting), the
applicable provisions of SS 284.71-
284.77;
(vi) In subpart P (Corrective Action),
S 11284.90 and 264.101:
(vii) In subpart G (Closure and post-
closure). SS 264.111-264.115;
(viii) In subpart H (Financial
requirements). SS 284.141.264.142.
264.143, and 284.147-264.151, except that
States and the Federal government are
exempt from the requirements of
subpart H; and
(ix) Subpart BB (Air emission
standards for equipment leaks), except
SS 264.1050(a).
(b) Hazardous waste analysis. (1) The
owner or operator must provide an
analysis of the hazardous waste that
quantifies the concentration of any
constituent identified in appendix Vm of
part 281 of this chapter that may
reasonably be expected to be in the
waste. Such constituents must be
identified and quantified if present at
levels detectable by analytical
procedures prescribed by Test Methods
for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods
(incorporated by reference, see S 260.11
of this chapter). The appendix VUL part
281 constituents excluded from this
analysis must be identified and the
basis for their exclusion explained. This
analysis will be used to provide all
information required by this subpart and
S 270.22 and S 270.66 of this chapter and
to enable the permit writer to prescribe
such permit conditions as necessary to
protect human health and the
environment Such analysis must be
included as a portion of the part B
permit application, or, for facilities
operating under the interim status
standards of this subpart as a portion of
the trial bum plan that may be
submitted before the part B application
under provisions of S 270.66(g) of this
chapter as well as any other analysis
required by the permit authority in
preparing the permit Owners and
operators of boilers and industrial
furnaces not operating under the interim
status standards must provide the
information required by S S 270.22 or
270.66(c) of this chapter in the part B
application to the greatest extent
possible.
(2) Throughout normal operation, the
owner or operator must conduct
sampling and analysis as necessary to
ensure that the hazardous waste, other
fuels, and industrial furnace feedstocks
fired into the boiler or industrial furnace
are within the physical and chemical
composition limits specified in the
permit.
(c) Emissions standards. Owners and
operators must comply with emissions
standards provided by SS 288.104
through 286.107.
(d) Permits. (1) The owner or operator
may burn only hazardous wastes
specified in the facility permit and only
under the operating conditions specified
under paragraph (e) of this section.
except in approved trial burns under the
conditions specified in S 270.68 of this
chapter.
(2) Hazardous wastes not specified in
the permit may not be burned until
operating conditions have been
specified under a new permit or permit
modification, as applicable. Operating
requirements for new wastes may be
based on either trial bum results or
alternative data included with part B of
a permit application under S 270.22 of
this chapter.
(3) Boilers and industrial furnaces
operating under the interim status
standards of S 266.103 are permitted
under procedures provided by
S 270.66(g) of this chapter.
(4) A permit for a new boiler or
industrial furnace (those boilers and
industrial furnaces not operating under
the interim status standards) must
establish appropriate conditions for
each of the applicable requirements of
this section, including but not limited to
allowable hazardous waste firing rates
and operating conditions necessary'to
meet the requirements of paragraph (e)
of this section, in order to comply with
the following standards:
(i) For the period beginning with
initial introduction of hazardous waste
and ending with initiation of the trial
burn, and only for the minimum time
required to bring the device to a point of
operational readiness to conduct a trial
burn, not to exceed a duration of 720
hours operating time when burning
hazardous waste, the operating
requirements must be those most likely
to ensure compliance with the emission
standards of Si 266.104 through 266.107,
based on the Director's engineering
judgment If the applicant is seeking a
waiver from a trial burn to demonstrate
conformance with a particular emission
standard, the operating requirements
during this initial period of operation
shall include those specified by the
applicable provisions of S 266.104.
S 286.105. S 286.106, or S 266.107. The
Director may extend the duration of this
period for up to 720 additional hours
when good cause for the extension is
demonstrated by the applicant
(ii) For the duration of the trial burn.
the operating requirements must be
sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with the emissions standards of
S S 268.104 through 286.107 and must be
in accordance with the approved trial
burn plan:
(iii) For the period immediately
following completion of the trial burn.
and only for the minimum period
sufficient to allow sample analysis, data
computation, submission of the trial
burn results by the applicant review of
-------
7210 federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
the trial burn results and modification of
the facility permit by the Director to
reflect the trial burn results, the
operating requirements must be those
most likely to ensure compliance with
the emission standards {{ 266.104
through 266.107 based on the Director's
engineering judgment
(D) For the remaining duration of the
permit, the operating requirements must
be those demonstrated in a trial burn or
by alternative data specified in i 270.22
of this chapter, as sufficient to ensure
compliance with the emissions
standards of iS 266.104 through 266.107.
(e) Operating requirements—(I)
General. A boiler or industrial furnace
burning hazardous waste must be
operated in accordance with the
operating requirements specified in the
permit at all times where there is
hazardous waste in the unit
(2) Requirements to ensure
compliance with the organic emissions
standards— (i) ORE standard.
Operating conditions will be specified
either on a caae-by-case basis for each
hazardous waste burned as those
demonstrated (in a trial bum or by
alternative data as specified in 127O22)
to be sufficient to comply with the
destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) performance standard of
S 266.104(8) or as those special
operating requirements provided by
i 286.104(a)(4) for the waiver of the ORE
trial bum. When the ORE trial bum is
not waived under § 266.104(a){4), each
set of operating requirements will
specify the composition of the
hazardous waste (including acceptable
variations in the physical and chemical
properties of the hazardous waste which
will not affect compliance with the DRE
performance standard) to which the
operating requirements apply. For each
such hazardous waste, the permit will
specify acceptable operating limit*
including, but not limited to. the
following conditions as appropriate:
(A) Feed rate of hazardous waste and
other fuels measured and specified aa
prescribed in paragraph (e)(6) of this
section;
(B) Minimum and maximum device
production rate when producing normal
product expressed in appropriate units,
measured and specified aa prescribed in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section;
(C) Appropriate controls of the
hazardous waste firing system;
(D) Allowable variation in boiler and
industrial furnace system design or
operating procedures;
(E) Minimum combustion gas
temperature measured at a location
indicative of combustion chamber
temperature, measured and specified aa
prescribed in paragraph (e)(6) of this
section:
(F) An appropriate indicator of
combustion gas velocity, measured and
specified as prescribed in paragraph
(e)(6) of this section, unless
documentation is provided under
§ 270.66 of this chapter demonstrating
adequate combustion gas residence
time; and
(G) Such other operating requirements
as are necessary to ensure that the DRE
performance standard of 1286.104{a) is
met
(ii) Carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbon standards. The permit
must incorporate a carbon monoxide
(CO) limit and, aa appropriate, a
hydrocarbon (HC) limit as provided by
paragraphs (b). (c), (d). (e) and (f) of
S 266.104. The permit limits will be
specified as follows:
(A) When complying with the CO
standard of 1286.104(b)(l), the permit
limit is 100 ppmv;
(B) When complying with the
alternative CO standard under
S 266.104(c). the permit limit for CO is
based on the trial bum and is
established as the average over all valid
runs of the highest hourly rolling
average CO level of each run. and the
permit limit for HC is 20 ppmv (aa
defined in 1266.104(c)(l)), .except as
provided in 8 268.104(f).
(C) When complying with the
alternative HC limit for industrial
furnaces under S 266.l04(f). the permit
limit for HC and CO is the baseline level
when hazardous waste is not burned as
specified by that paragraph.
(iii) Start-up and shut-down. During
start-up and shut-down of the boiler or
industrial furnace, hazardous waste
(except waste fed solely as an
ingredient under the Tier I (or adjusted
Tier I) feed rate screening limits for
metals and chloride /chlorine, and
except low risk waste exempt from the
trial bum requirements under
Si 266.104(a)(S), 266.105.266.108, and
260.107) must not be fed into the device
unless the device is operating within the
conditions of operation specified in the
permit
(3) Requirements to ensure
confonnance with the paniculate
standard, (i) Except aa provided in
paragraphs (e)(3) (ii) and (iii) of this
section, the permit shall specify the
following operating requirements to
ensure confonnance with the paniculate
standard specified in { 266.105:
(A) Total ash feed rate to the device
from hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feedstocks, measured
and specified aa prescribed in paragraph
(e)(6) of thia section;
(B) Maximum device production rate
when producing normal product
expressed in appropriate units, and
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section;
(C) Appropriate controls on operation
and maintenance of the hazardous
waste firing system and any air
pollution control system;
(D) Allowable variation in boiler and
industrial furnace system design
including any air pollution control
system or operating procedures; and
(E) Such other operating requirements
as are necessary to ensure that the
paniculate standard in § 286.111(b) is
met
(ii) Permit conditions to ensure
confonnance with the paniculate matter
standard shall not be provided for
facilities exempt from the paniculate
matter standard under f 280.105(b);
(iii) For cement kilns and light-weight
aggregate kilns, permit conditions to
ensure compliance with the particnlate
standard shall not limit the ash content
of hazardous waste or other feed
materials.
(4) Requirements to ensure
confonnance with the metals emistiona
standard, (i) For confonnance with the
Tier I (or adjusted Tier 1) metals feed
rate screening limits of paragraphs (b) oM
(e) of i 266.106, the permit shall specify*
the following operating requirements:
(A) Total feed rate of each metal in
hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feedstocks measured
and specified under provisions of
paragraph (e)(6) of this section;
(B) Total feed rate of hazardous waste
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section;
(C) sampling and metals analysis
program for the hazardous waste, other
fuels, and industrial furnace feedstocks;
(ii) For confonnance with the Tier n
metals emission rate screening limits
under 1266.106(c) and the Tier m metals
controls under 1266.106(d). the permit
shall specify the following operating
requirements:
(A) Maximum emission rate for each
metal specified as the average emission
rate during the trial burn;
(B) Feed rate of total hazardous waste
and pumpable hazardous waste, each
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this section;
(C) Feed rate of each metal in the
following feedstreams, measured and
specified as prescribed in paragraphs
(e)(6) of this section:
(1) Total feed streams;
(2) Total hazardous waste feed; and'
(3) Total pumpable hazardous waste
feed:
-------
Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7211
(D) Total feed rate of chlorine and
chloride in total feed streams measured
und specified as prescribed in paragraph
I e)(8) of this section:
(E) Maximum combustion gas
temperature measured at a location
indicative of combustion chamber
temperature, and measured and
specified as prescribed in paragraph
(e)(6) of this section;
(F) Maximum flue gas temperature at
the inlet to the particulate matter air
pollution control system measured and
; pecified as prescribed in paragraph
(e)(6) of this section:
(G) Maximum device production rate
when producing normal product
expressed in appropriate units and
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section;
(H) Appropriate controls on operation
find maintenance of the hazardous
waste firing system and any air
pollution control system;
(I) Allowable variation in boiler and
industrial furnace system design
including any air pollution control
system or operating procedures; and
(I) Such other operating requirements
es are necessary to ensure that the
netals standards under { { 26&10B(c) or
286.106(d) are met
(iil) For conformance with an
alternative implementation approach
approved by the Director under
{ 286.106(f). the permit will specify the
fallowing operating requirements:
(A) Maximum emission rate for each
rietal specified as the average emission
rate during the trial bum;
(B) Feed rate of total hazardous waste
and pumpable hazardous waste, each
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this section;
(C) Feed rate of each metal in the
following feedstreams, measured and
specified as prescribed in paragraph
('i)(6) of this section:
(1) Total hazardous waste feed; and
(2) Total pumpable hazardous waste
f;ed;
(D) Total feed rate of chlorine and
chloride in total feed streams measured
and specified prescribed hi paragraph
(j)(6) of this section:
(E) Maximum combustion gas
temperature measured at a location
indicative of combustion chamber
temperature, and measured and
specified as prescribed in paragraph
(4)fe) of this section;
(F) Maximum flue gas temperature at
iae inlet to the particulate matter air
pollution control system measured and
specified as prescribed in paragraph
(.•)(8) of this section:
(G) Maximum device production rate
when producing normal product
expressed in appropriate units and
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section;
(H) Appropriate controls on operation
and maintenance of the hazardous
waste firing system and any air
pollution control system;
(1} Allowable variation in boiler and
industrial furnace system design
including any air pollution control
system or operating procedures; and
(J) Such other operating requirements
as are necessary to ensure that the
metals standards under SJ 266.106(c) or
266.106(d) are met
(5) Requirements to ensure
conformance with the hydrogen chloride
and chlorine gas standards, (i) For
conformance with the Tier I total
chloride and chlorine feed rate
screening limits of S 268.107(b)(l), the
permit will specify the following
operating requirements:
(A) Feed rate of total chloride and
chlorine in hazardous waste, other fuels,
and industrial furnace feedstocks
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e}(8) of this section;
(B) Feed rate of total hazardous waste
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e)(6) of this section;
(C) A sampling and analysis program
for total chloride and choriine for the
hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feestocks:
(ii) For conformance with the Tier n
HC1 and Cb emission rate screening
limits under ( 266.107(b)(2) and the Tier
in HC1 and Ck controls under
J 286.107(0). the permit will specify the
following operating requirements:
(A) Maximum emission rate for HG
and for CU specified as the average
emission rate during the trial bum:
(B) Feed rate of total hazardous waste
measured and specified as prescribed hi
paragraph (e)(6) of this section:
(C) Total feed rate of chlorine and
chloride in total feed streams, measured
and specified as prescribed in paragraph
(e)(0) of this section;
(D) Maximum device production rate
when producing normal product
expressed in appropriate units.
measured and specified as prescribed in
paragraph (e)(8) of this section;
(E) Appropriate controls on operation
and maintenance of the hazardous
waste firing system and any air
pollution control system:
(F) Allowable variation in boiler and
industrial furnace system design
including any air pollution control
system or operating procedures: and
(G) Such other operating requirements
as an necessary to ensure that the HQ
and Ch standards under | 286.107 (b)(2)
or (c) are met
(6) Measuring paramenters and
establishing limits based on trial bum
data—{1} General requirements. As
specified in paragraphs (e)(2) through
(e)(5) of mis section, each operating
parameter shall be measured, and
permit limits on the parameter shall be
established, according to either of the
following procedures:
(A) Instantaneous limits. A parameter
may be measured and recorded on an
instantaneous basis (i.e., the value that
occurs at any time) and the permit limit
specified as the time-weighted average
during all valid runs of the trial burn; or
(B) Hourly rolling average. (1) The
limit for a parameter may be established
and continuously monitored on an
hourly rolling average basis defined as
follows:
(i] A continuous monitor is one which
continuously samples the regulated
parameter without interruption, and
evaluates the detector response at least
once each 15 seconds, and computes
and records the average value at least
every 60 seconds.
(/i) An hourly rolling average is the
arithmetic means of the 60 most recent
1-minute average values recorded by the
continuous monitoring system.
(2) The permit limit for the parameter
shall be established based on trial bum
data as the average over all valid test
runs of the highest hourly rolling
average value for each run.
(ii) Rolling average limits for
carcinogenic metals and lead. Feed rate
limits for the carcinogenic metals (i.e,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium and
chromium) and lead may be established
either on an hourly rolling average basis
as prescribed by paragraph (e)(6)(!) of
this section or on (up to) a 24 hour
rolling average basis. If the owner or
opeator elects to use an average period
from 2 to 24 hours:
(A) The feed rate of each metal shall
be limited at any time to ten times the
feed rate that would be allowed on an
hourly rolling average basis;
(B) The continuous monitor shall meet
the following specifications:
(1) A continuous monitor is one which
continuously samples the regulated
parameter without interruption, and
evaluates the detector response at least
once each 15 seconds, and computes
and records the average value at least
every 60 seconds.
(2) The rolling average for the selected
avenging period is defined as the
arithmetic mean of the most recent one
hour block average for the average
period. A one hour block average is the
arithmetic mean of the one minute
averages recorded during the 60-minnte
period beginning at one minute after the
beginning of preceding clock hour and
-------
7212 Federal Register / VoL 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rulei and Regulations
(C) The permit limit for the feed rate
of each metal shall be established based
on trial bum data as the average over all
valid test runs of the highest hourly
rolling average feed rate for each run.
(iii) Feed rate limits for metals, total
chloride and chlorine, and ash. Feed
rate limits for metals, total chlorine and
chloride, and ash are established and
monitored by knowing the concentration
of the substance (i.e., metals, chloride/
chlorine, and ash) in each feedstream
and the flow rate of the feedstream. To
monitor the feed rate of these
substances, the flow rate of each
feedstream must be monitored under the
continuous monitoring requirements of
paragraphs (e)(6) (i) and (ii) of this
section.
(Jv) Conduct of trial bum testing. (A)
If compliance with all applicable
emissions standards of §{ 266.104
through 266.107 is not demonstrated
simultaneously during a set of test runs,
the operating conditions of additional
teat runs required to demonstrate
compliance with remaining emissions
standards must be as close as possible
to the original operating conditions.
(B) Prior to obtaining test data for
purposes of demonstrating compliance
with the emissions standards of
{{ 266.104 through 266.107 or
establishing limits on operating
parameters under this section, the
facility must operate under trial bum
conditions for a sufficient period to
reach steady-state operations. The
Director may determine, however, that
industrial furnaces that recycle collected
participate matter back into the furnace
and that comply with an alternative
implementation approach for metals
under { 286.106(0. need not reach steady
state conditions with respect to the flow
of metals in the system prior to
beginning compliance testing for metals
emissions.
(C) Trial bum data on the level of an
operating parameter for which a limit
must be established in the permit must
be obtained during emissions sampling
for the pollutant(s) (i.e.. metals. PM.
HCl/Cls. organic compounds) for which
the parameter must be established as
specified by paragraph (e) of this
section.
(7) General requirements—{i) Fugitive
emissions. Fugitive emissions must be
controlled by:
(A) Keeping the combustion zone
totally sealed against fugitive emissions:
or
(B) Maintaining the combustion zone
pressure lower than atmospheric
pressure; or
(C) An alternate means of control
demonstrated (with part B of the permit
application) to provide fugitive
emissions control equivalent to
maintenance of combustion zone
pressure lower than atmospheric
pressure.
(ii) Automatic waste feed cutoff. A
boiler or industrial furnace must be
operated with a functioning system that
automatically cuts off the hazardous
waste feed when operating conditions
deviate from those established under
this section. The Director may limit the
number of cutoffs per an operating
period on a case-by-case basis. In
addition:
(A) The permit limit for (the indicator
of) minimum combustion chamber
temperature must be maintained while
hazardous waste or hazardous waste
residues remain in the combustion
chamber,
(B) Exhaust gases must be ducted to
the air pollution control system operated
in accordance with the permit
requirements while hazardous waste or
hazardous waste residues remain in the
combustion chamber and
(C) Operating parameters for which
permit limits an established must
continue to be monitored during the
cutoff, and the hazardous waste feed
shall not be restarted until the levels of
those parameters comply with the
permit limits. For parameters that may
be monitored on an instantaneous basis,
the Director will establish a minimum
period of time after a waste feed cutoff
during which the parameter must not
exceed the permit limit before the
hazardous waste feed may be restarted.
(Hi) Changes. A boiler or industrial
furnace must cease burning hazardous
waste when changes in combustion
properties, or feed rates of the
hazardous waste, other fuels, or
industrial furnace feedstocks, or
changes in the boiler or industrial
furnace design or operating conditions
deviate from the limits as specified in
the permit
(8) Monitoring and Inspections, (i) The
owner or operator must monitor and
record the following, at a minimum,
while burning hazardous waste:
(A) If specified by the permit feed
rates and composition of hazardous
waste, other fuels, and industrial
furnace feedstocks, and feed rates of
ash. metals, and total chloride and
chlorine;
(B) If specified by the permit carbon
monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and
oxygen on a continuous basis at a
common point in the boiler or industrial
furnace downstream of the combustion
zone and prior to release of stack gases
to the atmosphere in accordance with
operating requirements specified in
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section. CO,
HC. and oxygen monitors must be
installed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with methods specified in
appendix DC of this part.
(C) Upon the request of the Director.
sampling and analysis of the hazardous
waste (and other fuels and industrial
furnace feedstocks as appropriate),
residues, and exhaust emissions must be
conducted to verify that the operating
requirements established in the permit
achieve the applicable standards of
§§ 266.104.266.105.266.106, and 286.107.
(ii) All monitors shall record data in
units corresponding to the permit limit
unless otherwise specified in the permit
(iii>The boiler or industrial furnace
and associated equipment (pumps,
values, pipes, fuel storage tanks, etc.)
must be subjected to thorough visual
inspection when it contains hazardous
waste, at least daily for leaks, spills,
fugitive emissions, and signs of
tampering.
(iv) The automatic hazardous waste
feed cutoff system and associated
alarms must be tested at least once
every 7 days when hazardous waste Is
burned to verify operability, unless the*
applicant demonstrates to the Director
that weekly inspections will unduly
restrict or upset operations and that less
frequent inspections will be adequate.
At a minimum, operational testing must
be conducted at least once every 30
days.
(v) These monitoring and inspection
data must be recorded and the records
must be placed in the operating record
required by 1284.73 of this chapter.
(9) Direct transfer to the burner. If
hazardous waste is directly transferred
from • transport vehicle to a boiler or
industrial furnace without the use of a
storage unit the owner and operator
must comply with | 266.111.
(10) Recordkeeping. The owner or
operator must keep in the operating
record of the facility all information and
data required by this section for not less
than three years.
(11) Closure. At closure, the owner or
operator must remove all hazardous
waste and hazardous waste residues
(including, but not limited to. ash,
scrubber waters, and scrubber sludges)
from the boiler or industrial furnace.
(Approved by ma Office of Muugcmrat and
Budgtt under control number 2050-0073)
S2M.1M Interim etata»tfandtf* for
burner*.
(a) Purpose, scope, applicability.—(I)
General, (i) The purpose of this section
is to establish minimum national
•standards for owners and operators of
"existing" boilers and industrial
furnaces that burn hazardous waste
where such standards define the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, Febroary 21. 1901 / Rule* and Regulation* 7213
acceptable management of hazardous
hwiiste during the period of interim
•tutus. The standards of this section
Ripply to owners and operators of
existing facilities until either a permit is
is! tied under 1260.102(d) or until closure
raiponsibilities identified in this section
an; fulfilled.
(ii) Existing or in existence means a
boiler or industrial furnace that on or
before August 21,1991 is either in
operation burning or processing
hazardous waste or for which
construction (including the ancillary
faculties to bum to process the
hazardous waste) has commenced A
fatality has commenced construction if
this owner or operator has obtained the
Federal, State, and local approvals or
permits necessary to begin physical
contraction; and either:
I A) A continuous on-site, physical
construction program has begun: or
|B) The owner or operator has entered
into contractual obligations—which
cannot be canceled or modified without
substantial loss for physical
construction of the facility to be
completed within a reasonable time.
I iii) If a boiler or industrial furnace is
located at a facility that already has a
pci-mit or interim status, then the facility
rant comply with the applicable
tfef Rations dealing with permit
•aerifications in 127O42 or changes in
^ntsrim status in 127072 of this chapter.
(2) Exemptions. The requirements of
this section do not apply to hazardous
wa ste and facilities exempt under
Si 286.100(b), or 266.108.
(3) Prohibition or bunting dioxin-
liai'ad wastes. Hazardous waste listed
for dioxin or derived from any of the
following dioxin-listed waste* may not
be burned in a boiler or industrial
furnace operating under interim status:
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F020,
FUil. F022. F023, F026. or F027.
(4) Applicability of part 265
standards. Owners and operators of
boilers and industrial furnaces that bum
haitardous waste and an operating
uniier interim status an subfect to the
following provisions of part 265 of this
chapter, except as provided otherwise
by this section:
(i) In subpart A (General). 1285*
(ii) In subpart B (General facility
standards), Si 265.11-285.17;
(Iii) In subpart C (Preparedness and
prevention). S{ 285.31-265.37;
(iv) In subpart 0 (Contingency plan
anil emergency procedures), ii 28&51-
26!i.Se;
(v) In subpart E (Manifest system,
recordkeeping, and reporting),
}i S 28571-295.77. except that | i 26571.
F26!>72. and 28576 do not apply to
owners and operators of on-site
facilities that do not receive any
hazardous waste from off-site sources;
(vi) In subpart G (Closure and post-
closure), ii 285.111-285.115:
(vii) In subpart H (Financial
requirements), SS 265.141,285.142,
265.143, and 285.147-285.151, except that
States and the Federal government are
exempt from the requirements of
subpart H; and
(viii) Subpart BB (Air emission
standards for equipment leaks), except
S 285.1050(a).
(5) Special requirements for furnaces.
The following controls apply during
interim status to industrial furnaces
(e.g., kilns, cupolas) that feed hazardous
waste for a purpose other than solely as
an ingredient (see paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of
this section) at any location other than
the hot end where products are normally
discharged and where fuels are
normally fired:
(i) Controls. (A) The hazardous waste
shall be fed at a location when
combustion gas temperatures are at
least 1800 *F;
(B) The owner or operator must
determine that adequate oxygen is
present in combustion gases to combust
organic constituents in the waste and
retain documentation of such
determination in the facility record;
(C) For cement kiln systems, the
hazardous waste shall be fed into the
kiln: and
(D) The hydrocarbon controls of
S 286.104(0) or paragraph (c)(7)(U) of this
section apply upon certification of
compliance under paragraph (c) of this
section irrespective of the CO level
achieved during the compliance test
(ii) Burning hazardous waste solely as
an ingredient. A hazardous waste is
burned for a purpose other than solely
as an ingredient if it meets either of
these criteria:
(A) The hazardous wast* has • total
concentration of nonmetal compounds
listed in part 281. appendix VOL of this
chapter exceeding 500 ppm by weight
as-generated (and, so, is considered to
be burned for destruction); or
(B) The hazardous waste ha* •
heating value of 5.000 Btu/lb or more.
as-generated or as-fired (and. so, is
considered to be burned as fuel).
(6) Restrictions on burning hazardous
waste that is not a fuel. Prior to
certification of compliance under
paragraph (c) of this section, owners
and operators shall not feed hazardous
waste (other than hazardous waste
burned solely as an ingredient) to •
boiler or industrial furnace that has •
heating value less than 5.000 Btu/lb, as-
generated, except for purposes of
compliance testing (or testing prior to
compliance testing) for a total period of
time not to exceed 720 hours.
(7) Direct transfer to the burner. If
hazardous waste is directly transferred
from a transport vehicle to a boiler or
industrial furnace without the use of a
storage unit the owner and operator
must comply with i 286.111.
(b) Certification of precompliance—
(1) General. The owner or operator must
provide complete and accurate
information specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section to the Director on or
before August 21,1991, and must
establish limits for the operating
parameters specified in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section. Such information is
termed a "certification of
precompliance" and constitutes a
certification that the owner or operator
has determined that when the facility is
operated within the limits specified in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
owner or operator believes that using
best engineering Judgment emissions of
particulate matter, metals, and HQ and
Ck an not likely to exceed the limits
provided by ii 288.105.268.106. and-
266.107. The facility may bum hazardous
waste only under the operating
conditions that the owner or operator
establishes under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section until the owner or operator
submits a revised certification of
precompliance under paragraph (b)(8) of
this section or a certification of
compliance under paragraph (c) of this
section, or until a permit is issued.
(2) Information required. The
following information must be submitted
with the certification of precompliance
to support the determination that the
limits established for the operating
parameters identified in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section an not likely to result in
an exceedance of the allowable
emission rates for particulate matter,
metals, and HQ and Ck
(i) General facility information:
(A) EPA facility ID number:
(B) Facility name, contact person,
telephone number, and address;
(C) Description of boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste, including type and capacity of
device
(D) A scaled plot plan showing the
entire facility and location of the boilers
and industrial furnaces burning
hazardous waste; and
(E) A description of the air pollution
control system on each device burning
hazardous waste, including the
temperature of the flue gas at the inlet to
the particulate matter control system.
(ii) Except for facilities complying
with the Tier I feed rate screening limits
for metals or total chlorine and chloride
-------
7214 Federal Register / Vol 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
provided by 8 5 266.106 (b) or (e) and
266.107 (b)(l) or (e) respectively, the
estimated uncontrolled (at the inlet to
the air pollution control system)
emissions of paniculate matter, each
metal controlled by { 266.106, and
hydrogen chloride and chlorine, and the
following information to support such
determinations:
(A) The feed rate (Ib/hr) of ash.
chlorine, antimony, arsenic, barium.
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, silver, thallium in each
feedstream (hazardous waste, other
fuels, industrial furnace feedstocks);
(B) The estimated partitioning factor
to the combustion gas for the materials
identified in paragraph (b)(ii)(A) of this
section and the basis for the estimate
and an estimate of the partitioning to
HC1 and Cli of total chloride and
chlorine in feed materials. To estimate
the partitioning factor, the owner or
operator must use either best
engineering judgment or the procedures
specified in appendix DC of this part
(C) For industrial furnaces that
recycle collected participate matter (PM)
back into the furnace and that will
certify compliance with the metals
emissions standards under paragraph
(c)(3)(ii)(A), the estimated enrichment
factor for each metal. To estimate the
enrichment factor, the owner or operator
must use either best engineering
Judgment or the procedures specified in
"Alternative Methodology for
Implementing Metals Controls" in
appendix DC of this part
(D) If best engineering Judgment is
used to estimate partitioning factors or
enrichment factors under paragraphs
(b)(|i)(B) or (b)(ii)(C) respectively, the
basis for the judgment When best
engineering judgment is used to develop
or evaluate data or information and
make determinations under this section,
the determinations must be made by a
qualified, registered professional
engineer and a certification of his/her
determinations in accordance with
8 270.11(d) of this chapter must be
provided in the certification of
precompliance.
(in) For facilities complying with the
Tier I feed rate screening limits for
metals or total chlorine and chloride
provided by i 5 268.108 (b) or (e) and
266.107 (b)(l) or (e). the feed rate (Ib/hr)
of total chloride and chlorine, antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium.
chromium, lead, mercury, silver, and
thallium in each feedstream (hazardous
waste, other fuels, industrial furnace
feedstocks).
(iv) For facilities complying with the
Tier II or Tier III emission limits for
metals or HQ and Ch (under 88 286.106
(c) or (d) or 266.107(b)(2) or (c)), the
estimated controlled (outlet of the air
pollution control system) emissions
rates of paticulate matter, each metal
controlled by 8 266.108, and HC1 and Clj,
and the following information to support
such determinations:
(A) The estimated air pollution control
system (APCS) removal efficiency for
paniculate matter. HCL CU. antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, silver, and
thallium.
(B) To estimate APCS removal
efficiency, the owner or operator must
use either best engineering judgment or
the procedures prescribed in appendix
IX of this part
(C) If best engineering judgment is
used to estimate APCS removal
efficiency, the basis for the judgment
Use of best engineering judgment must
be in conformance with provisions of
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) of this section.
(v) Determination of allowable
emissions rates for HCL Clt, antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, silver, and
thallium, and the following information
to support such determinations:
(A) For all facilities:
(1) Physical stack height;
[2] Good engineering practice stack
height as defined by 40 CFR 51.100(11);
(3) Maximum flue gas flow rate;
(*) Maximum flue gas temperature:
(5) Attach a US Geological Service
topographic map (or eqivalent) showing
the facility location and surrounding
land within 5 km of the facility.
(6) Identify terrain type: complex or
noncomplex: and
(7) Identify land use: urban or rural
(B) For owners and operators using
Tier in site specific dispersion modeling
to determine allowable levels under
i 266.108(d) or | 288.107(c). or adjusted
Tier I feed rate screening limits under
8 1 266.106(e) or 266.107(e):
(1) Dispersion model and version
used;
[2] Source of meterological data;
(3) The dilution factor in micrograms
per cubic meter per gram per second of
emissions for the maximum annual
average off -site (unless on-site is
required) ground level concentration
(MEI location); and
[4) Indicate the MEI location on the
map required under paragraph
(vi) For facilities complying with the
Tier II or III emissions rate controls for
metals or HCl and Cb. a comparison of
the estimated controlled emissions rates
determined under paragraph (b)(2)(iv)
with the allowable emission rates
determined under paragraph (b)(2)(v);
(vii) For facilities complying with the
Tier I (or adjusted Tier I) feed rate
screening limits for metals or total
chloride and chlorine, a comparison of
actual feed rates of each metal and total
chlorine and chloride determined under
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section to the
Tier I allowable feed rates; and
(viii) For industrial furnaces that feed
hazardous waste for any purpose other
than solely as an ingredient (as defined
by paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section) at
any location other than the product
discharge end of the device.
documentation of compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(5)(i) (A),
(B), and (C) of this section.
(ix) For industrial furnaces that
recycle collected paniculate matter (PM)
back into the furnace and that will
certify compliance with the metals
emissions standards under paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) (A) of this section:
(A) The applicable paniculate matter
standard in Ib/hr. and
(B) The precompliance limit on the
concentration of each metal in collected
PM.
(3) Limits on operating condition!.
The owner and operator shall establish
limits on the following parameters
consistent with the determinations made
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section
and certify (under provisions of
paragraph (b)(9) of this section) to the
Director that the facility will operate
within the limits during interim status
when then is hazardous waste in the
unit until revised certification of
precompliance under paragraph (b)(8) of
this section or certification of
compliance under paragraph (c) of this
section:
(i) Feed rate of total hazardous waste
and (unless complying with the Tier I or
adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits under 1266.106(b) or
(e)) pumpable hazardous waste;
(ii) Feed rate of each metal in the
following feed streams;
(A) Total feed streams, except that
industrial furnaces that comply with the
alternative metals Implementation
approach under paragraph (b)(4) of this
section must specify limits on the
concentration of each metal in collected
particulate matter in lieu of feed rate
limits for total feedatreams;
(B) Total hazardous waste feed; and
(C) Total pumpable hazardous waste
feed, unless complying with the Tier I or
adjusted Tier I metals feed r?te
screening limits under 1266.106 (b) or
(e);
(iii) Total feed rate of chlorine and
chloride in total feed streams;
(iv) Total feed rate of ash in total feed
streams, except that tho ash feed rate
for cement kilns and lightweight
aggregate kilns is not limited; and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7215
(v) Maximum production rate of the
device in appropriate units when
producing normal product
(4) Operating requirements for
furnaces that recycle PM. Owners and
operators of furnaces that recycle
collected paniculate matter (PM) back
into the furnace and that will certify
compliance with the metals emissions
controls under paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of
this section must comply with the
special operating requirements provided
in "Alternative Methodology for
Implementing Metals Controls" in
appendix IX of this part
(5) Measurement of feed rates and
production rate—(i) General
requirements. Limits on each of the
parameters specified in paragraph (b){3)
of this section (except for limits on
metals concentrations in collected
paniculate matter (PM) for industrial
furnaces that recycle collected PM) shall
be established and continuously
monitored under either of the following
methods:
(A) Instantaneous limits. A limit for a
parameter may be established and
continuously monitored on an
instantaneous basis (i.e., the value that
occurs at any time) not to be exceeded
at any time; or
(B) Hourly rolling average limits. A
limit for a parameter may be established
and continuously monitored on an
hourly rolling average basis denned as
follows:
(1) A continuous monitor ie one which
continuously samples the regulated
parameter without interruption, and
evaluates the detector response at least
once each 15 seconds, and computes
and records the average value at least
every 60 seconds.
(2) An hourly rolling average is the
arithmetic mean of the 60 most recent 1-
minute average values recorded by the
continuous monitoring system.
(ii) Rolling average limits for
carcinogenic metals and lead. Feed rate
limits for the carcinogenic metals
(arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and
chromium) and lead may be established
either on an hourly rolling average basis
as prescribed by paragraph (b)(5)(i)(B)
or on (up to) a 24 hour rolling average
basis. If the owner or operator elects to
use an averaging period from 2 to 24
hours:
(A) The feed rate of each metal shall
be limited at any time to ten times the
feed rate that would be allowed on a
hourly rolling average basis:
(B) The continuous monitor shall meat
the following specifications:
(1) A continuous monitor is one which
continuously samples the regulated
parameter without interruption, and
evaluates the detector response at least
once each 15 seconds, and computes
and records the average value at least
every 60 seconds.
(2) The rolling average for the selected
averaging period is defined as the
arithmetic mean of the most recent one
hour block averages for the averaging
period. A one hour block average is the
arithmetic mean of the one minute
averages recorded during the 60-minute
period beginning at one minute after the
beginning of preceding clock hour.
(iii) Feed rate limits for metals, total
chloride and chlorine, and ash. Feed
rate limits for metals, total chlorine and
chloride, and ash are established and
monitored by knowing the concentration
of the substance (i.e., metals, chloride/
chlorine, and ash) in each feedstream
and the flow rate of the feedstream. To
monitor the feed rate of these
substances, the flow rate of each
feedstream must be monitored under the
continuous monitoring requirements of
paragraphs (b)(5) (i) and (ii) of this
section.
(6) Public notice requirements at
precompliance. On or before [the
effective date of this rule] the owner or
operator must submit a notice with the
following information for publication in
a major local newspaper of general
circulation and send a copy of the notice
to the appropriate units of State and
local government The owner and
operator must provide to the Director
with the certification of precompliance
evidence of submitting the notice for
publication. The notice, which shall be
entitled "Notice of Certification of
Precompliance with Hazardous Waste
Burning Requirements of 40 CFR
286.103(b)", must include:
(i) Name and address of the owner
and operator of the facility as well as
the location of the device burning
hazardous waste:
(ii) Date that the certification of
precompliance is submitted to the
Director
(iii) Brief description of the regulatory
process required to comply with the
interim status requirements of this
section including required emissions
testing to demonstrate conformance
with emissions standards for organic
compounds, paniculate matter, metals,
and HC1 and CU:
(iv) Types and quantities of hazardous
waste burned including, but not limited
to. source, whether solids or liquids, as
well as an appropriate description of the
waste:
(v) Type of device(s) In which the .
hazardous waste is burned including a
physical description and maximum
production rate of each device;
(vi) Types and quantities of other
fuels and industrial furnace feedstocks
fed to each unit;
(vii) Brief description of the basis for
this certification of precompliance as
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section;
(viii) Locations where the operating
record for the facility can be viewed and
copied by interested parties. These
locations shall at a minimum include:
(A) The Agency office where the
supporting documentation was
submitted or another location
designated by the Director and
(B) The facility site where the device
is located;
(ix) Notification of the establishment
of a facility mailing list whereby
interested parties shall notify the
Agency that they wish to be placed on
the mailing list to receive future
information and notices about this
facility; and
(x) Location (mailing address) of the
applicable EPA Regional Office,
Hazardous Waste Division, where
further information can be obtained on
EPA regulation of hazardous waste
burning.
(7) Monitoring other operating
parameters. When the monitoring
systems for the operating parameters
listed in paragraphs (c)(l)(v through xiii)
of this section are installed and
operating hi conformance with vendor
specifications or (for CO. HC, and
oxygen) specifications provided by
appendix DC of this part as appropriate.
the parameters shall be continuously
monitored and records shall be
maintained in the operating record.
(8) Revised certification of
precompliance. The owner or operator
may revise at any time the information
and operating conditions documented
under paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this
section in the certification of
precompliance by submitting a revised
certification of precompliance under
procedures provided by those
paragraphs.
(i) The public notice requirements of
paragraph (b)(6) of this section do not
apply to recertifications.
(ii) The owner and operator must
operate the facility within the limits
established for the operating parameters
under paragraph (b)(3) of this section
until a revised certification is submitted
under this paragraph or a certification of
compliance is submitted under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(9) Certification of precompliance
statement. The owner or operator must
include the following signed statement
with the certification of precompliance
submitted to the Director
-------
7216 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thuraday. Febraary 21. 1991 / Ruiei and Regulation*
"J certify under penalty of law that this
information was prepared under my direction
or inpervision in accordance with a system
designed to ensure that qualified personnel
properly gathered and evaluated the
information and supporting documentation.
Copies of all emissions tests, dispersion
modeling results and other information used
to determine conformance with the
requirements of I 286.103(b) are available at
the facility and can be obtained from the
facility contact person listed above. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who
manages the facility, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is. to
the best of my knowledge and belief, true.
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
I also acknowledge that the operating
limits established in this certification
pursuant to I 288.103(b) (3) and (4) are
enforceable limits at which the facility can
legally operate during interim status until: (1)
A revised certification of precompliance is
submitted. (2) • certification of compliance is
submitted, or (3) an operating permit is
issued."
(c} Certification of compliance. On or
before August 21.1992. the owner or
operator shall conduct emissions testing
to document compliance with the
emission! standards of || 268.104 (b)
through (e). 266.105.266.106.266.107. and
paragraph (a)(5)(i](D) of this section,
under the procedures prescribed by this
paragraph, except under extensions of
time provided by paragraph (c)(7). Based
on the compliance test the owner or
operator shall submit to the Director a
complete and accurate "certification of
compliance" (under paragraph (c)(4) of
this section) with those emission
standards establishing limits on the
operating parameters specified in
paragraph (c)(l).
(1) Limits on operating conditions.
The owner or operator shall establish
limits on the following parameters baaed
on operations during the compliance test
(under procedures prescribed in
paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of this section) and
include these limits with the
certification of compliance. The boiler or
industrial furnace must be operated in
^accordance with these operating limits
at all times when there is hazardous
waste in the unit until an operating
permit is issued.
(i) Feed rate of total hazardous waste
and (unless complying the Tier I or
adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits under 8 266.106 (b) or
(e)). pumpable hazardous waste;
(ii) Feed rate of each metal in the
fallowing feedstreams:
(A) Total feedstreams, except that
industrial furnaces that must comply
with the alternative metals
implementation approach under
paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section must
specify limits on the concentration of
each metal in collected particulate
matter hi lieu of feed rate limits for total
feedstreams;
(B) Total hazardous waste feed
(unless complying with the Tier I or
adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits under i 266.106 (b) or
(eft and
(C) Total pumpable hazardous waste
feed
(iii) Total feed rate of chlorine and
chloride in total feed streams;
(iv) Total feed rate of ash hi total feed
streams, except that the ash feed rate
for cement kilns and light-weighted
aggregate kilns is not limited;
(v) Carbon monoxide concentration.
and where required, hydrocarbon
concentration in stack gas. When
complying with the CO controls of
S 266.104(b). the CO limit is 100 ppmv.
and when complying with the HC
controls of I 268.104(c). the HC limit is
20 ppmv. When complying with the CO
controls of { 286.104(c), the CO limit is
established based on the compliance
test;
(vi) Maximum production rate of the
device in appropriate units when
producing normal product:
(vii) Maximum combustion chamber
temperature where the temperature
measurement is as close to the
combustion zone as possible and is
upstream of any quench water injection.
(unless complying with the Tier I
adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits under i 286.108 (b) or
(viii) Maximum flue gas temperature
entering a particulate matter control
device (unless complying with Tier I or
adjusted Tier 1 metals feed rate
screening limits under | 268.106 (b) or
(e)):
(ix) For systems using wet scrubbers,
including wet ionizing scrubbers (unless
complying with the Tier I or adjusted
Tier I metals feed rate screening limits
under 1288.108 (b) or (e) and the total
chlorine and chloride feed rate
screening limits under 1286.107(b) (1) or
(e));
(A) Minimum liquid to flue gas ratio;
(B) Minimum scrubber blowdown
from the system or maximum suspended
solids content of scrubber water: and
(C) Minimum pH level of the scrubber
water:
(x) For systems using venturi
scrubbers, the minimum differential gas
pressure across the venturi (unless
complying the Tier I or adjusted Tier I
metals feed rate screening limits under
$ 266.108 (b) or (e) and the total chlorine
and chloride feed rate screening limits
under I 268.1Q7(b) (1) or (e));
(xi) For system using dry scrubbers
(unless complying with the Tier I or
adjusted Tier i metals feed rate
screening omits under | 266.106 (b) or
(e) and the total chlorine and chloride
feed rats screening limits under
5 266.107(0) (1) or (e));
(A) Minimum caustic feed rate; and
(B) Maximum flue gas flow rate:
(xii) For systems using wet Ionizing
scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators
(unless complying with the Tier I or
adjusted Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits under i 266.106 (b) or
(e) and the total chlorine and chloride
feed rate screening limits under
I 266.107(10(1) or (e)h
(A) Minimum electrical power in
kilovolt amperes (kVA) to the
precipitator plates; and
(B) Maximum flue gas flow rate;
(xiii) For systems using fabric filters
(baghouses), the minimum pressure drop
(unless complying with the Tier I or
adjusted Tier! metals feed rate
screening limits under 1268.108 (b) or (e)
and the total chlorine nn^ *M«F»«fa feed
rate screening limits under
S286.107(b)(l)or(e)).
(2) Prior notice of compliance testing.
At least 30 days prior to the compliance
testing required by paragraph (c)(3) of m
this section, the owner or operator anafl
notify the Director and submit the
following information:
(i) General facility information
including:
(A) EPA facility ID number
(B) Facility name, contact person.
telephone number, and address;
(C) Person responsible for conducting
compliance test including company
name, address, and telephone number,
and a statement of qualifications;
(D) Planned date of the compliance
test;
(ii) Specific information on each
device to be tested including:
(A) Description of boiler or industrial
furnace;
(B) A scaled plot plan showing the
entire facility and location of the boiler
or industrial furnace;
(C) A description of the air pollution
control system;
(D) Identification of the continuous
emission monitors that are installed.
Including:
[1] Carbon monoxide monitor
(2] Oxygen monitor;
[3] Hydrocarbon monitor, specifying
the minimum temperature of the system
and. if the temperature is less than
ISO *C an explanation of way • IrnsliM
system is net used (sec paragraph (cXST
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7217
of this lection) and a brief description of
the sample gas conditioning system:
(E) Indication of whether the stack is
shared with another device that will be
in operation during the compliance test;
(F) Other information useful to an
understanding of the system design or
operation.
(iii) Information on the testing
planned, including a complete copy of
the test protocol and Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
plan, and a summary description for
each test providing the following
information at a minimum;
(A) Purpose of the test (e.g.,
demonstrate compliance with emissions
of paniculate matter); and
(B) Planned operating conditions,
Including levels for each pertinent
parameter specified in paragraph (c)(l)
>}f this section.
(3) Compliance testing—(i) General.
Compliance testing must be conducted
jnder conditions for which the owner or
operator has submitted a certification of
incompliance under paragraph (b) of
this section and under conditions
established in the notification of
compliance testing required by
{paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) Special requirements for industrial
furnaces that recycle collected PM.
Owners and operators of industrial
liirnaces that recycle back into the
liimace paniculate matter (PM) from the
uir pollution control system must comply
-------
7218 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rule* and Regulations
(7) Time-weighted average HC1 and
CU emissions for each run and for the
test:
(8) Time-weighted average emissions
for the metals subject to regulation
under 5 263.106 for each run and for the
test; and
(.9) QA/QC results.
(iii) Comparison of the actual
emissions during each test with the
e Hussions limits prescribed by
§§ 258.104 (b), (c). and (e), 266.105.
256.106. and 266.107 and established for
the facility in the certification of
precompliance under paragraph (b) of
this section.
(iv) Determination of operating limits
based on all valid runs of the
compliance test for each applicable
parameter listed in paragraph (c)(l) of
i!iia section using either of the following
procedures:
(A) Instantaneous limits. A parameter
may be measured and recorded on an
instantaneous basis (i.e.. the value that
occurs at any time) and the operating
limit specified as the time-weighted
average during all runs of the
compliance test: or
(B) Hourly rolling average basis. (2)
The limit for a parameter may be
established and continuously monitored
on an hourly rolling average basis
defined as follows:
(/) ;•. continuous monitor is one which
continuously samples the regulated
parameter without interruption, and
evaluates the detector response at least
once each 15 seconds, and computes
und records the average value at least
every 60 seconds.
(if) An hourly rolling aveiage is the
arithmetic mean of the 60 most recent 1-
minute average values recorded by the
continuous monitoring system.
(2) The operating limit for the
parameter shall be established based on
compliance test data as the average
over ail test run* of the highest hourly
rolling average value for each run.
(C) Rolling average limits for
carcinogenic metals and lead. Feed rate
limits for the carcinogenic metals (i-e..
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium and
chromium) and lead may be established
cither on an hourly rolling average basis
as prescribed by paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(B)
of this section or on (up to)« 24 hour
rolling average basis, if the owner or
operator elects to use an averaging
period from 2 to 24 hours:
(/) The feed rate of each metal shall
be limited at any time to ten times the
feed rate that would be allowed on a
hourly rolling average basis:
p) The continuous monitor shall meet
the following specifications:
(/) A continuous monitor is one which
continuously samples the regulated
parameter without interruption, and
evaluates the detector response at least
once each 15 seconds, and computes
and records the average value at least
every 60 seconds.
(h] The rolling average for the
selected averaging period is defined as
the arithmetic mean of the most recent
one hour block averages for the
averaging period. A one hour block
average is the arithmetic mean of the
one minute averages recorded during the
60-minute period beginning at one
minute after the beginning of preceding
clock hour, and
[3) The operating limit for the feed
rate of each metal shall be established
based on compliance test data as the
average over all test runs of the highest
hourly rolling average feed rate for each
run.
(D) Feed rate limits for metals, total
chloride and chlorine, and ash. Feed
rate limits for metals, total chlorine and
chloride, and ash are established and
monitored by knowing the concentration
of the substance (i.e.. metals, chloride/
chlorine, and ash) in each feedstream
and the flow rate of the feedstream. To
monitor the feed rate of these
substances, the flow rate of each
feedstream must be monitored under the
continuous monitoring requirements of
paragraphs (c){4)(iv) (A) through (C) of
this section.
(v) Certification of compliance
statement The following statement shall
accompany the certification of
compliance:
"1 certify tinder penalty of law that this
information was prepared under ray direction
or supervision in accordance with • system
designed to ensure that qualified personnel
properly gathered and evaluated the
information and supporting documentation.
Conies of all emissions tests, dispersion
modeling results and other information used
to determine conformant* with the
requirement* of | 28B.103(c) an available at
the facility and can be obtained from the
facility contact person listed above. Baaed on
my inquiry of the person or persons who
maattgas the facility, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted it, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, tree.
accurate, and complete. I am aware that then
are significant penalties for submtttmg false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
I also acknowledge that the operating
conditions established in this certification
pursuant to | 266.103(c)(4)(iv) are enforceable
limits at which the facility can legally operate
during interim status until • revised
certification of compliance ia submitted."
(5) Special requirements for HC
monitoring systems. When an owner or
operator is required to comply, with the
hydrocarbon (HC) controls provided by
55 288.104(0) or paragraph (a)(5)(l)(D) of
this section, a conditioned gas
monitoring system may be used in
conformance with specifications
provided in appendix IX of this part
provided that the owner cr operator
submits a certification of compliance
without using extensions of time
provided by paragraph (c)(7) of this
section.
(6) Special operating requirements for
industrial furnaces that recycle
collected PAL Owners and operators of
industrial furnaces that recycle back
into the furnace participate matter (PM)
from the air pollution control system
must
(i) When complying with the
requirements of paragraph (c](3)(ii)(A)
of this section, comply with the
operating requirements prescribed in
"Alternative Method to Implement the
Metals Controls" in appendix IX of this
part and
(ii) When complying with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of
this section, comply with the operating
requirements prescribed by that
paragraph.
(7) Extensions of time, (i) If the owner
or operator does not submit a complete
certification of compliance for all of the
applicable emissions standards of
Si 266.104.266.105,206.106, and 268.107
by August 21,1992. he/she must either. ^
(A) Stop burning hazardous waste anJ
begin closure activities under paragraph^
(1) of this section for the hazardous
waste portion of the facility; or
(B) Limit hazardous waste burning to
a total period of 720 hours for the period
of time beginning August 21.1992.
submit a notification to the Director by
August 21.1992 stating that the facility
is operating under restricted interim
status and intends to resume burning
hazardous waste, and submit a complete
certification of compliance by August 23.
1993: or
(C) Obtain a case-by-case extension
of time under paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this
section.
(ii) The owner or operator may
request • case-by-case extension of time
to extend any time limit provided by
paragraph (c) of this section if
compliance with the time limit is not
practicable for reasons beyond the
control of the owner or operator.
(A) In granting an extension, the
Director may apply conditions as the
facts warrant to ensure timely
compliance with the requirements of this
section and that the facility operates in
a manner that does not pose a hazard to
human health and the environment;
(B) When an owner and operator
request an extension of time to enable •
them to obtain a RCRA opera ting permir-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7219
because the facility cannot meet the HC
limit of 1268.104(0) of this chapter:
(1) The Director shall in considering
whether to grant the extension:
(/) Determine whether the owner and
operator have submitted in a timely
manner a complete Part B permit
application that includes information
required under § 27O22(b) of this
chapter, and
(ii] Consider whether the owner and
operator have made a good faith effort
to certify compliance with all other
emission controls, including the controls
on dioxins and furans of { 266.104(e)
and the controls on PM, metals, and
HC1/C1,
. (2) If an extension is granted, the
Director shall, as a condition of the
extension, require the facility to operate
under flue gas concentration limits on
CO and HC that based on available
information, including information in the
part B permit application, are baseline
CO and HC levels as defined by
S 286.104(0(1).
(8] Revised certification of
compliance. The owner or operator may
submit at any time a revised
certification of compliance
(recertification of compliance) under the
following procedures:
(i) Prior to submittal of a revised
certification of compliance, hazardous
waste may not be burned for more than
a total of 720 hours under operating
conditions that exceed those established
under a current certification of
compliance, and such burning may be
conducted only for purposes of
determining whether the facility can
operate under revised conditions and
continue to meet the applicable
emissions standards of 11266.104,
266.105,266.106. and 266.107;
(ii) At least 30 days prior to first
burning hazardous waste under
operating conditions that exceed those
established under a current certification
of compliance, the owner or operator
shall notify the Director and submit the
following information:
(A) EPA facility ID number, and
facility name, contact person, telephone
number, and address;
(B) Operating conditions that the
owner or operator is seeking to revise
.and description of the changes in facility
design or operation that prompted the
need to seek to revise the operating
conditions;
(C) A determination that when
operating under the revised operating
conditions, the applicable emissions
iitandsrds of S1266.104.266.105.286.108.
iind 266.107 are not likely to be
exceeded. To docmnmt this
determination, the owner or operator
nhall fKmit the applicable information
required under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section: and
(D) Complete emissions testing
protocol for any pretesting and for a
new compliance test to determine
compliance with the applicable
emissions standards of 55 266.104,
266.105,266.106, and 266.107 when
operating under revised operating
conditions. The protocol shall include a
schedule of pro-testing and compliance
testing. If the owner and operator
revises the scheduled date for the
compliance test, he/she shall notify the
Director in writing at least 30 days prior
to the revised date of the compliance
test;
(iii) Conduct a compliance test under
the revised operating conditions and the
protocol submitted to the Director to
determine compliance with the
applicable emissions standards of
55 268.104,266.105,266.106. and 266.107;
and
(iv) Submit a revised certification of
compliance under paragraph (c)(4) of
this section.
(d) Periodic Recertificatiora. The
owner or operator must conduct
compliance testing and submit to the
Director a recertification of compliance
under provisions of paragraph (c) of this
section within three years from
submitting the previous certification or
recertification. If the owner or operator
seeks to recertify compliance under new
operating conditions, he/she must
comply with the requirements of
paragraph (c)(8) of this section.
(e) Noncomplionce with certification
schedule. If the owner or operator does
not comply with the interim status
compliance schedule provided by
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, hazardous waste burning must
terminate on the date that the deadline
is missed, closure activities most begin
under paragraph (1) of this section, and
hazardous waste burning may not
resume except under an operating
permit issued under | 270.66 of this
chapter.
(f) Start-up and shut-down. Hazardous
waste (except waste fed solely as an
ingredient under the Tier I (or adjusted
Tier I) feed rate screening limits for
metals and chloride/chlorine) must not
be fed into the device during start-up
and shut-down of the boiler or industrial
furnace, unless the device is operating
within the conditions of operation
specified in the certification of
compliance,
(g) Automatic waste feed cutoff.
During the compliance test required by
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, and
upon certification of compliance under
paragraph (c) of this section, a boiler or
industrial furnace most be operated with
a functioning system that automatically
cuts off the hazardous waste feed when
the applicable operating conditions
specified in paragraphs (c)(l) (i) and (v
through xiii) of this section deviate from
those established in the certification of
compliance. In addition:
(1) To minimim emissions or organic
compounds, the minimum combustion
chamber temperature (or the indicator of
combustion chamber temperature) that
occurred during the compliance test
must be maintained while hazardous
waste or hazardous waste residues
remain in the combustion chamber, with
the minimum temperature during the
compliance test defined as either
(i) If compliance with the combustion
chamber temperature limit is based on a
hourly rolling average, the minimum
temperature during the compliance test
is considered to be the average over all
runs of the lowest hourly rolling average
for each run; or
(ii) If compliance with the combustion
chamber temperature limit is based on
an instantaneous temperature
measurement, the minimum temperature
during the compliance test is considered
to be the time-weighted average
temperature during all runs of the test
and
(2) Operating parameters limited by
the certification of compliance must
continue to be monitored during the
cutoff, and the hazardous waste feed
shall not be restarted until the levels of
those parameters comply with the limits
established in the certification of
compliance.
(h) Fugitive emissions. Fugitive
emissions must be controlled by:
(1) Keeping the combustion zone
totally sealed against fugitive emissions;
or
(2) Maintaining the combustion zone
pressure lower than atmospheric
pressure; or
(3) An alternate means of control that
the owner or operator can demonstrate
provide fugitive emissions control
equivalent to maintenance of
combustion zone pressure lower than
atmospheric pressure. Support for such
demonstration shall be included in the
operating record.
(i) Change*. A boiler or industrial
furnace must cease burning hazardous
waste when changes in combustion
properties, or feed rates of the
hazardous waste, other fuels, or
industrial furnace feedstocks, or
changes in the boiler or industrial
furnace design or operating conditions
deviate from the limits specified in the
certification of compliance.
(j) Monitoring and Intpectiom. (1) The
owner or operator must monitor and
-------
7220 Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
record the following, at a minimum.
while burning hazardous waste:
(i) Feed rates and composition of
hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feed stocks, and feed
rates of ash. metals, and total chloride
and chlorine as necessary to ensure
confonnance with the certification of
precompliance or certification of
compliance;
(iij Carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen.
and if applicable, hydrocarbons (HC). on
a continuous basis at a common point in
the boiler or industrial furnace
downstream of the combustion zone and
prior to release of stack gases to the
atmosphere in accordance with the
operating limits specified in the
certification of compliance. CO. HC. and
oxygen monitors must be installed.
operated, and maintained in accordance
with methods specified in Appendix IX
of this part
(iii) Upon the request of the Director.
sampling and analysis of the hazardous
waste (and other fuels and industrial
furnace feed stocks as appropriate) and
the stack gas emissions must be
conducted to verify that the operating
conditions established in the
certification of precompliance or
certification of compliance achieve the
applicable standards of §8 266.104.
266.105.266.106, and 266.107.
(2) The boiler or industrial furnace
and associated equipment (pumps.
valves, pipes, fuel storage tanks, etc.)
must be subjected to thorough visual
inspection when they contain hazardous
waste, at least daily for leaks, spills.
fugitive emissions, and signs of
tampering.
(3) The automatic hazardous waste
feed cutoff system and associated
alarms must be tested at least once
every 7 days when hazardous waste is
burned to verify operability, unless the
owner or operator can demonstrate that
weekly inspections will unduly restrict
or upset operations and that less
frequent inspections will be adequate.
Support for such demonstration shall be
included in the operating record. At a
minimum, operational testing must be
conducted at least once every 30 days.
(4) These monitoring and inspection
data must be recorded and the records
must be placed in the operating log.
(k) Recordkeeping. The owner or
operator must keep in the operating
record of the facility all information and
data required by this section for a
period of three years.
(1) Closure. At closure, the owner or
operator must remove all hazardous
waste and hazardous waste residue*
(including, but not limited to. ash.
scrubber waters, and scrubber sludges)
from the boiler or industrial furnace and
must comply with \\ 265.111-265.115 of
this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0073)
§266.104 Standards to control organic
(a) ORE standard—<1) General.
Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section, a boiler or industrial
furnace burning hazardous waste must
achieve a destruction and removal
efficiency (ORE) of 99.99% for all organic
hazardous constituents in the waste
feed. To demonstrate confonnance with
this requirement 99.99% ORE must be
demonstrated during a trial bum for
each principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) designated (under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section) in its
permit for each waste feed. ORE is
determined for each POHC from the
following equation:
ORE:
[ i-Wtit
I w.
XlOO
where:
W „= Matt feed rate of one principal
organic hazardout constituent (POHC) in
the hazardous watte fired to the boiler or
industrial furnace: and
W ,*= Mass emission rate of the same
POHC present in ttack gas prior to
release to the atmosphere.
(2) Designation of POHCs. Principal
organic hazardous constituents (POHCs)
are those compounds for which
compliance with the ORE requirements
of this section shall be demonstrated in
a trial bum in confonnance with
procedures prescribed in { 270.66 of this
chapter. One or more POHCs shall be
designated by the Director for each
waste feed to be burned. POHCs shall
be designated based on the degree of
difficulty of destruction of the organic
constituents in the waste and on their
concentrations or mass in the waste
feed considering the results of waste
analyses submitted with part B of the
permit application. POHCs are most
likely to be selected from among those
compounds listed in part 261. appendix
VIH of this chapter that are also present
in the normal waste feed. However, if
the applicant demonstrates to the
Regional Administrator's satisfaction
that a compound not listed in appendix
Vffl or not present in the normal waste
feed is a suitable indicator of
compliance with the ORE requirements
of this section, that compound may be
designated as a POHC Such POHCs
need not be toxic or organic compounds.
(3) Dioxin-listed waste. A boiler or
industrial furnace burning hazardous
waste containing (or derived from) EPA
Hazardous Wastes Nos. F020. F021,
F022. F023, F026, or F027 must achieve a
destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) of 99.9999% for each POHC
designated (under paragraph (a)(2) of
this section) in its permit This
performance must be demonstrated on
POHCs that are more difficult to bum
than tetrra-. penta-. and
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans. DRE is determined for
each POHC from the equation in
paragraph (a) of this section. In addition.
the owner or operator of the boiler or
industrial furnace must notify the
Director of intent to burn EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021. F022.
F023, F028. or F027.
(4) Automatic waiver of DRE trial
bum. Owners and operators of boilers
operated under the special operating
requirements provided by f 266.110 are
considered to be in compliance with the
DRE standard of paragraph (a)(l) of this
section and are exempt from the DRE*
trial bum.
(5) Low risk waste. Owners and
operators of boilers or industrial
furnaces that bum hazardous waste in
compliance with the requirements of
1266.109(a) an considered to be in
compliance with the DRE standard of !
paragraph (a)(l) of this section and an
exempt from the DRE trial burn.
(b) Carbon monoxide standard. (1)
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of
this section, the stack gas concentration
of carbon monoxide (CO) from a boiler
or industrial furnace burning hazardous
waste cannot exceed 100 ppmv on an
hourly rolling average basis (i.e.. over
any 60 minute period), continuously
corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry gas
basis.
(2) CO and oxygen shall be
continuously monitored in confonnance
with "Performance Specifications for
Continuous Emission Monitoring of
Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen in
Hazardous Waste Incinerators. Boilers.
and Industrial Furnaces" in appendix IX
of this part
(3) Compliance with the 100 ppmv CO
limit must be demonstrated during the
trial bum (for new facilities or an
interim status facility applying for a
permit) or the compliance test (for
interim status facilities). To demonstrate
compliance, the highest hourly rolling
average CO level during any valid run of
the trial bum or compliance test must
not exceed 100 ppmv.
(c) Alternative carbon monoxide
standard. (1) The stack gas
concentration of carbon monoxide (CO)
-------
Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rulet and Regulations 7221
from i bailer or industrial furnace
burning hazardous waste may exceed
the 100 ppmv limit provided that stack
gas concentrations of hydrocarbons
(HC) do not exceed 20 ppmv, except as
provided by paragraph (f) of this section
for certain industrial furnaces.
(2) HC limits must be established
under this section on an hourly rolling
average basis (i.e., over any 60 minute
period), reported as propane, and
continuously corrected to 7 percent
Dxygen, dry gas basis.
(3) HC shall be continuously
monitored in conformance with
'Performance Specifications for
'Continuous Emission Monitoring of
Hydrocarbons for Incinerators, Boilers,
md Industrial Furnaces" in appendix K
of this part CO oxygen shall be
continuously monitored in conformance
'ivith paragraph (bH2) of this section.
(4) The alternative CO standard is
established based on CO data during
the trial burn (for a new facility) and the
compliance test (for an Interim status
lacility). The alternative CO standard is
ihe average over all valid runs of the
liighest hourly avenge CO level for each
tun. The CO limit is implemented on an
hourly rolling average basis, and
continuously corrected to 7 percent
(ixygen. dry gas basis.
(d) Special requirement* for furnaces.
Owners and operators of industrial
furnaces (e.g« kilns, cupolas) that feed
hazardous waste for a purpose other
than solely as an ingredient (see
5 266.103(a)(5)(ii)) at any location other
than the end where products are
normally discharged and where fuels
{.re normally fired must comply with the
hydrocarbon limits provided by
paragraphs (c) or (f) of this section
irrespective of whether stack gas CO
c oncentrations meet the 100 ppmv limit
of paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Controls for dioxint andfunm.
Owners and operators of boilers aad
industrial furnaces that an equipped
vrith a dry particulate matter control
device that operates within the
temperature range of 490-750 *P. and
industrial furnaces operating under an
alternative hydrocarbon mutt
established under paragraph (f) of this
section most conduct • site-specific risk
assessment as follows to demonstrate
tliat emissions of '^"riy^ted dibenzo-^>>
dioxins and dibenzofurana do not result
Li an increased lifetime cancer risk to
the hypothetical maxmna exposed
individual (MEI) exceeding 1 in 100,000:
(1) During the trial bora (for new
fucilitiea or an interim status facility
applying for a permit) or cosBotianoa teat
(for interim status facilities), detensine
emission rates of the tetra-octe
congeners of chlorinated dibenao-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans (CDDs/
CDFs) using Method 23. "Determination
of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins
and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
(PCDFs) from Stationary Sources", in
appendix IX of this part
(2) Estimate the 2,3.7.8-TCDD toxicity
equivalence of the tetra-octe CDDs/
CDFs congeners using "Procedures for
Estimating the Toxicity Equivalence of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxin and
Dibenzofuran Congeners" in appendix
IX of this part Multiply the emission
rates of CDD/CDF congeners with a
toxicity equivalence greater than zero
(see the procedure) by the calculated
toxicity equivalence factor to estimate
the equivalent emission rate of 23,74-
TCDD.
(3) Conduct dispersion modeling using
methods recommended in Guideline on
Air Quality Models (Revised) or the
"Hazardous Waste Combustion Air
Quality Screening Procedure", which an
provided hi appendices X and DC,
respectively, of this part or "EPA
SCREEN Screening Procedure" as
described in Screening Procedures far
Estimating Air Quality Impact of
Stationary Sources (incorporated by
reference in 1260.11) to predict tha
maximum annual average off-site
ground level concentration of 2*3.7.8-
TCDD equivalents determined under
paragraph (e)(2) of this section. The
mmciimtm jmniml average on*sits
concentration must be used when a
person resides on-site; and
(4) The ratio of tha predicted
maximum annual average ground level
concentration of 2.3,74-TCDD
equivalents to the risk-specific dose for
2,3.7.8-TCDD provided in appendix V of
this part £2 X10'') shall not exceed 1.0.
(f) Alternative HC limit for furnaces
with organic matter in raw material For
industrial furnaces that cannot meet the
20 ppmv HC limit because of organic
matter in normal raw material, the
Director may establish an alternative
HC limit on a case-by-case beats (under
a part B permit proceeding) at a level
that ensures that flue gas HC (and CO)
concentrations when burning hazardous
waste an not greater than when not
burning hazardous waste (the baseline
HC level) provided that the owner or
operator complies with the following
i eeuii entente. However, **"**"* kilns
equipped with a by-pass duct
the requirements of paragraph (g) of
section, are not eligible for an
alternative HC limit
(1) The owner or operator mast
demonstrate that the facility is designed
and operated to minimize hydrocarbon
emissions from fuels and raw materials
when the basslins HC (and CO) level to
rkterralfMd. The baseline HC (end CO)
level is defined as the average over all
valid test runs of the highest hourly
rolling average value for each run when
the facility does not burn hazardous
waste, and produces normal products
under normal operating conditions
feeding normal feedstocks and fuels.
More than one baseline level may be
determined if the facility operates under
different modes that may generate
significantly different HC (and CO)
levels;
(2) The owner or operator must
develop an approach to monitor over
time changes in the operation of the
faculty that could reduce the baaehne
HC level:
(3) The owner or operator must
conduct emissions testing during the
trial burn to:
(i) Determine the baseline HC (and
CO) level:
(ii) Demonstrate that when hazardous
waste is burned. HC (and CO) levels do
not exceed the baseline level; and
(iii) Identify the types and
concentrations of organic compounds
listed in appendix Vm, part 261 of this
chapter, that are emitted and conducts
dispersion modeling to predict the
maximum annual average ground level
concentration of each organic
compound* On-site ground level
concentrations must be considered for
this evaluation if a person resides on
site.
(A) Sampling and analysis of organic
emissions shall be conducted using
procedures prescribed by the Director.
(B) Dispersion modeling shall be
conducted according to procedures
provided by paragraph (e)(2) of this
section: and
(iv) Demonstrate that maximum
annual avenge ground level
concentrations of the organic
compounds Identified hi paragraph
(f)(3)(iii) of this section do not exceed
the following levels:
(A) For the noncardnogenic
compounds listed in appendix IV of this
part the levels established hi appendix
IV;
(B) For the carcinogenic compounds
listed in appendix V of this part the sum
for all compounds of the ratios of us
actual ground level concentration to the
level established hi appendix V cannot
exceed 1A To estimate the health risk
from chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxms and
dibenaofuran congeners, use the
procedures prescribed by paragraph
(eX3) of this section to estimate the
2,3^.8-TCDD toxicity equivalence of the
congeners.
(Q For compounds not Hated ia
appendix IV or V.Olmi
-------
7222 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
(4) All hydrocarbon levels specified
under this paragraph are to be
monitored and reported as specified in
paragraphs (c)(l) and (c)(2) of this
section.
(g) Monitoring CO and HC in the by-
pass duct of a cement kiln. Cement kilns
may comply with the carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbon limits provided by
paragraphs (b). (c). and (d) of this
section by monitoring in the by-pass
duct provided that:
(1) Hazardous waste is fired only into
the kiln and not at any location
downstream from the kiln exit relative
to the direction of gas flow; and
2. The by-pass duct diverts a
minimum of 10% of kiln off-gas into the
duct
(h) Use of emissions test data to
demonstrate compliance and establish
operating limits. Compliance with the
requirements of this section must be
demonstrated simultaneously by
emissions testing or during separate
runs under identical operating
conditions. Further, data to demonstrate
compliance with the CO and HC limits
of this section or to establish alternative
CO or HC limits under this section must
be obtained during the time that ORE
testing, and where applicable. CDD/
CDF testing under paragraph (e) of this
section and comprehensive organic
emissions testing under paragraph (f) is
conducted.
(i) Enforcement. For the purposes of
permit enforcement compliance with
the operating requirements specified in
the permit (under § 266.102) will be
regarded as compliance with this
section. However, evidence that
compliance with those permit conditions
is insufficient to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this section may be
"information" justifying modification or
revocation and re-issuance of a permit
under $ 270.41 of this chapter.
S 266.10$ Standards to control pwttauM*
nutter.
(a) A boiler or industrial furnace
burning hazardous waste may not emit
paniculate matter in excess of 180
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
(0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot)
after correction to a stack gas
concentration of 7% oxygen, using
procedures prescribed in 40 CFR part 80.
appendix A. methods 1 through 5. and
appendix IX of this part
(b) An owner or operator meeting the
requirements of \ 266.109(b) for the low
risk waste exemption is exempt from the
paniculate matter standard.
(c) For the purposes of permit
enforcement compliance with the
operating requirements specified in the
permit (under i 266.102) will be regarded
as compliance with this section.
However, evidence that compliance
with those permit conditions is
insufficient to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this section may be
"information" justifying modification or
revocation and re-issuance of a permit
under { 270.41 of this chapter.
§ 266.106 Standards to control metals
emisslona.
(a) General. The owner or operator
must comply with the metals standards
provided by paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e),
or (f) of this section for each metal listed
in paragraph (b) of this section that is
present in the hazardous waste at
detectable levels using analytical
procedures specified in Test Methods
for Evaluation Solid Waste. Physical/
Chemical Methods (SW-846),
incorporated by reference in $ 260.11 of
this chapter.
(b) Tier I feed rate screening limits.
Feed rate screening limits for metals are
specified in appendix I of this part as a
function of terrain-adjusted effective
stack height and terrain and land use in
the vicinity of the facility. Criteria for
facilities that are not eligible to comply
with the screening limits are provided in
paragraph (b)(7) of this section. • .
(1) Noncarcinogenic metals. The feed
rates of antimony, barium, lead,
mercury, thallium, and silver in all feed
streams, including hazardous waste,
fuels, and industrial furnace feed stocks
shall not exceed the screening limits
specified in appendix I of this part
(i) The feed rate screening limits for
antimony, barium, mercury, thallium.
and silver are based on either
(A) An hourly rolling average as
defined in $ 266.102(e)(6)(i)(B); or
(B) An instantaneous limit not to be
exceeded at any time.
(ii) The feed rate screening limit for
lead is based on one of the following:
(A) An hourly railing average as
defined in S 266.102(e)(6)(i)(B);
(B) An averaging period of 2 to 24
hours as defined in § 266.102(e)(6)(ii)
with an instantaneous feed rate limit not
to exceed 10 times the feed rate that
would be allowed on an hourly rolling
average basis: or
(C) An instantaneous limit not to be
exceeded at any time.
(2) Carcinogenic metals, (i) The feed
rates of arsenic, cadmium, beryllium,
and chromium in all feed streams.
including hazardous waste, fuels, and
industrial furnace feed stocks shall not
exceed values derived from the
screening limits specified in appendix I
of this part. The feed rate of each of
these metals is limited to a level such
that the sum of the ratios of the actual
feed rate to the feed rate screening limit
specified in appendix I shall not exceed
1.0, as provided by the following
equation:
n
I
l-l
FRSU
where:
nxcnumer of carcinogenic metals
APR » actual feed rate to the device for
meul "i"
FRSL«=feed rate screening limit provided
by appendix I of this part for metti "i".
^i) The feed rate screening limits for
the carcinogenic metals are based on
either
(A) An hourly rolling average: or
(B) An averaging period of 2 to 24
hours with an instantaneous feed rate
limit not to exceed 10 times the feed rate
that would be allowed on an hourly
rolling average basis.
(3) TESH. (i) The terrain-adjusted
effective stack height is determined..
according to the following equation:
TESH-Ha+Hl-Tr
where:
Ha •Actual physical stack height
HI« Plume rise as determined from
appendix VI of this part at a function of
stack flow rate and stack gas exhaust I
temperature.
Tr-Terrain rise within five kilometers of
the stack.
(ii) The stack height (Ha) may not
exceed good engineering practice as
specified In 40 CFR S1.100(ii).
(iii) If the TESH for a particular
facility is not listed in the table in the
appendices, the nearest lower TESH
listed in the table shall be used. If the
TESH is four meters or less, a value of
four meters shall be used.
(4) Terrain type. The screening limits
are a function of whether the facility is
located in noncomplex or complex
terrain. A device located where any part
of the surrounding terrain within S
kilometers of the stack equals or
exceeds the elevation of the physical
stack height (Ha) is considered to be in
complex terrain and the screening limits
for complex terrain apply. Terrain
measurements are to be made from U.S.
Geological Survey 7.5-minute
topographic maps of the area
surrounding the facility.
(5) Land use. The screening limits art
a function of whether the facility is
located in an area where the land use is
urban or rural. To determine whether
land use in the vicinity of the facility i
urban or rural, procedures provided
appendices IX or X of this part
-------
Fadarml RagUtet /Vol. 56> No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7223
(6) Multiple stacks. Owners and
operators of facilities with more than
one on-site stack from a boiler,
industrial furnace, incinerator, or other
thermal treatment unit subject to
controls of metals emissions under a
RCRA operating permit or interim status
controls must comply with the screening
limits for all such units assuming all
hazardous waste is fed into the device
with the worst-case stack based on
dispersion characteristics. The worst-
case stack is determined from the
following equation as applied to each
stack:
K-HVT
When:
K«a parameter accounting for relative
influence of stack height and plume rise;
K-phy»ical stack height (meters):
K»stack gas flow rate (m'/second); and
T*exhaust temperature ('K).
The stack with the lowest value of K is
the worst-case stack.
(7) Criteria for facilities not eligible
for screening limits. If any criteria
ibelow are met the Tier I (and Tier U)
screening limits do not apply. Owners
and operators of such facilities must
comply with the Tier in standards
provided by paragraph (d) of this
section.
(i) The device is located in a narrow
valley leas than one kilometer wide;
(Ii) The device has a stack taller than
:20 meters and is located such that the
•terrain rises to the physical height
within one kilometer of the facility;
(til) The device has a stack taller than
;20 meters and is located within five
itilometera of a shoreline of a large body
<}f water such as an ocean or large lake;
(iv) The physical stack height of any
utack is less than 2.5 times the height of
.any building within five building heights
or five projected building widths of the
utack and the distance from the stack to
the closest boundary is within five
building heights or five projected
!building widths of the associated
building; or
(v) The Director determines that
utandards based on site-specific
ilispersion modeling are required
(8) Implementation. The feed rate of
metals in each feedstream must be
monitored to ensure that the feed rate
icreening limits are not exceeded.
(c) Tier II emission rate screening
.limits. Emission rate screening limits are
ipedfied in Appendix I as a function of
terrain-adjusted effective stack height
and terrain and land, use in the vicinity
af the facility. Criteria for facilities that
are not eligible to comply with the
icreening limits are provided in
paragraph (b)(7) of this section.
(1) Noncarcinogenic metals. The
emission rates of antimony, barium.
lead, mercury, thallium, and silver shall
not exceed the screening limits specified
in Appendix I of this part
(2) Carcinogenic metals. The emission
rates of arsenic, cadmium, beryllium,
and chromium shall not exceed values
derived from the screening limits
specified in Appendix I of this part The
emission rate of each of these metals is
limited to a level such that the sum of
the ratios of the actual emission rate to
the emission rate screening limit
specified in Appendix I shall not exceed
1.0, as provided by the following
equation:
2
t-i
=1.0
ERSL«>
when:
n—number of carcinogenic metals
AER» actual emission rate for metal "1"
ERSL« emission rate screening limit
provided by appendix I of this part for
metal "i".
(3) Implementation. The emission rate
limits must be implemented by limiting
feed rates of the individual metals to
levels during the trial burn (for new
facilities or an interim status facility
applying for a permit) or the compliance
test (for interim status facilities). The
feed rate averaging periods an the same
as provided by paragraphs (b)(l)(i) and
(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section. The feed
rate of metals in each feedstream must
be monitored to ensure tint the feed rate
limits for the feedstreams specified
under {{ 266.102 or 266.103 an not
exceeded.
(4) Definitions and limitations. The
definitions and limitations provided by
paragraph (b) of this section for the
following terms also apply to the Tier n
emission rate screening limits provided
by paragraph (c) of this section: terrain*
adjusted effective stack height good
engineering practice stack height terrain
type, land use, and criteria for facilities
not eligible to use the screening limits.
(5) Multiple stacks, (i) Owners and
operators of facilities with more than
one onsite stack from a boiler, industrial
furnace, incinerator, or other thermal
treatment unit subject to controls on
metals emissions under a RCRA
operating permit or interim status
controls must comply with the emissions
screening limits for any such stacks
assuming all hazardous waste is fed into
the device with the wont-case stack
based on dispersion characteristics.
(ii) The worst-case stack is
determined by procedures provided in
paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(ill) For each metal the total
emissions of the metal from those stacks
shall not exceed the screening limit for
the worst-case stack.
(d) Tier HI site-specific risk
assessment—(\) General. Conformance
with the Tier ffl metals controls must be
demonstrated by emissions testing to
determine the emission rate for each
metal air dispersion modeling to predict
the maximum annual average off-site
ground level concentration for each
metal and a demonstration that
acceptable ambient levels are not
exceeded.
(2) Acceptable ambient levels.
Appendices IV and V of this part list the
acceptable ambient levels for purposes
of this rule. Reference air concentrations
(RACs) are listed for the
noncartinogenic metals and 10'* risk-
specific doses (RSDs) are listed for the
carcinogenic metals. The RSD for a
metal is the acceptable ambient level for
that metal provided that only one of the
four carcinogenic metals is emitted. If
more than one carcinogenic metal is
emitted, the acceptable ambient level
for the carcinogenic metals is a fraction
of the RSD as described in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section.
(3) Carcinogenic metals. For the
carcinogenic metals, arsenic, cadmium,
beryllium, and chromium, the sum of the
ratios of the predicted maximum annual
average off-site ground level
concentrations (except that on-site
concentrations must be considered if a
person resides on site) to the risk-
specific dose (RSD) for all carcinogenic
metals emitted shall not exceed 1.0 as
determined by the following equation:
n
2
1-1
PM&cttd A/notent
Risk-Specific Doseu
where: n« number of carcinogenic metals
(4) Noncarcinogenic metals. For the
noncarcinogenic metals, the predicted
maximum annual average off-site
ground level concentration for each
metal shall not exceed the reference air
concentration (RAC).
(5) Multiple stacks. Owners and
operators of facilities with more than
one on-site stack from a boiler,
industrial furnace, incinerator, or other
thermal treatment unit subject to
controls on metals emissions under a
RCRA operating permit or interim status
controls must conduct emissions testing
and dispersion modeling to demonstrate
that the aggregate emissions from all
such on-site stacks do not result in an
exceedance of the acceptable ambient
levels.
-------
7224 Federal Regiater / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rulet and Regulations
(6) Implementation. Under Tier IU. the
metals controls must be implemented by
limiting feed rates of the individual
metals to levels during the trial burn (for
new facilities or an interim status
facility applying for a permit) or the
compliance test (for interim status
facilities). The feed rate averaging
periods are the same as provided by
paragraphs (b)(l) (i) and (ii) and
(b)(2)(ii) of this section. The feed rate of
metals in each feedstream must be
monitored to ensure that the feed rate
limits for the feedstreams specified
under 55 268.102 or 266.103 are not
exceeded. •
(e) Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening
limits. The owner or operator may
adjust the feed rate screening limits
provided by appendix I of this part to
account for site-specific dispersion
modeling. Under this approach, the
adjusted feed rate screening limit for
each metal is determined by back-
calculating from the acceptable ambient
levels provided by appendices IV and V
of this part using dispersion modeling to
determine the maximum allowable
emission rate. This emission rate
becomes the adjusted Tier I feed rate
screening limit The feed rate screening
limits for carcinogenic metals are
implemented as prescribed in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(f) Alternative implementation
approaches. (1) The Director may
approve on a case-by-case basis
approaches to implement the Tier II or
Tier in metals emission limits provided
by paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section
alternative to monitoring the feed rate of
metals in each feedstream.
(2) The emission limits provided by
paragraph (d) of-this section must be
determined as follows:
(i) For each noncarcinogenic metal by
back-calculating from the RAG provided
in appendix IV of this part to determine
the allowable emission rate for each
metal using the dilution factor for the
maximum annual average ground level
concentration predicted by dispersion
modeling in conformant with
paragraph (h) of this section: and
(ii) For each carcinogenic metal: by:
(A) Back-calculating from the RSD
provided in appendix V of this part to
determine the allowable emission rate
for each metal if that metal were the
only carcinogenic metal emitted using
the dilution factor for the maximum
annual average ground level
concentration predicted by dispersion
modeling in confonnance with
paragraph (h) of this section: and
(B) If more than ona carcinogenic
metal is emitted, selecting an emission
limit for each carcinogenic metal not to
exceed the emission rate determined by
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section
such that the sum for all carcinogenic
metals of the ratio of the selected
emission limit to the emission rate
determined by that paragraph does not
exceed 1.0.
(g) Emission testing—(I) General.
Emission testing for metals shall be
conducted using the Multiple Metals
Train as described in appendix DC of
this part
(2) Hexavalent chromium. Emissions
of chromium are assumed to be
hexavalent chromium unless the owner
or*operator conducts emissions testing
to determine hexavalent chromium
emissions using procedures prescribed
in Appendix IX of this part.
(h) Dispersion modeling. Dispersion
modeling required under this section
shall be conducted according to
methods recommended in appendix X of
this part the "Hazardous Waste
Combustion Air Quality Screening
Procedure" described in appendix DC of
this part or "EPA SCREEN Screening
Procedure" as described hi Screening
Procedures for Estimating Air Quality
Impact of Stationary Sources (the latter
document it Incorporated by reference.
see i 260.11) to predict the maximum
annual average off-site ground level
concentration. However, on-site
concentrations must be considered
when a person resides on-site.
(i) Enforcement. For the purposes of
permit enforcement compliance with
the operating requirements specified in
the permit (under § 266.102) will be
regarded as compliance with this
section. However, evidence that
compliance with those permit conditions
is insufficient to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this section may b*
"information" justifying modification or
revocation and re-issuance of • permit
under 1270.41 of this chapter.
1264.107 Standards to control hydrogen
cMorM* (HO) and cMorin* ga* (O.)
(a) General. The owner or operator
must comply with the hydrogen chloride
(Hd) and chlorine (CU) controls
provided by paragraphs (b), (c). or (d) of
this section.
(b) Screening limits—{l) Tier I feed
rate screening limits. Feed rate
screening limits are specified for total
chlorine in Appendix n of this part as •
function of terrain-adjusted effective
stack height and terrain and land use in
the vicinity of the facility. The feed rat*
of total chlorine and chloride, both
organic and inorganic, in all feed
streams, including hazardous waste,
fuels, and industrial furnace feed stock*
•hall not exceed the level* specified.
(2) Tier II emission rate screen limits.
Emission rate screening limits for HC1
and Cl» are specified in Appendix HI of
this part as a function of terrain-
adjusted effective stack height and
terrain and land use in the vicinity of the
facility. The stack emission rates of HC1
and Cb shall not exceed the levels
specified.
(3) Definitions and limitations. The
definitions and limitations provided by
3 266.106(b) for the following terms also
apply to the screening limits provided
by this paragraph: terrain-adjusted
effective stack height good engineering
practice stack height terrain type, land
use, and criteria for facilities not eligible
to use the screen limits.
(4) Multiple stacks. Owners and
operators of facilities with more than
one on-site stack from a boiler,
industrial furnace, incinerator, or other
thermal treatment unit subject to
controls on HC1 or Cb emissions under a
RCRA operating permit or interim status
controls must comply with the Tier I and
Tier n screening limits for those stacks
assuming all hazardous waste is fed into
the device with the worst-case stack
based on dispersion characteristics,
(i) The worst-case stack is determined
by procedures provided hi
I 266.106(b)(6).
(ii) Under Tier L the total feed rate of
chlorine and chloride to all subject ,
devices shall not exceed the screening
limit for the worst-case stack.
(iii) Under Tier 0. the total emissions
of HC1 and Cb from all subject stacks
shall not exceed the screening limit for
the worst-case stack.
(c) Tier HI site-specific risk
assessment*—{I] General Confonnance
with the Tier ED controls must be
demonstrated by emissions testing to
determine the emission rate for HQ and
Clt. air dispersion modeling to predict
the maximum annual average off-site
ground level concentration for each
compound, and a demonstration that
acceptable ambient levels are not
exceeded.
(2) Acceptable ambient levels.
Appendix IV of this part lists the
reference air concentrations (RACs) for
HQ (7 micrograms per cubic meter) and
Cb (0.4 micrograms per cubic meter).
(3) Multiple stacks. Owners and
operators of facilities with more than
one on-site stack from a boiler,
industrial furnace, incinerator, or other
thermal treatment unit subject to
control* on HQ or Cb emissions under •
RCRA operating permit or interim status
controls must conduct emissions testing
and dispersion modeling to demonstra
that the aggregate emissions from all
such on-sita stack* do not result in an.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7225
exceedance of the acceptable ambient
levels for HC1 and Ct.
(d) Averaging periods. The Hd and
Cla controls are implemented by limiting
the feed rate of total chlorine and
chloride in all feedstreama, including
hazardous waste, fuels, and industrial
furnace feed stocks. Under Tier L the
feed rate of total chloride and chlorine is
limited to the Tier I Screening Limits.
Under Tier II and Tier ED. the feed rate
of total chloride and chlorine is limited
to the feed rates during the trial burn
(for new facilities or an interim status
facility applying for a permit) or the
compliance test (for interim status
facilities). The feed rate limits are based
on either
(!) An hourly rolling average as
defined in S 266.102(e)(6); or
(ii) An instantaneous basis not to be
exceeded at any time.
(e) Adjusted Tier I feed rate screening
limits. The owner or operator may
adjust the feed rate screening provided
by Appendix I of this part to account for
site-specific dispersion modeling. Under
this approach, the adjusted feed rate
screening limit is determined by back-
calculating from the acceptable ambient
level for CU provided by Appendix IV of
this part using dispersion modeling to
determine the maximum allowable
emission rate. This emission rate
becomes the adjusted Her I feed rate
screening limit
(0 Emissions testing. Emissions
testing for HC1 and O. shall be
conducted using the procedures
described in Appendix IX of this part
(g) Dispersion modeling. Dispersion
modeling shall be conducted according
to the provisions of | 266.106(h).
(h) Enforcement For the purposes of
permit enforcement, compliance with
the operating requirements specified in
the permit (under { 266.102) will be
regarded as compliance with his section.
However, evidence that compliance
with those permit conditions is
insufficient to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this section may be
"information" justifying modification or
revocation and re-issuance of a permit
under S 270.41 of this chapter.
defined in 9 266.106{b)(3):
EXEMPT QUANTITIES FOR SMALL
QUANTITY BURNER EXEMPTION
•N quantity
stt* burner
5266.10* Sn
exemption.
(a) Exemption quantities. Owners and
operators of facilities that burn
hazardous waste in an on-site boiler or
industrial furnace are exempt from the
requirements of this section provided
that
(1) The quantity of hazardous waste
burned in a device for a calendar month
does not exceed the limits provided in
the following table based on the terrain-
adjusted effective stack height as
T«fTMV
adjusied
effective stack
togtnol
device
(meters)
0 to 3.9 ______
4.0 to 5.9
6.0 to 7.9
8.0 to 9.9
10.0 n 9
12.0 to 13.8
14.0 to 15.9
16.0 to 17.9 —
18.0 to 19.9 —
20.0 to 21 .9 —
22.0 to 23.9
24.0 to 25.9
20.0 to 27.9
28.0 to 29.9
30.0 to 34.9
35.0 M 39.9
Allow-
A^^A
aoia
hazard
out
warn
bumng
rata
(gat-
ton*/
fTIOfKh)
0
13
18
27
40
48
59
69
76
84
93
100
110
130
140
170
Terrain-
ad|u«ad
effective stack
hwgmot
device
(matara)
40.0 to 44.9
45.0 to 49.9 —
50.0 to 54.9 —
55.0 to 59.9 —
60.0 to 64.9
65.0 to 69.9
70.0 to 74.9
75.0 to 79.9
60.0 tt 64.9
65.0 to 69.9
90.0 to 94.9
95.0 to 99.9
1 00.0 to 104.9 . .
105.0 to 109.9 . .
110.0 to 1 14.9 „
115.0 or
QTSStsW*
A»ow-
ewe
hazerd-
oua
wasw
bumng
rata
(Gat-
tona/
fncNNh)
210
260
330
400
490
610
660
760
650
960
1.100
1.200
1.300
1.500
1,700
1.900
(2) The maximum hazardous waste
firing rate does not exceed at any time 1
percent of the total fuel requirements for
the device (hazardous waste plus other
fuel) on a volume basis;
(3) The hazardous waste has a
minimum heating value of 5.000 Btu/lb,
as generated; and
(4) The hazardous waste fuel does not
contain (and is not derived from) EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022,
F023, F026, or F027.
(b) Mixing with nonhazardoiu fuels. If
hazardous waste fuel is mixed with •
nonhazardous fuel, the quantity of
hazardous waste before such mixing is
used to comply with paragraph (a).
(c) Multiple stacks. If an owner or
operator burns hazardous waste in more
than one on-site boiler or industrial
furnace exempt under this section, the
quantity limits provided by paragraph
(a)(l) of this section are implemented
according to the following equation:
n
I
Actual Quantity Burned^
Allowable Quantity Burned^ O.O
when:
n means the number of stacks;
Actual Quantity Burned means the waste
quantity burned per month In device "1";
Allowable Quantity Burned means the
maximum allowable exempt quantity for
stack "i" from the table in (a)(l) above.
Not* Hazardous wastes that are snbiect to
the special requirements for small quantity
generators under i 281.5 of this chapter may
be burned in an off-site device under the
exemption provided by f 208.108. but must be
included in the quantity determination for the
exemption.
(d) Notification requirements. The
owner or operator of facilities qualifying
for the small quantity burner exemption
under this section must provide a one-
time signed, written notice to EPA
indicating the following:
(1) The combustion unit is operating
as a small quantity burner of hazardous
waste;
(2) The owner and operator are in
compliance with the requirements of this
section: and
(3) The maximum quantity of
hazardous waste that the facility may
bum per month as provided by
S 266.108(a)(l).
(e) Recordkeeping requirements. The
owner or operator must maintain at the
facility for at least three years sufficient
records documenting compliance with
the hazardous waste quantity, firing .
rate, and heating value limits of this
section. At a minimum, these records
must indicate the quantity of hazardous
waste and other fuel burned in each unit
per calendar month, and the heating
value of the hazardous waste.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0073)
I2M.1M Low rte*wa«ts) exemption.
(a) Waiver of ORE standard. The ORE
standard of ( 266.104(a) does not apply
if the boiler or industrial furnace is
operated in conformance with (a)(l) of
this section and the owner or operator
demonstrates by procedures prescribed
in (a)(2) of this section that the burning
will not result in unacceptable advene
health effects.
(1) The device shall be operated as
follows:
(i) A minimum of 50 percent of fuel
fired to the device shall be fossil fuel,
fuels derived from fossil fuel, tall oil, or,
if approved by the Director of a case-by-
case basis, other nonhazardous fuel
with combustion characteristics
comparable to fossil fuel. Such fuels are
termed "primary fuel' for purposes of
this section. (Tall oil is a fuel derived
from vegetable and rosin fatty acids.)
The 50 percent primary fuel firing rate
shall be determined on a total hsat or
volume input basis, whichever results in
the larger volume of primary fuel fired;
(ii) Primary fuels and hazardous waste
fuels shall have a minimum as-fired
heating value of 8.000 Btu/lb;
(iii) The hazardous waste is fired
directly into the primary fuel flame zone
of the combustion chamber and
(iv) The device operates in
conformance with the carbon monoxide
controls provided by i 200.10<(b)(l)
-------
7226
Federal Regular / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Devices subject to the exemption
provided by this section are not eligible
for the alternative carbon monoxide
controls provided by { 2B6.104(c).
(2) Procedures to demonstrate that the
hazardous waste burning will not pose
unacceptable adverse public health
effects are as follows:
(i) Identify and quantify those
nonmetal compounds listed in appendix
VIII. part 261 of this chapter that could
reasonably be expected to be present in
the hazardous waste. The constituents
excluded from analysis must be
identified and the basis for their
exclusion explained:
(ii) Calculate reasonable, worst case
emission rates for each constitutent
identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section by assuming the device achieves
S9.9 percent destruction and removal
efficiency. That is. assume that 0.1
percent of the mass weight of each
constitutent fed to the device is emitted.
(iii) For each constituent identified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, use
emissions dispersion modeling to predict
the maximum annual average ground
level concentration of the constituent.
(A) Dispersion modeling shall be
conducted using methods specified In
§ 268.106(h).
(B) Owners and operators of facilities
with more than one on-site stack from a
boiler or industrial furnace that is
exempt under this section must conduct
dispersion modeling of emissions from
all stack* exempt under this section to
predict ambient levels prescribed by this
paragraph.
(iv) Ground level concentrations of
constituents predicted under paragraph
(a)(iii) of this section must not exceed
the following levels:
(A) For the noncarcinogenic
componds listed in appendix IV of this
part the levels established in appendix
IV;
(B) For the carcinogenic compounds
listed in appendix V of this part the sum
for ail constituents of the ratios of the
actual ground level concentration to the
level established in appendix V cannot
exceed 1.0; and
(C) For constituents not listed in
appendix IV or V. 0.1 micrograms per
cubic meter.
(b) Waiver of particular matter
standard. The particulate matter
standard of 9 296.105 does not apply if:
(1) The DRE standard is waived under
paragraph (a) of this section; and
(2) The owner or operator complies
with the Tier I metals feed rate
screening limits provided by $ 266.100
(b)or(e).
§ 264.110 Waiver of DRE trial burn tor
Boilers that operate under the special
requirements of this section, and that do
not burn hazardous waste containing (or
dehved from) EPA Hazardous Waste
No». F020. F021, F022. F023. F026, or
F027. are considered to be in
conformance with the DRE standard of
§ 2B6.104(a), and a trial burn to
demonstrate DRE is waived. When
burning hazardous waste:
(a) A minimum of 50 percent of fuel
fired to the boiler shall be fossil fuel.
fuels derived from fossil fuel, tall oil. or.
if approved by the Director on a case-
by-case basis, other nonhazardous fuel
with combustion characteristics
comparable to fossil fuel. Such fuels are
termed "primary fuel" for purposes of
this section. (Tall oil is a fuel derived
from vegetable and rosin fatty acids.)
The 30 percent primary fuel firing rate
shall be determined on a total heat or
volume input basis, whichever results in
the larger volume of primary fuel fired:
(b) Boiler load shall not be less than
40 percent Boiler load is the ratio at any
time of the total heat input to the
maximum design heat input
(c) Primary fuels and hazardous waste
fuels shall have a minimum as-fired
heating value of 8.000 Btu/lb. and each
material fired in a burner where
hazardous waste is fired must have a
heating value of at least 0,000 Btu/lb. as-
fired:
(d) The device shall operate in
conformance with the carbon monoxide
standard provided by i 266.104(b)(l).
Boilers subject to the waiver of the ORE
trial burn provided by this section art
not eligible for the alternative carbon
monoxide standard provided by
S 266.104(c);
(e) The boiler must be a watcrtube
type boiler that does not feed fuel using
a stoker or stoker type mechanism: and
(f) The hazardous waste shall be fired
directly into the primary fuel flame zone
of the combustion chamber with an air
or steam atomization firing system,
mechanical atomization system, or a
rotary cup atomization system under the
following conditions:
(1) Viscosity. The viscosity of the
hazardous waste fuel as-fired shall not
exceed 300 SSU:
(2) Particle size. When a high pressure
air or steam atomizer, low pressure
atomizer, or mechanical atomizer is
used. 70% of the hazardous waste fuel
must pass through a 200 mesh (74
micron) screen, and when a rotary cup
atomizer is used. 70% of the hazardous
waste must pass through a 100 mesh
(ISO micron) screen*
(3) Mechanical atomization systems.
Fuel pressure within a mechanical
atomization system and fuel flow rate
shall be maintained within the design
range taking into account the viscosity
and volatility of fuel;
(4) Rotary cup atomization systems.
Fuel flow rate through a rotary cup
atomization system must be maintained
within the design range taking into
account the viscosity and volatility of
the fuel.
§266.111 Standards for direct transfer.
(a) Applicability, The regulations in
this section apply to owners and
operators of boilers and industrial
furnaces subject to SS 266.102 or 266.103
if hazardous waste is directly
transferred from a transport vehicle to e
boiler or industrial furnace without the
use of a storage unit
(b) Definitions. (1) When used in this
section, the following terms have the
meanings given below:
Direct transfer equipment means any
device (including but not limited to. such
devices as piping, fittings, flanges;
valves, and pumps) that is used to
distribute, meter, or control the flow of
hazardous waste between a container
(i.e.. transport vehicle) and a boiler or
industrial furnace.
Container means any portable device
in which hazardous waste is
transported, stored, treated, or
otherwise handled, and Includes
transport vehicles that are containers
themselves (e.g., tank trucks, tanker-
trailers, and rail tank can), and
containers placed on or in a transport
vehicle.
(2) This section references several
requirements provided in subparts I and
I of parts 264 and 265. For purposes of
this section, the term "tank systems" in
those referenced requirements means
direct transfer equipment as defined in
paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
(c) General operating requirements.
(1) No direct transfer of a pumpable
hazardous waste shall be conducted
from an open-top container to a boiler or
industrial furnace.
(2) Direct transfer equipment used for
pumpable hazardous waste shall always
be closed, except when necessary to
add or remove the waste, and shall not
be opened, handled, or stored in a
manner that may cause any rupture or
leak.
(3) The direct transfer of hazardous
waste to • boiler or industrial furnace
shall be conducted so that it does not:
(i) Generate extreme heat or pressure,
Ore, explosion, or violent reaction:
(il) Produce uncontrolled toxic trusts.^
fumes, dusts, or gases in sufficient
quantities to threaten human health:
-------
Federal Register / VoL 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7227
(iii) Produce uncontrolled flammable
fumes or gases in sufficient quantities to
|pose a risk of fire or explosions;
(iv) Damage the structural integrity of
the container or direct transfer
equipment containing the waste;
(v) Adversely affect the capability of
the boiler or industrial furnace to meet
the standards provided by J § 266.104
through 266.107; or
(vi) Threaten human health or the
environment.
(4) Hazardous waste shall not be
placed in direct transfer equipment if it
could cause the equipment or its
secondary containment system to
rupture, leak, corrode, or otherwise fail
(5) The owner or operator of the
facility shall use appropriate controls
a id practices to prevent spills and
overflows from the direct transfer
equipment or its secondary containment
systems. These include at a minimum:
(i) Spill prevention controls (e.g..
check valves, dry discount couplings);
aid
(ii) Automatic waste fe«d cutoff to use
if a leak or spill occurs from the direct
dansfer equipment.
(d) Areas where direct transfer
vehicles (containers) are located.
Applying the definition of container
under this section, owners and operators
iTittst comply with the following
requirements:
(1) The containment requirements of
5 264.175 of this chapter;
(2) The use and management
requirements of subpart L part 265 of
this chapter, except for ii 265.170 and
2i>5.174: and
(3) The closure requirements of
§ 284.178 of this chapter.
(e) Direct transfer equipment. Direct
transfer equipment must meet the
following requirements:
(1) Secondary containment. Owners
and operators shall comply with the
secondary containment requirements of
5 265.193 of this chapter, except for
paragraphs 265.193 (a), (d). (e). and (i) as
follows:
(i) For all new direct transfer
equipment, prior to their being put into
service; and
(ii) For existing direct transfer
equipment within 2 years after August
21.1991.
(2) Requirements prior to meeting
secondary containment requirements, (i)
For existing direct transfer equipment
that does not have secondary
containment the owner or operator
shall determine whether the equipment
i:t leaking or is unfit for use. The owner
or operator shall obtain and keep on file
at the facility a written assessment
reviewed and certified by a qualified.
registered professional engineer in
accordance with { 270.11(d) of this
chapter that attests to the equipment's
integrity by August 21.1992.
(ii) This assessment shall determine
whether the direct transfer equipment is
adequately designed and has sufficient
structural strength and compatibility
with the waste(s) to be transferred to
ensure that it will not collapse, rupture.
or fail. At a minimum, this assessment
shall consider the following:
(A) Design standard(s), if available,
according to which the direct transfer
equipment was constructed;
(B) Hazardous characteristics of the
waste(s) that have been or will be
handled;
(C) Existing corrosion protection
measures;
(D) Documented age of the equipment
if available, (otherwise, an estimate of
the age); and
(E) Results of a leak test or other
integrity examination such that the
effects of temperature variations, vapor
pockets, cracks, leaks, corrosion, and
erosion are accounted for.
(ili) If. as a result of the assessment
specified above, the direct transfer
equipment is found to be leaking or unfit
for use. the owner or operator shall
comply with the requirements of
Si 265.196 (a) and (b) of this chapter.
(3) Inspections and recordkeeping. (i)
The owner or operator must inspect at
least once each operating hour when
hazardous waste is being transferred
from the transport vehicle (container) to
the boiler or industrial furnace:
(A) Overfill/spill control equipment
(e.g.. waste-feed cutoff systems, bypass
systems, and drainage systems) to
ensure that it is in good working order:
(B) The above ground portions of the
direct transfer equipment to detect
corrosion, erosion, or releases of waste
(e.g,, wet spots, dead vegetation); and
(C) Data gathered from monitoring
equipment and leak-detection
equipment (e.g., pressure and
temperature gauges) to ensure that the
direct transfer equipment is being
operated according to its design.
(ii) The owner or operator must
inspect cathodic protection systems, if
used, to ensure that they are functioning
properly according to the schedule
provided by | 265.195(b) of this chapter
(iii) Records of inspections made
under this paragraph shall be
maintained in the operating record at
the facility, and available for inspection
for at least 3 years from the date of the
inspection.
(4) Design and installation of new
ancillary equipment. Owners and
operators must comply with the
requirements of | 265.192 of this chapter.
(5) Response to leaks or spills.
Owners and operators must comply with
the requirements of i 265.196 of this
chapter.
(6) Closure. Owners and operators
must comply with the requirements of
i 265.197 of this chapter, except for
S 265.197 (c)(2) through (c)(4).
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0073)
$266.122 Regulation of residues.
A residue derived from the burning or
processing of hazardous waste in a
boiler or industrial furnace is not
excluded from the definition of a
hazardous waste under i 261.4(b) (4).
[?). or (8) unless the device and the
owner or operator meet the following
requirements:
(a) The device meets the following
criteria:
(1) Boilers. Boilers must bum coal and
at least 50% of the heat input to the
boiler must be provided by the coal;
(2) Ore or mineral furnaces. Industrial
furnaces subject to i 261.4(b)(7) must
process at least 50% by weight normal,
nonhazardous raw materials;
(3) Cement kilns. Cement kilns must
process at least 50% by weight normal
cement-production raw materials;
(b) The owner or operator
demonstrates that the hazardous waste
does not significantly affect the residue
by demonstrating cpnformance with
either of the following criteria:
(1) Comparison of waste-derived
residue with normal residue. The waste*
derived residue must not contain
appendix VIII. part 261 constituents
(toxic constituents) that could
reasonably be attributable to the
hazardous waste at concentrations
significantly higher than in residue
generated without burning or processing
of hazardous waste, using th« following
procedure. Toxic compounds that could
reasonably be attributable to burning or
processing the hazardous waste
(constituents of concern) include toxic
constituents in the hazardous waste,
and the organic compounds listed in
appendix vm of this part that may be
generated as products of incomplete
combustion. Sampling and analyses
shall be in confonnance with procedures
prescribed in Tett Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/
Chemical Methods, incorporated by
reference in 1280.11(a) of this chapter.
(i) Normal residue. Concentrations of
toxic constituents of concern in normal
residue shall be determined based on
analyses of a minimum of 10 composite
samples. The upper 95% confidence level
about the mean of the concentration in
the normal residue shall be considered
-------
7228 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
the statistically-derived concentration in
the normal residue. If changes in raw
materials or fuels reduce the
statistically-derived concentrations of
the toxic constituents of concern in the
normal residue, the statistically-derived
concentrations must be revised or
statistically-derived concentrations of
toxic constituents in normal residue
must be established for a new mode of
operation with the new raw material or
fuel. To determine the upper 95%
confidence level about the mean of the
concentration in the normal residue, the
owner or operator shall use statistical
procedures prescribed in "Statistical
Methodology for Bevill Residue
Determinations" in appendix DC of this
part
(ii) Waste-derived residue.
Concentrations of toxic constituents of
concern in waste-derived residue shall
be determined based on analysis of
samples composited over a period of not
more than 24 hours. The concentration
of a toxic constituent in the waste-
derived residue is not considered to be
significantly higher than in the normal
residue if the concentration in the
waste-derived residue does not exceed
the concentration established for the
normal residue under paragraph (b)(l)(i)
of this section; or
(2) Comparison of waste-derived
residue concentrations with health-
based limits—(i) Nonmetcl constituents.
The concentrations of nonmetal toxic
constituents of concern (specified in
paragraph (b)(l) of this section) in the
waste-derived residue must not exceed
the health-based levels specified in
appendix VD of this part If a health-
based limit for a constituent of concern
is not listed in appendix VII of this part
then a limit of 0.002 micrograms per
kilogram or the level of detection (using
analytical procedures prescribed in SW-
846). whichever is higher, shall be used:
and
(li) Metal constituents. The
concentration of metals in an extract
obtained using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure of
S 261.24 of this chapter must not exceed
the levels specified in appendix Vn of
this part and
(c) Records sufficient to document
compliance with the provisions of this
section must be retained for a period of
three years. At a minimum, the following
shall be recorded:
(1) Levels of constituents in appendix
VTJL part 261. that are present in waste-
derived residues;
(2) If the waste-derived residue is
compared with normal residue under
paragraph (b)(l) of this section:
(i) The levels of constituents in
appendix VnL part 261, that are present
in normal residues; and
(ii) Data and information, including
analyses of samples as necessary,
obtained to determine if changes in raw
materials or fuels would reduce the
concentration of toxic constituents of
concern in the normal residue.
3. Appendices I through X are added
to part 286 as follows:
Appendix L—Tier I and Tier n Feed
Rate and Emissions Screening Limits Toe
Metals
TABLE I-A.—TIER I AND TIER II FEED RATE AND EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR CARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN
NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN
CVduM for wbtfl i
•1
Terrain MftMttd tff. stack ht (m)
A.
« ,
«
10
12 ,..,.
14
1«
ia
x> ,
22 , ..,.. , ,rlll,
24 _
9*--. ,-,-,., ,., „.
y* ,-„„-,„„„„ .„
ao „.„„„ ,u,
as
40
45
SO ,,
«*...,
M
M „
70
75
BO.... _,,. „ .....
««
ao .
83
100 „
105 .
110..,.,,
115 ,.,,,
190- ,.
Anttnony (g/hr)
6.06+01
68E+01
76E+01
886+01
9.66+01
1 1E+02
1.36+02
1.4E+02
1.6E+02
1.86+02
2.06+02
2.36+02
2.6E+02
306+02
4.06+02
4.86+02
6.06+02
7.86+02
0.86+02
1.26+03
1.SE+03
1.76+03
1.96+03
2-26+03
2-56+03
2.86+03
&2E+03
3.86+03
40E+03
486+03
5.46+03
8.06+03
Barium (g/hr)
106+04
1.16+04
1 36+04
1 46+04
1.76+04
1 86+04
2.16+04
2.46+04
2.76+04
306+04
3.46+04
396+04
4.36+04
5.06+04
8.86+04
7.86+04
106+05
1.3E+05
1.76+05
2.06+05
2-56+05
2.86+05
3.26+05
38E+05
4.06+05
4.66+05
546+05
60E+06
686+05
786+05
6.86+05
1.06+06
LMd(g/hr)
1 ftFo.fl1
2_OPo.O1
23Po.ni
9AFxO1
3.06+01
34Po.ni
.iAPo.ni
436+01
4 APo.ni
54Po.ni
606+01
666+OT
7ftpo.ni
OOP » AI
1 1Eo.no
1 46+ 02
1 BE 0.02
2.36+02
306+02
366+02
436+02
50E+02
COB . 02
64E+02
76E+02
8.26+02
966+02
1 16+03
1 7E4.03
1 4Eo.O9
1 66 4- 03
1 66 -«-03
M*cury(g/hr)
ft.0Po.O1
AAPo.ni
7APo.ni
A AF o. 01
QAPo.ni
1 lFo.O2
1 IFo.09
1 46+02
1 APo.02
1 ft£ 0.09
9OEO.Q9
9_aPo.O9
9APO.O3
inPo.O9
4 ftp O- 05
46E+02
6.06+02
786+02
966+02
1.26+03
1 56+03
1 76+03
1 OP 4.03
52P4.03
2.56+03
2.86+03
3.26+03
38EJ.O3
4OP-».oa
4 HP . M
546+03
HOC 4. 03
S»Mr(g/tir)
A fie j. A«
AJE±fB
7OC >m
tHf±(O
986+02
1 iP-kO3
1 aFo.O9
1 4E+03
i 8^4.03
1 8Fo.Oa
2.06+03
2J6+03
2.66+03
90Cj.oa
406+03
486+03
6.06+03
7.86+03
986+03
1iE+04
146+04
1 76+04
1 96+04
J JCo.O4
2.56+04
2.66+04
3?Po.O4
.IAPo.04
4OPo.O4
4 APo.O4
5.4E+04
A OP 0.04
TtMNum (g/Dr)
H ACxO1
MM? 4.01
766+01
HHFj.01
966+01
1 16+02
1 3E4.O2
1 46+02
1 6E+02
1 8E+02
2.06+02
2J6+02
2.66+02
306+02
406+02
46E+02
60E+02
786+02
96E+02
1.26+03
1 56+03
1 7E+03
1 96+03
2.2E+03
256+03
286+03
3-26+03
386+03
406+03
466+03
546+03
6.06+03
-------
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7229
TABLE 1-8.—TIER i AND TIER M FEED RATE AND EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR NONCARCINOQENJC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN
NONCOMPLEX TERRAM
(VatoM tor rural
1
Terrain M^MMd tin. it** ht (m)
t
«
if
if)
1 4 r ' ..^..^..-..T- —-. -^..
1
1 .36+04
15E+04
1.66+04
Z2E+04
i6e+04
3.1E+04
TABLE I-C.—TIER I AND TIER tl FEED RATE AND EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR NONCARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
VrtiM tor urban and nnl
T«mm »d)us»»d «ff. stick hi Cn)
A
^
D
iri
17
11 t
It _ ,, ,, . .,.,
i(. .. .. _ „.
2
-------
7230 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1-0.—TIER I AND TIER II FEED RATE AND EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR CARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES IN
NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN
VlhJMf
Terrain adjusted ttf. Mack ht (m)
4 ._
6.. „.„........_......„....„........_„___._.
12..I .'. !!ZZ1~..ZL
14
18
18 ..„ . .
20 -
22
24 _ ...
9*
28 _
30 _
40. _ ...
45. °™ " ~'~
50 _ „
55 . _.. .
60 „.. _
65
70 _..
75... _ _ . .. .„ „.
80
B5
90
95 _
100
105..
110
115.
120.
oruwin urban i
Arsante (g/hr)
4.6E-01
S.4E-01
6.0E-01
6.8E-01
7.6E-01
8.6E-01
9.6E+01
1.1E+00
1.26+00
1.46+00
1.6E+00
1.8E+00
2.06+00
2.36+00
3.06+00
3.6E+00
4.66+00
6.0E+00
766+00
9.4E+00
1.1E+01
1.3E-I-01
1.5E+01
1.7E+01
1.9E-t-01
22E+01
iSE+01
2.8E-t-01
3.2E+01
3.6E+01
4.0E-t-01
4.6E+01
iratt
Cadmium (g/
hr)
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.4E+00
1.6E+00
1.86+00
2.1 E +00
£3E+00
2.6E+00
3.06+00
3.46+00
3.96+00
4.3E-t-00
48E+00
5.46+00
6.86+00
9.0E+00
1.1E+01
1.4E+01
1 86+01
2JE+01
2.86+01
3.1 E +01
3.6E+01
4.0E+01
46E-I-01
5,06+01
5.6E-t-01
6.66+01
7.6E-t-01
6.6E+01
9.6E-f01
1.1E+02
Chromium (g/
hr)
1.7E-01
1.9E-01
2.2E-01
2.4E-01
2.7E-01
3.1 E -01
3.5E-01
4.0E-01
4.4E-01
5.0E-01
5.SE-01
6.4E-01
7.2E-01
8.2E-01
1.06+00
1.3E+00
1.7E+00
2^6+00
2.7E+00
3.4E+00
4.2E+00
4.66+00
5.46+00
6.0E+00
8 BE +00
786+00
9.0E+00
1 06+01
1.1E+01
1 3E+ 01
1 5E+01
1.7E+01
BaryWum(B/
r»)
8.2E-01
9.4E-01
1.1E+00
1.2E+00
1.4E+00
1.5E-1-00
LTE-t-OO
2-OE-fOO
2X4-00
iSE-t-00
2.8E+00
3.2E-I-00
36E-fOO
4.06+00
5.4E+00
6.8E+00
SftE-fOO
1 16-1-01
1 46-t-01
1.76-1-01
2.16+01
2.46+01
2.7E+01
306+01
346+01
39E+01
4.46+01
506+01
5 BE +01
84E+01
72E+01
8i£+01
ValuM
ArMnic(g/hr)
2.4E-01
2.86-01
3^6-01
3.6E-01
4.3E-01
5.46-01
6.8E-01
826-01
1.06+00
1 3E+00
1.76+00
2.1E+00
2.7E+00
3.56+00
5.46+00
8.2E+00
1 1E+01
1.5E+01
20E+01
2.7E+01
3.66+01
43E+01
506+01
60E+01
72E+01
86E+01
1.06+02
1 9P.I.O2
1 4E+02
1 7E+02
2.0E+02
i4E+02
tor UM in rural i
Cadmium (g/
hn
5.8E-01
6.6E-01
7.6E-01
8.6E-01
1.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.6E+00
2.0E+00
2.56+00
3^E+00
4.0E+00
5.06+00
84E+00
8.2E+00
1.3E+01
2.06+01
2JE+01
3.7E+01
cne > A1
8.4E+01
8.66+01
1AE+02
1^6+02
1 46+02
1 7E+02
y np .09
2.46+02
9 QP±t&
346+02
A(f±{O
46E+02
5.8E+02
MM
Ovorwim (g/
rvi
8.6E-02
1 .06-01
1.16-01
1.3E-01
1.66-01
2.0E-01
2.4E-01
306-01
3.7E-01
4.8E-01
6.06-01
7.6E-01
9 BE -01
1.26+00
1.9C+00
3.0E+00
4JE+00
5.4E+00
7.26+00
9.66+00
1.3E+01
1 56+01
1 BE +01
2JE+01
2.66+01
3npo.ni
3.66+01
4 4CxO1
506+01
8.0E+01
726+01
8.6E+01
BwvWum
(g/nr)
4.3E-01
5.0E-01
5.6E-01
6.4E-01
7.8E-01
9.6E-01
1.2E+00
1 56+00
1 96+00
24E+00
3.06+00
3.96+00
506+00
6.2E+00
9.66+00
1.5E+01
21E+01
2.8E+01
38PxO1
4.BE+01
6.4E+01
7 BE 4-01
90E+01
1 16+02
1 3E+02"
i if±tO
1.8E+02
9 9PxQ9
2.6E+02
30E+02
36E+02
4.3E+02
TABLE I-E—TIER I AND TIER II FEED RATE AND EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR CARCINOGENIC METALS FOR FACILITIES m
COMPLEX TERRAIN
VafaM for UM in urban and rural
Terrain adjusted aff. Mack hi (m)
4
fi ..
a „ ,
10-
12--M,,,., u,,
14 ,... ,
:e
20 ._ ._. _
22. _.
24
26
28
30 _ _ __
35
40...
** —
55
60 „.
70 .....™.___.m.m!L" '" ~L_...ir """°~"""""""""
75!!"Z!ZIZ!....I"Z!I!!"!!Z"!Z"Z!™"Z! ~
go ""
95 ..._Z™L..LZZZZZ.... "
100.
105
110 .
115
120" !""„„' ' "'""'" "-"••"—
Artanic (g/hr)
1 IE 01
1 BE— 01
i46-01
3SE 01
43 01
50E-01
60E-01
6 BE— 01
7 BE 01
8.2E-01
90E-01
1.06+00
1.16+00
1 26+00
1 5E+00
1.9E+00
2.4E+00
206+00
35E+00
436+00
5.46+00
8.06 +00
6.86+00
7.66+00
8^6+00
9.4E+00
1 06+01
I^E+01
1 3E+01
1 SE+01
1.7E+01
1 9E+01
Cadmium (g/hr)
2 BE— 01
39E— 01
c HB_A«
82E— 01
1 OF.A.CM
3P . no
4E+OA
up . on
ac^/M
96+00
y 1P i nrt
24E+00
27E+00
1 nP^.iM
3 76+00
466+00
546+00
A aCa.QO
a AFa.OA
OE+01
.36+01
.46+01
66+01
8E+01
2.0E+01
23E+01
2 cc^ni
9 fte i oi
39ExO1
3 SC^ni
4.06+01
4 4g-i.ft1
Chromium (g/hr)
4 OF— O2
SAE_O2
mmf to
1 -Y_O1
1 4P ni
1 OP O1
9 9P.O1
9 4F O1
9 7P 01
SOP— ni
4 4C A1
36E— 01
40E-01
A AC ni
S4P.01
6 BE— 01
8.46-01
1 AP^OO
1 IP^AO
1.96+00
2J>6+00
2.46+00
i76+00
3.06+00
3.46+00
4AP^.fM
4 AP^Ofl
K4P^.OO
B.OE+00
A_4C^OO
B*y«um(g/hr)
20E— 01
29E— 01
43E_ai
62E— 01
7ttP_O1
a^e A*
1 1E+00
1 9P+00
1 3E+OA
1 56+00
i xf +ao
1 66+00
20E+00
9 9f±OO
j7Pi.no
34E+00
42E+00
c np^AA
A4PJ.AO
7 HP . on
966+00
1 1E+01
126+01
1.36+01
1. SE+01
1.7E+01
1 QP^.A1
9 4P^A1
9 7P.i.ni
3.06+01
i *JP ^.Oi
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7231
Appedix IL—Tier I Feed Rate Screening Limits for Total Chlorine and Chloride
TIER I FEED RATE SCREENING LIMITS FOR CHLORINE FOR FACILITIES IN NONCOMPLEX AND COMPLEX TERRAIN
T«min-adjuit*d «ff«ctiv* Mack height (m)
4 . ^
e .
U
10
U _, . __ , _, . .
14 ...
16
1g _i
?Q
jj , ., ,
24
28
98
30
35 ..... ,,-, „—-,..,„.,— ..tit— -i.. ....,-
40
45..,,. .... .,... „., ..... ,.-.-
f5 i
6S
85
7j
7j
8?
85
QJ ,., Mll , , .,.. , ,,.. , ,.
g; , . ..„,„,...,„„
ijO ,.-.,. .,. ., , , -r- ,.,-,-
195 _, ..... , ......,..-......,....,„- ,
110 ^ , ^ , ,„-,. ..„ ..... ....
115 , ... , , 4 ., „,„„ , „
1» . , . . - ., ,-,,
Nonco
UrtiMt(t)/hr)
1.8E-02
2.0E-02
2.2E-02
2.5E-02
2.9E-02
3.3E-02
3.7E-02
4.1E-02
4.7E-02
5.3E-02
6.0E-02
8.8E-02
7.6E-02
8.7E-02
1.2E-01
1.4E-01
1.8E-01
2.36-01
2.9e-01
3.6E-01
4.3E-01
S.OE-01
S.6E-01
6.3E-01
7.3E-01
8.3E-1
9.3E-01
1.16+00
1.26+00
1.4€-t-00
1.66+00
1. BE +00
mp4«
Rurri flb/hfl
9.26-03
1.0E-02
1.2E-02
1.46-02
1.7E-02
2.06-02
2.5E-02
3^E-02
3.SE-02
5.0E-02
8.3E-02
8.1E-02
1.0E-01
1.3E-01
2.1E-01
3.2E-01
4.4E-01
5.6E-01
7.7E-01
1.0E+00
1.4E+00
1.6E-fOO
1.9E+00
2.2E-I-00
2.8E-«-00
3.2E+00
3.8c-t-00
4.6E+00
5.4E-1-00
«.5£-fOO
7.7E+00
9.1E-t-00
Comp**"
(Ib/hf)
4.1E-03
6.1E 03
9.0E-03
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
2.06-02
2.3E-02
2.SE-C2
2.9E-02
3. IE -02
3.5E-02
3.8c-02
4.2E-02
4.7E-02
S.8E-02
7iE-02
B.BE-02
'.1E-01
1.4E-01
1.7E-01
2.0E-01
2.3E-01
ZSE-01
2.9E-01
3.2E-0)
3.6E-01
4.0E-01
4.4E-01
S.OE-01
S.8E-01
6^E-01
7.1E-01
Appendix IIL—Tier II Emission Rate Screening Limits for Free Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride
TIER II EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR Ct> AND HO IN NONCOMPLEX TERRAIN
4 ........... ...„..,
•
l| „,, , , .. . , ...... .... „ .... (
111 „... „,.. „.. ..... •
1? .
1.1
W .
nr-~. , ,- „. .... .. ..„„ „..-
?!>„,.., ,,. .... , , -
9>
J.I , ., .. ...... ... . ,
at..... ... .. , . . , , ,, , , „
«„,_ .„-..,.„ , ....
ai ,, . ^
as
*>.--„ „ „-- - - -- „ - - -
45—,
M .- ,..- - ,... „,- ....
M— - - - --- - „ , ....
*1- , .
*? - -- - -
Til .... .... , ..... , .._ .. .
Tl . . . .. .... .... ... „
•»- - - - ,-- ... ....
"* .- - - ,.,... ...
ftl- - ,, _
«" „
VtluMtoruM
Cii(g/Me)
2.3E-03
2.SE-03
2.BE-03
3.2E-03
3.6E-03
4.1E-03
4.7E-03
S^E-03
S.9E-03
6.7E-03
7.6E-03
8.SE-03
9.66-03
1.1E-02
1.SE-02
1.76-02
2JE-02
2.9E-02
3.6E-02
4.SE-03
SJX-03
6JE-02
7.1E-02
6.0E-02
9^E-02
1.0E-01
1.2E-01
InurtenarMt
HO (g/we)
4.0E-01
4.4E-01
4.9E-01
5.6E-01
6JE-01
7iE-01
82E-01
0.1E-01
1.0E+OO
1iE-t-00
1.3E+00
I.SE-t-00
I.TE^OO
I.BE-t-00
2.6E4-00
3.0E+00
4.0E+00
S.1E+00
6JE+00
7-BE-fOO
9.6E-*-00
1.1E-t-Ol
1JE4-01
1.4E+01
1.6€-t-01
1.6E+01
2.1E+01
VtkJMtaruM
O, (g/»M)
1iE-03
1.3E-03
1.5E-03
1.7E-03
2.1E-03
2.5E-03
3.2E-03
4.0E-03
4.9E-03
6.3E-03
8.0P-03
1.0E-02
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
2.7E-02
4.0E-02
S.6E-02
7.3E-02
9.7E.02
1.3E-01
1.7E-01
2.0G-01
2.4E-01
2.8E-01
3.SE-01
4.0E-01
4.8E-01
InrunlarM*
HO 00
23E+00
2.8E+00
4.7E-fOO
7.0E-KOO
9.6E-*-00
1.3E4-01
1.7E-f01
22£-t-01
3.0€>01
3.5E-4-01
4.2E-f01
496+01
6.1E+01
7.06+01
8.46+01
-------
72S2 Federal Register / VoL 5& No. 35 / Thursday, February 21, 1901 / Rule* and Regulations
TIER II EMISSIONS SCREENING LIMITS FOR d, AIW HO m NONCOMPUEX TERRAIN—Continued
Mum tu|uiHu •tMcQvt Me* Miam (m)
100 . , , - , , ,
10* . ... „„, ,-,--„„,„„„
110 _
11? U1 „ „„
1?0.,,. „„ ----- -,- ----- -
VduMtoruM
Ok nl
«.^-i^ i iMBunyrnnui .__—
Van_*m Pankx-da-—.
Xytanai
CAS No.
6533-734
7791-124
10102-45-1
12030-52-0
7446-184
137-264
12042-1
7540-4
131442-1
81414
133040-7
55741-1
131444-7
04
04
04
04
0.076
6
300
20
300
100
20
•04
60
60
04
Tha RAC lor othar Appandbi VW Part 261 con-
atluanta not Mad harain or m Appandbi V of Ma
Partla0.lu0/m».
APPENDIX V.—RISK SPEOFIC DOSES
(10-^
AerytortMa
AMriM
PnaMii
BaiyNuM.
*fl*
Carbon Ta
CAS
No,
i
107-
19-1
300-
004
6343-
3
7440-
984
9
71-43-
2
0247-
5
8
7440-
41-7
111-
44-4
64.-
117-
01-7
108-
7440-
494
Untt
rM
(not
U0)
I4E-03
I4E-08
1.96-03
'.46-06
146-03
I4E-04
146-06
L7E-02
146-03
L46-03
I4E-04
-26-02
L46-07
L0E-04
I4E-03
I4E-06
R*O
7.7E-03
I4E-01
LOE-03
1.46+00
Z4E-03
I.1E-M
14E+00
1.56-04
10E-03
«4E-03
I4E-02
I4E-04
I4E+01
I4E-OS
•H
17E-01
-------
Federal Register / Vol 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7233
APPENDIX V.—RISK SPECIFIC DOSES
(10'V-Continued
Cofl>ffliKnt
C^onlwtt
Cfvorofofrn -
Chromium VI
DOT
Dlb«nz(iJt)anthr*MrM _
1.2-O«)romo*
cNofopropm0 ..— ... *— «
1 ^^bromoettian* _
1 1-OteMoroMiarM
1 1 DIchtofotttiMttiK
1 T,rth-i^wr¥¥rM^MM
Prttttrtn
Pirn>thyfciMfCHMrtn<
1 1 DiortW*
EptcMorahydrtn
Ethytwn Oxkt*
6tftytan* OkromW*
CAS
Na
CT-74.
9
67-66-
3
74-87-
3
7440-
47-3
50-29-
3
53-70-
3
96-12-
8
106-
93-4
75-34-
3
107-
06-2
75-35-
4
542-
75-6
60-67-
1
1
62-75-
9
121-
14-2
122-
66-7
123-
91-1
106-
e»-e
75-21-
8
106-
93-4
Untt
n«k
(m3/
ug)
1.76-04
L36-05
5.66-06
1.26-02
).7E-06
1.46-02
L36-03
L2E-04
L66-OS
Z.66-05
5.0E-05
JJE-01
4.6E-03
.46-01
.46-02
1.86-05
12E-04
.46-06
^E-06
.06-04
126-04
R«0
(US'
m5)
L7E-02
I.3E-01
lee-t-oo
136-04
I.OE-01
ME-04
1.66-03
I5E -02
UE-01
L8E-01
i.OE-01
L9E-05
L2E-03
ME-05
ME-04
.1E-01
«.5E-02
7.16 -h 00
S.3E-t-00
.06-01
4.5E-02
APPENDIX V.—RISK SPECIFIC DOSES
(KTV-Continued
Conatttuant
Alpha-naxacnkxo-
dk»dn(1,2 Mbctuv)
Mathul Uujfcaihifc
• » _»— j |~j.|m,l J»
mvinyivnv vxmiiup
4.4' Mattiylana bH 2-
Nickfll RofvMfy Dmt»»..^,
CAS
No.
50-00-
0
76-44-
8
1024-
57-3
118-
74-1
87-68-
3
319-
844
319-
85-7
56-89-
9
87-72-
1
302-
01-2
302-
01-2
50 >49
5
80-34-
4
75-09-
2
101-
14-4
7440-
02-0
7440-
02-0
Untt
riak
(m3/
IJE-05
IJE-03
L6E-03
I.9E-04
L06-05
IJ6-03
S.36-04
J.8E-04
1.16-04
146+0
1.06-06
L9E-03
>.9E-03
L7E-03
ME-04
1.16-06
I.7E-OS
L4E-04
L4E-04
RaO
7.7E-01
7.7E-03
3.66-03
S.OE-02
5.0E-01
5.66-03
I.9E-02
L6E-02
LOE-02
r.7E-06
L5E+00
J.4E-03
1.46-03
I.7E-03
L2E-02
L4E+00
L1E-01
liE-02
l^E-02
APPENDIX V.—RISK SPECIFIC DOSES
(10-")—Continued
—
Ntrhfff SubtufVH
9-MttftMttnAAAA
aj fcua»»»j» ^ fc~ ^i ilaaail.i •
rr*nNiOVO-n-vUiyiMlwiV..«.
rt^MPM&'IWTWtnylurQft ....
PCflf
2J.7.8-T«*achloro-
<*b«rao-p-dto)on___
1.1A2-
TcneNoreMtara
fMn^Mf
Vinyl Gntoridt
CAS
Na
2035-
72-2
79-46-
9
924-
16-3
664-
93-6
55-18-
5
930-
56-2
82-68-
6
1336-
36-3
23950-
56-6
5
1746-
01-6
79-34-
5
127-
16-4
82-66-
6
79-00-
5
79-01-
6
2
8001-
35-2
75-01-
4
Untt
ri*
(m3/
ug)
».86-04
Z.7E-02
.6E-03
166-02
tJE-02
5.1E-04
7.3E-05
.26-03
166-06
I.OE-03
•.5E+01
(.86-05
I.8E-07
WE-04
I.6E-05
I.3E-06
1.76-06
1.26-04
ME -06
RlO
on Stack Extt Flow Rat* and QM TwnpwMun)
Flow raM (m3/s)
^n«
|J?-0* ,,,.
iO-19 ._
»ft-90
JC^99 , „
«ft_* 9, .„,.,.., „
50.74
r«_99
100-1499
0
1
4
9
13
17
21
24
27
29
31
34
36
39
41
42
46
49
51
54
56
56
-------
7234 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX VI.—STACK PLUME RISE—Continued
(Estimated Plum* Riaa (in Metart) B*Md on Stack Exit Flow Rat* and Gat Temperature]
Flow rat* 199 9
Exhaust Temperature (K1)
<325
22
23
25
26
26
325-
3-19
28
30
31
32
33
350-
399
35
36
38
40
41
400-
449
42
44
46
48
49
450-
499
46
48
50
52
54
500-
599
49
51
54
56
58
600-
690
52
55
58
60
62
700-
799
55
58
60
63
65
800-
999
56
59
62
65
67
1000-
1499
50
62
66
67
60
>1499
61
65
67
70
73
Appendix VII.—Health-Bawd UmiU for
Exclusion of Waste-Derived Residues*
METALS—TCLP EXTRACT
CONCENTRATION LIMITS
NONMETALS—RESIDUE CONCENTRATION
LIMITS—Continued
ConatttiMirt
Antimony ._
ArMnic
Barium.. .._ „
BaryWom
Cadmium
Ctvomium
Lead „
Marcury
Nickaf
Satanium ..._.....
Silvar _
CAS No.
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7430-02-1
7430-07-4
7440-03-0
7782-40-2
7440-22-4
Conoantra*
lion hmrta
(mg/kg)
IxE-i-OO
SxE-t-00
1x64-02
7xE-03
1xE+00
SxE^OO
5x64-00
2xE-01
7x64-01
1x64-00
SxE-f-00
NONMETALS—RESIDUE CONCENTRATION
LIMITS
Conttituam
Acatonitnfa WHH.MW
Acatopfwnona ...-
Acrotem :....
Acrylarmda
Acrytoourita „
Aldrtn
Airyl aloonol
Aluminurn phosphida ...
Anilina
Barium eyanida
Banzlatantficafla.
Banzana
Banzidina—
Bi*(2-cnloreatriyf)
amar.
Blt(cnloromatnyl) athar..
Bia(2-amyihaxyi)
phtnalata.
Brontofoffii .«..«..„......»..
CaWum eyanida
Carbon dHuMd*
Carbon tarachJoiida — .
CMordana
ChlorolonTi —_.........._....
Coppar eyanida
Craaola (Craaykc aod)._
Cyanogan
DOT
Dibanfla. h>.
anthracana
CAS No.
75-05-6
98-86-2
107-02-4
79-06-1
107-13-1
309-00-2
107-16-6
20850-73-8
82-53-3
542-42-1
56-55-3
71-43-2
02-67-6
111-44-4
542-68-1
117-81-7
75-25-2
502-01-4
75-15-0
56-23-O
57-74-0
t 06-00-7
67-66-3
544-02-3
1310-77-3
460-10-6
50-20-3
53-70-3
Concantra-
Don NrMa
forrevdum
(mg/kg)
ZxE-01
4XE4-00
5xE-01
2xE-04
7xE-04
2x6-05
2x6-01
1x6-02
6x6-02
1x64-00
1xE— 04
SxE-03
1xE-06
3x6-04
2xE-06
3x64-01
7x6-01
1xE-06
4x64-00
axe— 03
3xE-04
liE-t-00
8x6-02
2x6-01
2x64-00
1x6+00
1x6-03
7xE-06
Constituent
U-Dfcromo-3-
cMofOproptnt.
n.nirhk-aTrhthMTTAn*
an«.
1 . 1 -OicMorMmyf«n« .....
2.4-OicMoroph«nol
DMdrin —
Diethyt phthalate
DMnylstiltxMtwol ,
Dimethcete
2.4-OMtrotoluene
UlpnfnytafTMfW .HM.HH.M*..
Endoautfan. - ...
Endrin.
Cft*fhl/W%*fc*^fc%
Ethyfwtt oxid* ...........
HiptttCMOf«^..».MH*»MM
HmvrfUOfobutiaVJtoo*)
«4i^tf*A
QWnML
dtatfnt
Mkeffc*MM^ai
yuiuuen eyanida
tsobutyl tfoohol.»».««»«.
U^MMMMM^
MOJU am nyi ...„.„».,.„«
MeMfmycMor «..*»....«»...
4,4'-*4«tTf*n#m (2-
Mvthyt ethyl kffttxw
(MEK).
Mtttryl peWttaion
Naptttutorw
NicMI eytnidc
Nttrotwntnt
bufytovnvM.
N-Nltroeo-N-
metiylurea.
N-NMraaomfrolKlM —
CAS No.
96-12-8
106-46-7
75-71-4
75-3*5-4
120-83-2
542-75-«
60-57-1
84-86-2
56-63-1
60-51-5
121-14-2
122-39-4
122-46-7
115-29-7
72-20-4
106-«9-«
106-93-4
75-21-4
7782-41-4
64-18-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
67-«8-3
77-47-4
1 £408-74-3
67-72-1
302-01-1
74-90-8
7783-08-4
78-83-1
16752-77-5
72-43-5
56-49-6
101-14-4
75-09-2
78-93-3
60-34-4
298-00-0
91-20-3
557-19-7
10102-43-9
96-96-3
924-16-3
55-18-9
684-93-4
930-65-2
Concentra-
tion kmiu
lOTIMldUM
(mo/kg)
2x6-05
7.5x6-02
7x£-fOO
5x6-03
1x6-01
1xE-03
2x6-05
3xE-l-01
7x6-07
3x6-02
SxE-04
9xE-01
5xE-04
2x6-03
2x6-04
4xE-02
4x6-07
3x6-04
4x6 + 00
7xE+01
8x6-05
4x6-06
2x6-04
5xE-03
2x6-01
6x6-08
3x6-02
1x6-04
7x6-05
1xE-06
1xE+01
IxE-t-OO
lxE-01
4x6-06
2x6-03
5x6-02
CxE-t-00
3x6-04
2x6-02
1x£-t-01
7x6-01
4x64-00
2x6-02
6x6-05
2x6-06
1x6-07
2xE-04
NoNMETAis—RESIDUE CONCENTRATION
LIMITS—Continued
Cootttuent
un* (PCNB).
Dft)M^a«^^^
rTKXpVWW .w....—..^
PolycnionnAttw
(xpoanyia. N.O.S.
Polaaalurn cyanlda ...»«.
PotaMkjmMvw
««j^«aa«^M
cywmML
PfWWTMt
PuffMbtA
Sf**nov»i ............ «„„
1A4*
TwaenMUuariMna.
1.1A2-
2J.4.6-
T«tracMofODh*fiol
Tairaainyl laad»*»««—*.«
ThaNum „
TftalKum(l) aeatat*
ThaMumfl) catbonata —
ThaNumd) chtortda
ThaWunXI) nilratt
ThaMun aaMrMa
ThaNunxl) auMatt
ThKMTM ..^ u -,
TotUtBt,,, ,. -,.,, jinn,
T»»»«ati^ia
. i ,2-Tncniofoaviana —
rnatttafw.
Z4>TrteMoraphanol—
2.4.6-TricnlofopnafxX ~
V*«^M4k^w «»^«^w«wb^M
•nvBum pvrmDDBHHM
Vkl)t
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7235
Appendix VOL—Potential PIC* for
Detetminatian of Exclusion of Waste-
Uerived Residue*
PtCs FOUND IN STACK EFFLUENTS
VOttWW
Carbon tetrachiond*..
Miettylww chtond*
TncMoro»thy»«n« __
TMracMoro«ny«en«..
1,1.1-TricMwMMrw..
niMnzMW
Gromoenorentttnan*..
8romo*cntofomem«x
8n
6n
MIMtryl •my) k*ion*
BW2-
•mytwxyl)phtt«tit*
Naphthawn*
Phwiol
Dwihytphthriat*
Butyl banwt phttialal*
o^icMorobi
nvOichtorobtre
p^ieNorotMmn*
HwcnkxolMnMn*
2.4.6-Trichlorophanol
Fhiortnlhsfw
o^MopMnol
o-CNoroptMnol
PantteMoroptwnol
OvnMhy
MonoratrotMnztn*
2.8-TohMn* dMOcyancn
Appendices IX and X will be
published in the Federal Register in the
near future. Appendix IX is Method*
Manual for Compliance with BIF
regulation*. U.S. EPA. December 1990.
available from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS). 5285 Port
Eioyal Road. Springfield. VA 22161. (703)
487-4600. document number PB91-120-
006. Appendix X is Guideline on Air
Quality Model* (Revised) (1966). U.S.
EPA. including Supplement A (1967).
a vaUable from NTIS. 5285 Port Royal
Road. Springfield. VA 22161. document
numbers PB86-245-248 (Guideline) and
upplement A).
PART 270-EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM.
VI. In part 270:
1. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follows:
AttthoRtr 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6812. 6924. 6825.
6927. 6939. and 6074.
2. Part 270 is amended by adding
! 270.22 to read as follows:
$270.22 Specific Pert BMonMtton
c sQutrefnentB for boHere and (nduetrisJ
furnace* burning hazerdoue waste.
(a) Trial bums— (1) General. Except
tis provided below, owner* and
operators that are subject to the
t tandards to control organic emissions
provided by f 266.104 of this chapter.
c tandards to control paniculate matter
provided by 1 266.105 of this chapter.
(•tandards to control metals emission*
provided by I 266.106 of 4hi* chapter, or
utandard* to control hydrogen chloride
or chlorine gas emissions provided by
S 266.107 of this chapter must conduct a
trial bum to demonstrate conformance
with those standards and must submit a
trial burn plan or the results of a trial
bum. including all required
determinations, in accordance with
S 270.66.
(i) A trial burn to demonstrate
conformance with a particular emission
standard may be waived under
provisions of §5 266.104 through 2G6.107
of this chapter and paragraphs (a)(2)
through (a)(5) of this section: and
(ii) The owner or operator may submit
data in lieu of a trial burn, as prescribed
in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
(2) Waiver of tried bum for DRE—{\)
Boilers operated under special
operating requirements. When seeking
to be permitted under iS 26&104(a)(4)
and 266.110 of this chapter that
automatically waive the ORE trial burn.
the owner or operator of a boiler must
submit documentation that the boiler
operates under the special operating
requirements provided by { 266.110 of
this chapter.
(ii) Boilers and industrial furnaces
burning low risk waste. When seeking
to be permitted under the provisions for
low risk waste provided by
if 266.104(a)(5) and 266.109(a) of this
chapter that waive the ORE trial burn.
the owner or operator must submit:
(A) Documentation that the device is
operated hi conformance with the
requirements of 1266.108(aHl) of thi*
chapter.
(B) Result* of analyses of each waste
to be burned, documenting the
concentrations of nonmetal compounds
listed in appendix VIII of part 261 of thi*
chapter, except for those constituents
that would reasonably not be expected
to be in the waste. The constituent*
excluded from analysis must be
identified and the bast* for their
exclusion explained. The analysis must
rely on analytical technique* specified
in Test Methods for the Evaluation of
Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical
Methods (incorporated by reference, see
i 260.11).
(C) Documentation of hazardous
waste firing rates and calculations of
reasonable, worst-case emission rates of
each constituent identified in paragraph
(a)(l)(ii)(B) of thi* section using
procedure* provided by
$ 266.109(a)(2)(ii) of thi* chapter.
(D) Results of emissions dispersion
modeling for emissions identified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(C) of this section
using modeling procedure* prescribed
by I 266.106(h) of this chapter. The
Director will review the emission
modeling conducted by the applicant to
determine conformance with these
procedures. The Director will either
approve the modeling or determine that
alternate or supplementary modeling is
appropriate.
(E) Documentation that the maximum
annual average ground level
concentration of each constituent
identified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of
this section quantified in conformance
with paragraph (a)(2)(;i](D) of this
section does not exceed the allowable
ambient level established in appendices
IV or V of part 286. .The acceptable
ambient concentration for emitted
constituents for which a specific
Reference Air Concentration has not
been established in appendix IV or Risk-
Specific Dose has not been established
in appendix V is 0.1 micrograms per
cubic meter, as noted in the footnote to
appendix IV.
(3) Waiver of trial bum for metals.
When seeking to be permitted under 'he
Tier I (or adjusted Tier I) metals feed
rate screening limits provided by
S 266.106 (b) and (e) of this chapter that
control metals emissions without
requiring a trial bum. the owner or
operator must submit:
(i) Documentation of the feed rate of
hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feed stocks:
(Ii) Documentation of the
concentration of each metal controlled
by i 268.106 (b) or (e) of this chapter in
the hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feedstocks, and
calculations of the total feed rate of
each metal;
(iii) Documentation of how the
applicant will ensure that the Tier I feed
rate screening limits provided by
{ 266.106 (b) or (e) of this chapter will
not be exceeded during the averaging
period provided by that paragraph:
(iv) Documentation to support the
determination of the terrain-adjusted
effective stack height good engineering
practice stack height terrain type, and
land use as provided by 1266.106 (b)(3)
through (b)(5) of thi* chapter.
(v) Documentation of compliance with
the provision* of i 266.106(b)(6). if
applicable, for facilities with multiple
stacks:
(vi) Documentation that the facility
does not fail the criteria provided by
S 266.106(b)(7) for eligibility to comply
with the screening limits: and
(vii) Proposed sampling and metal*
analysis plan for the hazardous waste.
other fuels, and industrial furnace feed
stocks.
(4) Waiver of trial bum for particulata
matter. When seeking to be permitted
under the low risk waste provisions of
I 266.109(b) which waives the
particuUte standard (and trial bum to
-------
7236 Federal Register / VoL 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
demonstrate conformance with the
particular standard), applicants must
submit documentation supports?
conformance with paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)
and (a)(3) of this section.
(5) Waiver of trial bum for HC1 and
Cl,. When seeking to be permitted under
the Tier 1 (or adjusted Tier I) feed rate
screening limits for total chloride and
chlorine provided by 9 266.107 (b)(l) and
(e) of this chapter that control emissions
of hydrogen chloride (HG) and chlorine
gas (Cb) without requiring a trial bum,
the owner or operator must submit
(i) Documentation of the feed rate of
hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feed stocks;
(ii) Documentation of the levels of
total chloride and chlorine in the
hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feedstocks, and
calculations of the total feed rate of total
chloride and chlorine;
(iii) Documentation of how the
applicant will ensure that the Tier I (or
adjusted Tier 1} feed rate screening
limits provided by 8 266.107 (b)(l) or (e)
of this chapter will not be exceeded
during the averaging period provided by
.that paragraph;
(vi) Documentation to support the
determination of the terrain-adjusted
effective stack height good engineering
practice, stack height terrain type, and
land use as provided by 8 266.107(b)(3)
of ihis chapter
(v) Documentation of compliance with
the provisions of 8 260.107(b)(4), if
applicable, for facilities with multiple
stacks:
(vi) Documentation that the facility
does not fail the criteria provided by
8 288.107{b)(3) for eligibility to comply
with the screening limits; and
(vii) Proposed sampling and analysis
plan for total chloride and chlorine for
the hazardous waste, other fuels, and
industrial furnace feestocks.
(6) Data in lieu of trail bum. The
owner or operator may seek an
exemption from the trial bum
requirements to demonstrate
conformance with 8 8 266.104 through
266.107 of this chapter and 8 270.68 by
providing the information required by
9 270.66 from previous compliance
testing of the device in conformance
with 8 266.103 of this chapter, or from
compliance testing or trial or
operational bums of similar boilers or
industrial furnaces burning similar
hazardous wastes under similar
conditions. If data from a similar device
is used to support a trial bum waiver,
the design and operating information
required by 8 270.66 must be provided
for both the similar device and the
device to which the data is to be
applied, and a comparison of the design
and operating information must be
provided The Director shall approve •
permit application without a trial burn if
he finds that the hazardous wastes are
sufficiently similar, the devices are
sufficiently similar, the operating
conditions are sufficiently similar, and
the data from from other compliance
tests, trial bums, or operational burns
an adequate to specify (under 8 266.102
of this chapter) operating conditions that
will ensure conformance with
9 266.102(c) of this chapter. In addition.
the following information shall be
submitted:
(i) For a waiver from any trial bum:
(A) A description and analysis of the
hazardous waste to be burned compared
with the hazardous waste for which
data from compliance testing, or
operational or trial bums are provided
to support the contention that a trial
burn is not needed:
(6) The design and operating
conditions of the boiler or industrial
furnace to be used, compared with that
for which comparative bum data an
available; and
(C) Such supplemental information as
the Director finds necessary to achieve
the purposes of this paragraph.
(ii) For a waiver of the DRB trial bum.
the basis for selection of POHCs used in
the other trial or operational bums
which demonstrate compliance with the
DRE performance standard in
8 286.104(8) of this chapter. This
analysis should specify the constituents
in appendix vm, part 281 of this
chapter, that the applicant has identified
in the hazardous waste for which a
permit is sought and any differences
from the POHCs in the hazardous waste
for which bum data are provided
(b) Alternative HC limit for industrial
furnaces with organic matter in raw
materials. Owners and operators of
industrial furnaces requesting an
alternative HC limit under 8 286.104(0 of
this chapter shall submit the following
information at a minimum-
(1) Documentation that the furnace is
designed and operated to minimze HC
emissions from fuels and raw materials:
(2) Documentation of the proposed
baseline flue gas HC (and CO)
concentration, including data on HC
(and CO) levels during tests when the
facility produced normal products under
normal operating conditions from
normal raw materials while burning
normal fuels and when not burning
hazardous waste:
(3) Test burn protocol to confirm the
baseline HC (and CO) level including
information on the type and flow rate of
all feedstnams. point of introduction of
all feedstreams, total organic carbon
content (or other appropriate measure of
organic content) of all nonfuel
feedstreams, and operating conditions
that affect combustion of fuel(s) and
destruction of hydrocarbon emissions
from nonfuel sources;
(4) Trial bum plan to:
(i) Demonstrate that flue gas HC (and
CO) concentrations when burning
hazardous waste do not exceed the
baseline HC (and CO) level; and
(ii) Identify the types and
concentrations of organic compounds
listed in appendix VUL part 261 of this
chapter, that are emitted when burning
hazardous waste in conformance with
procedures prescribed by the Director
(5) Implementation plan to monitor
over time changes in the operation of the
faculty that could reduce the baseline
HC level and procedures to periodically
confirm the baseline HC level; and
(6) Such other information as the
Director finds necessary to achieve th*
purposes of this paragraph.
(c) Alternative metals implementation
approach. When seeking to be permitted
under an alternative metals
implementation approach under
8 286.106(0 of this chapter, the owner or
operator must submit documentation
specifying how the approach ensures
compliance with the metals emissions
standards of 8 288.106(c) or (d) and how
the approach can be effectively
implemented and monitored Further,
the owner or operator shall provide such
other information that the Director finds
necessary to achieve the purposes of
this paragraph.
(d) Automatic waste feed cutoff
system. Owners and operators shall
submit information describing the
automatic waste feed cutoff system,
including any pre-alarm systems that
may be used
(e) Direct transfer. Owners and
operators that use direct transfer
operations to feed hazardous waste
from transport vehicles (containers, as
defined in 8 288.111 of this chapter)
directly to the boiler or industrial
furnace shall submit information
supporting conformance with the
standards for direct transfer provided by
8 260.111 of this chapter.
(0 Residues. Owners and operators
that claim that their residues are
excluded from regulation under the
provisions of 8 288.112 of this chapter
must submit information adequate to
demonstrate conformance with those
provisions.
(Approved by the Office ofManamment
•ad Budgst under control number 2060-0073)
3. In 8 27O42, paragraph (g) is revisea
to read as follows:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 35 / Thursday. February 21. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7237
577O42 PMittmodWcrtonatttw
Lft^uset of the penntttse.
• • * • •
(g) Newly regulated wastes and units.
(1) The permittee is authorized to
continue to manage wates listed or
identified as hazardous under part 261
ol this chapter, or to continue to manage
hazardous waste in units newly
regulated as hazardous waste
management units, if:
(i) The unit was in existence as a
hazardous waste facility with respect to
the newly listed or characterized waste
or newly regulated waste management
unit on the effetive date of the final rule
hitting or identifying the waste, or
regulating the unit:
(ii) The permittee submits a Class 1
modification request on or before the
date on which the waste or unit
becomes subject to the new
requirements;
(iii) The permittee is in compliance
with the applicable standards of 40 CFR
parts 265 and 266 of this chapter
(iv) In the case of Classes 2 and 3
modifications, the permittee also
submits a complete modification request
within 180 days of the effective date of
the rule listing or identifying the waste.
or subjecting the unit to RCRA Subtitle
C management standards;
(v) In the case of land disposal units.
the permittee certifies that each such
unit is in compliance with all applicable
requirements of part 265 of this chapter
for groundwater monitoring and
financial responsibility on the date 12
months after the effective date of the
rule identifying or listing the waste as
hazardous, or regulating the unit as a
hazardous waste management unit If
the owner or operator fails to certify
compliance with all these requirements.
he or she will lose authority to operate
under this section.
(2) New wastes or units added to a
facility's permit under this subsection do
not constitute expansions for the
purpose of the 25 percent capacity
expansion limit for Class 2
modifications.
• « * • *
4. In j 270.42. Appendix I is amended
by reusing the heading of L and items 1.
4.5a, 6,7b. and 8 to read as follows:
Appendix I to Section 270.42--
Classifkation of Permit Modifications
Modification*
Qaaa
L Incinaratora. BoHara. and Industrial Furnace*
I. Changaa to toeraaaa by mm man 25% any of tha tallowing (knits authoflzad m tha pamwt A marmal toad rata In*. • faadaiiaam ta«d rata Urn*. •
chtonna/chionda taad rato KmH. • metal toad rMa hurt, or an art toad cata limit Tha Oiractor w* raoura a naw Mai bum to aubstanMa compkanca
with ma ragutatory parfunnanea standards untaea tMa demonstration CM* ba mada through omar maana-
;!. Changaa to increase by up to 25% any of tha following limits authorized in ma permit A thermal faad mta HmM. a loadstfaam toed rata HmH. a chtonne/
chtonda toad rato Kmlt. a matal teed rata limit. or an ash toad raw km*. Tha Director win raquira a naw tnal bum to aubaiarOato oompManoa with tha
raguMxv partonnancie standards urtaaa this oemonauauon can ba mada through other miens ------
:). Modrtionon of an incinerator. bo*jr. or Muemal lumaoa unt by chengmg ina internal eize or geometry of tha prmary or aacondary oombuaton urita.
by addng a primary or aacondary combuabon un*. by aubstantMMy changing me daaign of any componam uaad to ramova HCVCU. mat**, or
parttcuiato from ma combuation gases. or by chengmg othar faaturaa of tha tntinarator. boiar. or induetrta) furnace that could aftact Us capability to
maat tha regulatory partormanca standards. Tha Oiractor writ raquira a naw tnal bum to aubatantiato complianoi with tha regulatory parformanca
standards untata IN* claiiiuiiatiailun can ba mada through omar maana _ .. ___________________________________
.». Modrteanon of an ranerator. boiler. or nduttial fumaca untt m a mannar mat would not *eiy aftoot me capability of tha unn to maat tha ragulattry
partormanca standards but which would change me oparatmg conditions or monNonng raquiramanta specified m tha perm*, Tha Oractor may requve a
nawtnal bumtodamoncvato comphanca «mh ma raguatory partormanca tandarda ------------------------ ......... — ..........
5. Oparating rauuramanta.
of tha bmibi apaciflad In tha parmli for mwnum or majdmum combuation gaa tamparaturai mininHMi coiitfiuallon gaa raatdanca Sma.
amraton m tha •acondary oomouation chambar. ftua gaa carbon monoada and hydrocarbon conoamratton. naamum Hmparatum at ma
Mat to ma parbeuUH mattar ammion eontrex
bum to aubMamata compkanca wrtfi tha ragui
aya
tory
n. or oparattng oaramaiara for tha m poUuaon control ayaiam. Tha Orator w* raquira a naw tnal
•rtormanca atandarda unlaas mia damonatration can ba mada through omar mean*
«. Burning different wastes:
ik N the waste contame « POHC thai Is more drtficun to bum than authorized by the perm* or if burning of the
regulatory performance atanaards man epectfed m the parmrt The Director w* requre a new tnal bum to eut
partormarc* Kandarda urtaai tfia damonuraton can ba mada through othar maana -
I), ft tha waato doaa not contain a POHC that M mora difficult to bum man authomad by ma parmlt and N burning of ma <
compkanoa w«h diftarant ragtfatory partormanoa ttanoara* man apacalad m tha parmrt.
raojuiraa complianca with diffarant
Ma compkanca w«h tha ragutatory
i doaa not raqu*»
NC TE Saa 1270.42(g) tor modrftcaMn prooaduraa 0 ba uaad tor ma managamant of nawly Kattd or idanabad waataa
7. Shakadown and tnal bunt
• ••••••
I). Authorizaton of up to an additional 720 hours of wasta burning during tha ahakadown panod for datannMng oparaBonaJ laaitiiaaa aftor conaVuctlon.
wNh ma pnor approval of tha Oractor ____________
I). SubaHtiition of an attamaUva typa of nonhazatdo
»fual that la not spacifiad m tha pamat..
'Oaaal modHlca-ona raqumg prior Aganey approval
5. Part 270 is amended by adding
§ 270-86 to read as follows:
fufnacM burning hazardous wast*.
(a) General. Owners and operators of
new boilers and industrial furnaces
(tliose not operating under the interim
status standards of { 268.103 of this
chapter) are subject to paragraphs (b)
through (f) of this section. Boilers and
industrial furnaces operating under the
Interim status standards of I 266.103 of
this chapter are subject to paragraph (g)
of this section.
(b) Permit operating periods for new
boilers and industrial furnaces. A
permit for a new boiler or industrial
furnace shall specify appropriate
conditions for the following operating
periods:
(1) Prctrial bum period. For the period
beginning with initial introduction of
hazardous waste and ending with
initiation of the trial burn, and only for
the minimum time required to bring the
boiler or industrial furnace to a point of
operation readiness to conduct a trial
bum. not to exceed 720 hours operating
time when burning hazardous waste, the
Director must establish in the Pretrial
Burn Period of the permit conditions.
including but not limited to. allowable
hazardous waste feed rates and
operating conditions. The Director may
extend the duration of this operational
period once, for up to 720 additional
hours, at the request of the applicant
when good cause is shown. The permit
-------
7238 Federal Register / Vol 5ft No. 35 / Thursday, February 21. 1991 / Rides and Regulations
may be modified to reflect the extension
according to i 270.42.
(i) Applicant! must submit a
statement with part B of the permit
application, that suggests the conditions
necessary to operate in compliance with
the standards of § 5 266.104 through
266.107 of this chapter during this
period. This statement should include, at
a minimum, restrictions on the
applicable operating requirements
identified in § 268.102(ej of this chapter.
(ii) The Director will review this
statement and any other relevant
information submitted with part B of the
permit application and specify
requirements for this period sufficient to
meet the performance standards of
S § 266.104 through 266.107 of this
chapter based on his/her engineering
judgment.
(2) Trial burn period. For the duration
of the trial burn, the Director must
establish conditions in the permit for the
purposes of determining feasibility of
compliance with the performance
standards of j J 266.104 through 266.107
of this chapter and determining
adequate operating conditions under
i 266.102(e) of this chapter. Applicants
must propose a trial burn plan, prepared
under paragraph (c) of this section, to be
submitted with part B of the permit
application.
(3) Post-trial bum period, (i) For the
period immediately following
completion of the trial burn, and only for
the minimum period sufficient to allow
sample analysis, data computation, and
submission of the trial burn results by
the applicant, and review of the trial
burn results and modification of the
facility permit by the Director to reflect
the trial burn results, the Director will
establish the operating requirements
most likely to ensure compliance with
the performance standards of S § 266.104
through 266.107 of this chapter based on
his engineering judgment
(ii) Applicants must submit a
statement with part B of the application,
that identifies the conditions necessary
to operate during this period in
compliance with the performance
standards of { J 266.104 through 266.107
of this chapter: This statement should
include, at a minimum, restrictions on
the operating requirements provided by
S 266.102(e) of this chapter.
(iii) The Director will review this
statement and any other relevant
information submitted with part B of the
permit application and specify
requirements for this period sufficient to
meet the performance standards of
§ 9 288.104 through 266.107 of this
chapter based on his/her engineering
judgment
(4) Final permit period. For the final
period of operation, the Director will
develop operating requirements in
conformance with § 268.102(e) of this
chapter that reflect conditions in the
trial burn plan and are likely to ensure
compliance with the performance
standards of { 9 286.104 through 107 of
this chapter. Based on the trial burn
results, the Director shall make any
necessary modifications to the operating
requirements to ensure compliance with
the performance standards. The permit
modification shall proceed according to
S 270.42.
(c) Requirements for trial burn plans.
The trial burn plan must include the
following information. The Director, in
reviewing the trial burn plan, shall
evaluate the sufficiency of the
information provided and may require
the applicant to supplement this
information, if necessary, to achieve the
purposes of this paragraph: v
(1) An analysis of each feed stream,
including hazardous waste, other fuels,
and industrial furnace feed stocks, as
fired, that includes:
(i) Heating value, levels of antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, silver,
thallium, total chlorine/chloride, and
ash:
(ii) Viscosity or description of the
physical form of the feed stream:
(2) An analysis of each hazardous
waste, as fired, including:
(i) An identification of any hazardous
organic constituents listed in appendix
Vm, part 261. of this chapter that are
present in the feed stream, except that
the applicant need not analyze for
constituents listed in appendix Vm that
would reasonably not be expected to be
found in the hazardous waste. The
constituents excluded from analysis
must be identified and the basis for this
exclusion explained. The analysis must
be conducted in accordance with
analytical techniques specified in Test
Methods for the Evaluation of Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods
(incorporated by reference, see f 270.6).
or their equivalent.
(ii) An approximate quantification of
the hazardous constituents identified in
the hazardous waste, within the
precision produced by the analytical
methods specified in Test Methods for
the Evaluation of Solid Waste. Physical/
Chemical Methods (incorporated by
reference, see 1270.6), or other
equivalent
(iii) A description of blending
procedures, if applicable, prior to firing
the hazardous waste, including •
detailed analysis of the hazardous
waste prior to blending, an analysis of
the material with which the hazardous
waste is blended, and blending ratios.
(3) A detailed engineering description'
of the boiler or industrial furnace,
including:
(i) Manufacturer's name and model
number of the boiler or industrial
furnace:
(ii) Type of boiler or industrial
furnace;
(iii) Maximum design capacity in
appropriate units;
(iv) Description of the feed system for
the hazardous waste, and. as
appropriate, other fuels and industrial
himaee feedstocks;
(v) Capacity of hazardous waste feed
system;
(vi) Description of automatic
hazardous waste feed cutoff system(s);
and
(vii) Description of any pollution
control system: and
(viii) Description of stack gas
monitoring and any pollution control
monitoring systems.
(4) A detailed description of sampDng
and monitoring procedures including
sampling and monitoring locations in the
system, the equipment to be used.
sampling and monitoring frequency, and
planned analytical procedures for
sample analysis.
(5) A detailed test schedule for each
hazardous waste for which the trial bunf
is planned including date(s), duration.
quantity of hazardous waste to be
burned, and other factors relevant to the
Director's decision under paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(6) A detailed teat protocol including,
for each hazardous waste identified, the
ranges of hazardous waste feed rate.
and. as appropriate, the feed rates of
other fuels and industrial furnace
feedstocks, and any other relevant
parameters that may affect the ability of
the boiler or industrial furnace to meet
the performance standards in (S 266.104
through 266.107 of this chapter.
(7) A description of. and planned
operating conditions for. any emission
control equipment that will be used.
(8) Procedures for rapidly stopping the
hazardous waste feed and controlling
emissions in the event of an equipment
malfunction.
(9) Such other information as the
Director reasonably finds necessary to
determine whether to approve the trial
bum plan in light of the purooses of this
paragraph and the criteria in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(d) Trial bum procedures. (1) A trial
burn must be conducted to demonstrate!
conformance with the standards of
ii 260.104 through 266.107 of this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 35 / Thursday. February 21, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7239
chapter under an approved thai bum
•alajL
• (,:) The Director shall approve a trial
Bura plan if he/she finds that
(i) The trial burn is likely to determine
whether the boiler or industrial furnace
can meet the performance standards of
59 IJ66.104 through 266.107 of this
chapter
(ii) The trial burn itself will not
preuent an imminent hazard to human
health and the environment;
(iii) The trial burn will help the
Director to determine operating
requirements to be specified under
§ 2(i6.102(e) of this chapter and
(iv) The information sought in the trial
burn cannot reasonably be developed
through other means.
(;i) The applicant must submit to the
Director a certification that the trial
buri has been carried out in accordance
with the approved trial burn plan, and
muiit submit the results of all the
determinations required in paragraph (c)
of this section. This submission shall be
made within 90 days of completion of
the trial bum. or later if approved by the
Director.
() All submissions required by this
oar igraph must be certified on behalf of
fee applicant by the signature of a
Penion authorized to sign a permit
application or a report under 5 270.11.
(u) Special procedures for ORE trial
burns. When a ORE trial burn is
required under $ 266.104(a) of this
chapter, the Director will specify (based
on ihe hazardous waste analysis data
and other information in the trial burn
plan) as trial Principal Organic
Ha;:ardous Constituents (POHCs) those
compounds for which destruction and
removal efficiencies must be calculated
during the trial burn. These trial POHCs
will; be specified by the Director based
on information including his/her
estimate of the difficulty of destroying
the constituents identified in the
hazardous waste analysis, their
concentrations or mass in the hazardous
waiite feed. and. for hazardous waste
containing or derived from wastes listed
in part 261, subpart D of this chapter, the
hazardous waste organic constituents)
identified in Appendix VII of that part
as the basis for listing.
(I!) Determinations based on trial
bum. During each approved trial bum
(or as soon after the burn as is
practicable), the applicant must make
the following determinations:
(1) A quantitative analysis of the
lev«ls of antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead.
mercury, thallium, silver, and chlorine/
chloride, in the feed streams (hazardous
waste, other fuels, and industrial
furnace feedstocks);
(2) When a DRE trial bum is required
under J 266.104(8) of this chapter
fi) A quantitative analysis of the trial
POHCs in the hazardous waste feed;
(ii) A quantitative analysis of the
stack gas for the concentration and
mass emissions of the trial POHCs; and
(iii) A computation of destruction and
removal efficiency (ORE), in accordance
with the ORE formula specified in
$ 266.104(8) of this chapter
(3) When a trial bum for chlorinated
dioxins and furans is required under
$ 266.104(6) of this chapter, a
quantitative analysis of the stack gas for
the concentration and mass emission
rate of the 2.3,7.8-chlorinated tetra-octa
congeners of chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and furans. and a computation
showing conformance with the emission
standard.
(4) When a trial burn for paniculate
matter, metals, or HC1/CU is required
under { $ 266.105,266.108 (c) or (d), or
266.107 (b)(2) or (c) of this chapter, a
quantitative analysis of the stack gas for
the concentrations and mass emissions
of participate matter, metals, or
hydrogen chloride (HC1) and chlorine
(Clj), and computations showing
conformance with the applicable
emission performance standards;
(5) When a trial burn for ORE, metals,
or HCl/Cb is required under
S 9 266.104(8), 268.106 (c) or (d], or
266.107 (b)(2) or (c) of this chapter, a
quantitative analysis of the scrubber
water (if any), ash residues, other
residues, and products for the puroose
of estimating the fate of the trial POHCs.
metals, and chlorine/chloride;
(6) An identification of sources of
fugitive emissions and their means of
control:
(7) A continuous measurement of
carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen, and
where required, hydrocarbons (HC). in
the stack gas; and
(8) Such other information as the
Director may specify as necessary to
ensure that the trial bum will determine
compliance with the performance
standards is S S 268.104 through 286.107
of this chapter and to establish the
operating conditions required by
{ 288.102(e) of this chapter as necessary
to meet those performance standards.
(g) Interim status boilers and
industrial furnaces. For the purpose of
determining feasibility of compliance
with the performance standards of
i |266.104 through 266.107 of this
chapter and of determining adequate
operating conditions under 1286.103 of
this chapter, applicants owning or
operating existing boilers or industrial
furnaces operated under the interim
status standards of 1266.103 must either
prepare and submit a trial bum plan and
perform a trial burn in accordance with
the requirements of this section or
submit other information as specified in
$ 270.22(B)(6). Applicants who submit a
trial bum plan and receive approval
before submission of the part B permit
application must complete the trial burn
and submit the results specified in
paragraph (f) of this section with the
part B permit application. If completion
of this process conflicts with the date
set for submission of the part B
application, the applicant must contact
the Director to establish a later date for
submission of the part B application or
the trial burn results. If the applicant
submits a trial burn plan with part B of
the permit application, the trial bum
must be conducted and the results
submitted within a tune period prior to
permit issuance to be specified by the
Director.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 2050-0073)
8. § 270.72 is amended by adding
paragraphs (a)(8) and (b)(7) to read as
follows:
$270.72 Change* during Interim status.
(a) ' ' '
(6) Addition of newly regulated units
for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste if the owner or
operator submits a revised part A permit
application on or before the date on
which the unit becomes subject to the
new requirements.
tb) ' ' '
(7) Addition of newly regulated units
under paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
7. $ 270.73 is amended by revising
paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:
§270.73 Termination of Interim statue.
* * * * *
(0 For owners and operators of each
incinerator facility which as achieved
interim status prior to November 8,1984.
interim status terminates on November
8,1980. unless the owner or operator of
the facility submits a part B application
for a RCRA permit for an incinerator
facility by November 8,1988.
(g) For owners or operators of any
facility (other than a land disposal or an
incinerator facility) which as achieved
interim status pnor to November 8,1984.
interim status terminates on November
8.1992, unless the owner or operator of
the facility submits a part B application
for • RCRA permit for the facility by
November a 1988.
-------
-------
72tt
t& Wa 85 A Ifantky, Tebnary 21. 1991 / Rale*
PAITT CTI-REOUIREIIElVrSFOR
•WrtfOmZATIOftOFSTATE
•HEARDOU8 WASTE PROGRAMS
" VH. In part 271:
1. The •Blhurify dt»tk» for part 271 chronological order bydetfrrf
continues to read as roflows: promulgation in the Federal Register
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6006, 6912(«), and 6028. g 271.1
2. Section 271.10) is amended by * * *
adding the following entry to Table 1 in (j) * • •
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
PiortHjItfflUun
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 86
Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the
List of Hazardous Wastes; Technical Amendment
56 FR 7567-7568
February 25, 1991
(RCRA Cluster I, Non-HSWA Rule)
Note: 1) Because of an error in the amendatory language in the rule (53 FR 43881, October 31,
1988, Revision Checklist 57) removing strontium sulfide from the list of hazardous wastes, this
chemical was not removed from §261.33 or Part 261, Appendix VIII. This technical amendment
corrects that error by removing strontium sulfide from the two lists. States which have not
adopted the changes addressed by Revision Checklist 57, but intend to remove strontium sulfide
from their lists of hazardous waste, are strongly encouraged to adopt these technical amendments
at the same time the Revision Checklist 57 provisions are adopted. States already adopting the
Revision Checklist 57 changes are encouraged to ^adopt the Revision Checklist 86 amendments as
soon as possible.
2) This is a conditionally optional checklist. States choosing to not remove strontium sulfide
from their hazardous waste lists should not adopt the changes addressed by this present checklist.
However, those States which choose to remove this waste must adopt the changes addressed by
Revision Checklist 86 to assure that strontium sulfide has been properly removed from the State's
hazardous waste lists and appendices.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES,
CONTAINER RESIDUES. AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF
t remove listing
as shown below
261 .33(e)
The following waste has been removed from the 261.33(e) list:
"P107...1314-96-1 ...Strontium sulfide SrS"
February 25, 1991 - Page 1 of 2
CL86.11 - 8/19/91
|Pnnt«d 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 86: Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the SPA 11
List of Hazardous Wastes; Technical Amendment (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
t remove listing
as shown below
Appendix VIII
The following listing has been removed from Appendix VIII:
"Strontium sulfide...Strontium sulfide SrS...1314-96-1 ...P107"
February 25, 1991 - Page 2 of 2
CL86.ii
[Pnnttd: 11/12/92)
-------
7568 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Waste Code P107,40 CFR 261.33(e)), the
list of hazardous constituents of concern
under 40 CFR part 281 appendix Vm.
iind the list of hazardous substances
-------
Fedural Register / Vol. 58, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 7567
Approved: January 10.109L
Edward |. Darwutski.
Secretary of Veterans Afiain.
PART 21— [AMENDED]
38 CFR part 21. Vocational
Rehabilitation and Education, is
amended as follows:
In { 21.260 paragraphs (a) and (b) are
revised to read as follows:
(21-260
(a) General. A veteran in a
rehabilitation program under chapter 31
will receive a monthly subsistence
allowance at rates specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, unless he
or she has elected to receive payment at
the rate of the monthly educational
allowance paid undsr chapter 30 for
similar training. See § 21.264 for election
of payment at the chapter 30 rate and
§| 21.7136,21.7137. and 21.7138 to
determine the applicable rate.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1506(4). 1506(0.1662(91
Pub. L 98-525)
(b) Rate of payment Subsistence
allowance is paid at the following rates
effective January 1.1990.
Type of program
IneWuttona)1:
C^Hmf ,,,,,,.,, , , ,- - -
?, trnt , , , .,.,--
tfc Mm*
Nonpar on-job mining In a Federal agency; training in tha home; vocational courae In a
renarriNtation facility or iheltaiaij irorkitiop* independent Instructor FuH time only
FU*4«t _, ,._. _______ _
H*"* , ,— ,.. - -,-
H«m« - - -
flQfnty,Qr^hwQfi^tr|if*^»:Fi4tfcntQn(y.....
Comttralton (toMtatfori and OJT) Ful ttm only: '
(ntUUrtonai grMtvt*^ vwumf .... , .. , ,, , ,,,,
QJT gn*ttr Man tt OHM
imtlMaija'MMl
rt-t* • -•
Fu(M»n^» ...,..., ,
*.*»•
»**•>• .._
".*"-
Monthly rate of aubtiatance allowance
No dependent
$333
250
167
333
333
230
167
291
333
291
333
291
333
333
250
167
64
t dapondant
$413
310
207
413
413
310
207
352
413
352
413
392
413
413
310
207
103
2 dependant*
$486
384
244
486
486
364
244
405
466
405
466
405
466
466
364
244
121
Addlamttor
aacndap.
over 2
$35
27
18
35
35
27
16
26
. 36
26
35
26
35
&
» Maaaurament of rate of purautt (21.4270-21.4275).
'For orHob training. aubHHanca ato»anoa way not
Journeyman wage tor Ma veteran • objective.
the oWerence batman the monthly iraWng wage, exduefce of overtime, and lha entrance
(Authority: 36 U.S.C. 1508: Pub. L 101-237)
« • • • •
[FR Doc. 91-4294 Fllad 2-22-81; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-3W7-*]
Hazardous Wast* Management
System; Removal of Strontium SuHMe
From the List of Hazardous Waste
AOJMCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Technical amendment
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is today correcting an
amendment to regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) to remove strontium sulfide
(CAS No. 1314-96-1) from 40 CFR 281.33.
the list of commercial chemical products
which are hazardous wastes when
discarded or. intended to be discarded:
and to remove strontium sulfide from
Appendix VTU of Part 281. the list of
RCRA hazardous constituents. EPA took
regulatory action to remove this
chemical on October 31,1988 (S3 FR
43881). but the amendatory instruction
to the Federal Register was incorrect
and. as a result this chemical was not
removed from f 261.33 or part 261
appendix VTH in the Code of Federal
Regulations. The Agency seeks to
correct mis error in today's document
•FracnvK DATE The regulations
became effective on October 31,1968.
This document does not affect the
effective date of the waste code
removal
AOOMSSCS: The Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) RCRA docket is located in Room
M2427 at Waterside Mall 401M Street
SW.. Washington. DC 20460, and is open
from 9 a.m. to 4 pjn., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The
public must make an appointment to
review docket materials by calling (202)
475-9327. Refer to "Docket number F-
83-SSPA-FFFFF" when making
appointments to review any background
documents to the October 31.1988
rulemaking. The public may copy a
maximum of SO pages of material from
any one regulatory docket at no cost
additional copies cost $.020 per page.
POM nnrmn INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)
424-9346. For technical information
contact Ron Josephson. Environmental
Engineer. Office of Solid Waste (OS-
333), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460, (202) 362-4770.
•uppLdtDfTAMV INFORMATION: On
October 31.1988, the Environmental
Protection Agency promulgated a final
rule removing strontium sulfide (CAS
No. 1314-96-1) from the list of
commercial chemical products which
are hazardous wastes when discarded
or intended for discard (EPA Hazardd
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 87
Organic Air Emission Standards for Process
Vents and Equipment Leaks; Technical Amendment
56 FR 19290
April 26, 1991
(RCRA Cluster I, HSWA Rule)
Note: The technical amendment addressed by this checklist corrects errors made in the Organic
Air Emissions Final rule at 55 FR 25454 (June 21, 1990; Revision Checklist 79). States are
strongly encouraged to adopt the corrections addressed by Revision Checklist 87 at the same time
the Revision Checklist 79 provisions are adopted. States which have already adopted the
Checklist 79 provisions are encouraged to adopt the corrections addressed by Revision Checklist
87 as soon as possible.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQOlV^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART AA - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PROCESS VENTS
APPLICABILITY
change "2641" to
"264.1"
change
"§§264.1 034(d) and
264.1035(e)" to
"§264.1034 (d)
and (eV
264.1030(a)
264.1030(b)
STANDARDS: CLOSED-VENT SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES
change "paragraphs
(1) and (2) of this
section" to
"paragraphs (f)(1)
and (2) of this
section"
264.1 033(f)(3)
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
change "Records
including the dates of"
to "Records, including
the dates, of"
264.1 035(b)(4)(ii)
April 26, 1991 - Page 1 of 4
CL87.11 - 8/U/91
(PnnMd: It/5192]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 87: Organic Air Emission Standards for Process
Vents and Equipment Leaks; Technical Amendment (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART BB - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS
STANDARDS: PUMPS IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
change "a instrument
reading" to "an
instrument readina"
264.1052(b)(1)
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE
ANALYSIS
change "265.193"
to "265.200"
265.
13(b)(6)
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
OPERATING
change "265.
to "265.200"
RECORD
193"
265.73(bH3)
SUBPART AA - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR PROCESS VENTS
APPLICABILITY
change
"§§265.1 034(d) and
265.1 035(d)" to
"§265.1034(d) and (e)"
265.1030(b)
TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
change "Eh, as
determined in
paragraph (c)(1)(v) of
the section" to "Ehf
as determined in
paragraph (c)(1)(iv)
of this section"
265.1034(c)(1Kvi)
CL87.11 - 8/U/91
April 26, 1991 - Page 2 of 4 IP™!* 1 1/5/93
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 87: Organic Air Emission Standards for Process SPA 11
Vents and Equipment Leaks; Technical Amendment (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
change "Records
including the dates of"
to "Records, including
the dates, of"
change "Paragraph
(3)" to "paragraph
(c)(4) of this section"
265.1035(b)(4)(ii)
265.1035(cM5)
SUBPART BB - AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS
STANDARDS: PUMPS IN LIGHT LIQUID SERVICE
revise "paragraph
(a)(2)" to read
"oaraaraoh (e)(2)"
265.1 052(e)(3)
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
change "265.1953"
to "265.1053"
265.1064(c)
PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS:
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS VENTS
change "records
including the dates of
each compliance test
required by
§264.1 03(k)." to
"Records, including
the dates, of each
compliance test
required by
§264.1 033(k)."
270.24(d)(2)
April 26, 1991 - Page 3 of 4
CL87.11 - 8/14/91
(Printad: M/5/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 87: Organic Air Emission Standards for Process
Vents and Equipment Leaks; Technical Amendment (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIFIC PART B INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT
change "Records
including the dates
of" to "Records,
including the dates,
of"
270.25(e)(2)
April 26, 1991 - Page 4 of 4
CL87.11 - 8/14/91
[Printed: 11/5/92)
-------
-,19299 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 81 / Friday. April 26, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
(Parking Offsets in the Portland Central
Itusiness district). These rules were
t dopted by the Environmental Quality
Commission on December 14,1990.
1FR Doc. 91-9763 Filed 4-25-91; 8:45 am)
IILUNO COM IMO-fO-M
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270
Hazardous Wasts Treatment, Storage,
i nd Disposal Facilities— Organic Air
Eimisslon Standards for Proctss Vents
and Equipment Leaks; Technical
Amendment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
/agency (EPA).
4 CTION: Final rule: technical
amendment
SUMMARY: This document corrects
typographical errors in the regulatory
text of the final standards that would
limit organic air emissions as a class at
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDF) that are
subject to regulation under subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). These standards
appeared in the Federal Register on June
21. 1990 (55 FR 25454).
CFFECTtVt DATE December 21. 1990.
FOR FURTHIR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Rick Colyer at (919) 541-5262.
S tandards Development Branch.
Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711.
SUPPLCMINTARY INFORMATION: On June
21. 1990 (55 FR 25454). EPA promulgated
regulations limiting organic air
emissions from process vents and
equipment leaks at hazardous waste
1 SDF. The regulations contained
typographical errors which are
discussed briefly below and are
corrected by this action. The corrections
are editorial and do not alter the
requirements of the standards.
Dated: April 12. 1901.
Michael Shapiro.
.'1 c i •.•># A ssistant A dirt in is t rotor fur A ir and
f\aii:.ciion.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40. chapter L parts 264.
205. and 270 of the Code of Federal
P emulations are amended as set forth
Volow.
PART 2«4—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS Of
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 0905, 6912
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 88
Administrative Stay for K069 Listing
56 FR 19951
May 1, 1991
(RCRA Cluster I, non-HSWA)
Note: This May 1, 1991 (56 FR 19951) notice administratively stays the K069 listing so that the
listing does not apply to slurries generated from pollution control devices that are intended to
capture acid gases and are not dedicated chiefly to control of particulate air emissions. The stay
remains in effect until further administrative action is taken. If EPA takes further action affecting
this stay, EPA will publish a notice of the action in the Federal Register. A checklist is necessary
because the code is affected. As this change narrows the scope of this listing, States are not
required to adopt it; thus, this checklist has been designated as optional.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
t HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
add note regarding
administrative stay
to K069 Listing as
shown below
261.32
Industry and EPA
hazardous waste No
Hazardous Waste
Hazard
code
1 Secondary lead:
K069
Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.
(NOTE: This listing is stayed administratively for sludge
generated from secondary acid scrubber systems. The stay
will remain in effect until further administrative action is
taken. If EPA takes further action effecting this stay,
EPA will publish a notice of action in the Federal Register.)
(T)
Federal code omits a closing parenthesis at the end of the Note.
May 1, 1991 - Page 1 of 1
CL88.11 - 8/15/91
(Print*): 11/5/92)
-------
riiilaud Befjitaw / Vo*. SO, No. 64 / Wednesday, May 1. 091 / Rules and
following raw aadculiaffal commodky
grown ia art fcarioated with flaethyi
bromide.
Goftwiotfty
Parts PST
Gingtr, root* (Pr*. and Port-H)..
toe
3. In 9 180.199, by adding new
paragraph (c), to read as follows:
§180.199 Irwrgante taremid** resulting
from soil treatment wtth combJaattona ol
chloropicrin and methyl bromide, or
propargyl bromide; tolerance* for residue*.
(c) A tolerance with regional
registration, as defined in 5 18Q.U.nJ, is
established for residues of inorganic
bromides (calculated as Br) m or on the
following raw agricultural commodity
grown in soil fumigated with
combinations of methyl bromide and
chloropicrin. No tolerance is estabHaiied
for chloropicrin since it has beea
established that no residue of this
substance remains in the raw
agricultural commodity when
formulations r-nntainino phlnrrmifrin gj2
percent or less are used.
mlBon
Gingw, tool* (Pr«- and Pad If, .. -
[FR Doc. 81-9868 Filed 4-30-01; «4S anj
inumcooct
40CFRPARTMI
(PRL-39S1-1]
MazarsloM Waal* Management
Systama: UtafMllcaOon and Uaflng of
MaawdouaWaate
aoxNCV: Eavvoomenial Protection
ligeacy.
ACTION: Administrative stay.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is today anaouncag eji
administrative stay of a portion of the
hazardoas waste fisting HOT M that fee
listing'does not apply to limits
giinented from *ir pollution DeHfrol
devicea that are intended to capture
acid gases aadue aot dedicated dufly.
to control of •artkxilate airamiaaiana.
KTKHH* OSnK May 1, 19*1.
ADOfttttes: The RCRA regulatory
ducket for this administrative stay ia
Iccated at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 4*1 M Street SW,
(room ftOttr), Waofaiagton, DC 20*80,
and is available for viewing from 9 am.
to 4 p jn., Monday through Friday.
excluding Federal holidays. Call (202)
475-8327 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is "F-
91— Kfl9S— FPFFF". The public may tupy
material from any regulatory docket at a
cost of $0.15 per page.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 434-
9346, or at (202) 382-3000. For technical
information concerning this notice,
contact Narenctra Cheodhari, Office of
Solid Waste (OS-333). US.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street, SW, Washington. DC 20460.
(202) 382-4787.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In tha
initial hazardous waste regulations
implementing section 3001 of RCRA, the
Agency listed as hazardous "emission
control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting" (EPA Hazacdaua Waste No.
K069). Thia totk« wee kotended to apply
to the lead-rich particdate captured by
secondary lead smelting air pollution
control devices utilized for control of
participate matter. See Background
Document for Listing of Hazardous
840-42. Thp iiieral language of the listing
regulation, however, encompasses not
only this lead-rich residue, but sludge*
captured by other types of air emission
control equsjKMit which sh*d*n arc
unlike the waste EPA intended to list hi
terms of physical form, vohime
generated, and toxiciry.
One secondary lead smeller.
General Battery Corporation, located in
ReadiiBf, PeooeyiTeata, operate* air
pollution control devices that captwe
paniculate matter and a second control
device utilized for acid gas oeafrel Thie
acid gas scrubber generates a ahorr
contatatiBRf aome kad end otter toxic
metals, tfitauagh «t kvete tial da aot
exhibit any dbaractecaiic of hxzandoae
waste as «aoamu»d by the Toxicaty
Characterwtic ify
(TCLPi ead prevtooBry meuored by
Extraction Procedure (EP): tm docket to
today's rule for biatnicai and recant
analytical data. To the Ageaoy'a
knowledge. Exide is the only secondary
lead smelter ihal generates this type of
slurry.
However, (he language of the JCD89
listing regulation captures the slurry
since it is a type of "sludge", i.e. a
reflMoe of a poasoon confrol process
(see | 26e.Mfl. The slurry is not the
waste the Agency meant to list. It ia not
generated by an air emission control
device used chiefly to control lead
emisaions and omvr particulace, it i* not
amenable to recovery in the secondary
lead process, it is not a dust, it ia
gozaated so lower volume* then the
typical KOS9 waata, and it contains
significantly tawer caacentrationa of
lead and other twbc aetala thaii the
typical K088 waate. Eidde prorided data
showing mat (he levels of lead (910
ppm) aitd cndainai (l£7 ppm) in irs
sledge are far below the level given m
the Agency's Background Document for
listing K069 (53,000 to 120,000 ppm lead.
aad 340 to 900 ppm cadmium).
Leachable concentrations of lead and
other toxic metals ia the starry are also
significantly less than in the usual K009
vrffste. Exide provided extensive
analytical data collected from 1989 to
1991 clearry demonstrating that
teachable levels ef toxic metals are low.
Specifically, approxunatery 100 EP
measurements of reachable metals taken
in 1989 show that cadmium, lead, and
chromium are asoally far below the
toxidty characteristic levels; the mean
EP value (at the 95th percentile upper
confidence limits) for these metals are
less than one tenth (i.e., 10-fold less
than) the characteristic levels. The
levels of leachment metals for typical
K069 wastes gjren to the Background
Document exceeded the characteristic
lerek by factors of 5 to 230 for
cadmram, 50 to 468 for lead, and 1 to 240
fordvouiiuuL Exide also provided more
recent TCLP measurements of its waste
obtained in 1996 and 19§1 that show
even longer teveb of reachable cadmium
and lead. Of nineteen TCLP samples, all
were less than one tenm of the
characteristic lerers. See the duuket to
today's rale for further details of this
analysis.
EPA inaenaa in fcaaear axtare to
propose to amend the language of the
K069 listing to clarify the scope of the
listing to excluded* sludges generated by
air pollution devices that are not a
plant's chief means of controlling tad
emissions. In the interim, however, the
Agency has determined tc great a
limited administrative stay of the KOCfl
listing pursuant to * U.S.C. 70S.1 in order
that the listing not apply to the slurry
waste generated by the Exide acid gu
scrubber or to any other similar waste
(if such • waata should oriaf). The
Agency Is taking tkia actoa aot onljr
because it appears that the listing was
not ictaadad to apply ta this waste acd
that the wast* doe* not exhibit any
characteristic *f haaacd«aa wast* aad
1 Exid* h«« rtiMd thli iuu« in Iti p«btian for
viiw dullmglni and l«nd diipoul mthctioni
rtguUUoni promuijiUd on Juo« 1.1990 (&S PR
22520).
-------
199S2
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 1. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
would not be listed if the Agency were
approaching the issue de novo, but also
because Exide is presently incurring
significant treatment and disposal costs
for this slurry (particularly as a result of
recently-promulgated treatment
standards issued as part of the Land
Disposal Restriction Third regulation, at
(55 FR 22568) (June 1.1990)) which
potentially jeopardize the company's
continued ability to operate. Given that
the listing appears to also apply
inappropriately to the waste, and other
lead-bearing materials, and that Exide's
recovery process specifically aids in
meeting the Land Disposal Restriction
treatment standards for lead acid
batteries, EPA finds that justice requires
issuance of a limited administrative
stay. See 5 U.S.C. 70S. For the same
reasons, EPA finds that grant of a stay is
necessary to prevent irreparable harm to
Exide, will not impede EPA's
administration of the subtitle C program
(which will continue to apply to all K069
wastes that EPA intended to list), and is
in the public interest
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing
this administrative stay of the K069
listing so that it does not apply to the
slurry generated by acid gas air
pollution control devices at Exide/
General Battery Reading, Pennsylvania
facility. The listing continues to apply to
Exide's (and. all other secondary lead
smelters') dusts generated by participate
matter air pollution control devices. The
administrative stay will remain in effect
until 30 day* after completing of
rulemaking dealing with the scope of the
K069 listing. If EPA takes further action
effecting this stay, EPA will publish a
notice of the action in the Federal
Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Put 281
Hazardous waste, Recycling and
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements.
Dated: April 18,1991.
F. Henry Habicht 0.
Deputy Administrator.
For the reasons set at in the preamble,
title 40. chapter L part 261 of the Code of
Federal Regulation* is amended as
follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 0905.6912(a). 6921.
6922. and 6938.
2. Section 261.32 is amended by
revising the K069 listing to read as
follows:
§261.32 Hazardous wastes from specific
sources
Industry and
EPA hazardous
waste no.
Hazardous wast*
Hazard
cod*
Secondary
lead:
K069 Emission control dust/ (T)
sludge from
secondary toad
smelting. (NOTE: This
listing is stayed
adrmntstratrvery for
sludge generated from
secondary acid
scrubber systems.
The stay will remain in
effect until further
administrative action
is taken, rf EPA take*
former action effecting
this stay. EPA will
publish a notice of the
[FR Doc. 91-9902 Filed 4-30-91: 8:45 am)
oot
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Public Land Order 6855
[NM-940-4214-10; NMNM 055853]
Partial Revocation of Public Land
Order No. 2051; New Mexico
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management
Interior.
ACTION; Public land order.
SUMMARY: This order revokes • public
land order insofar as it affect* 586.30
acres of public land withdrawn for
research programs in connection with
Federal programs. The land is no longer
needed for this purpose, and the
revocation is needed to permit disposal
of the land through land exchange as
directed by Public Law 100-559.
EFFECTIVE DATE May 1.1991.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clarence F. Hougland. BLM. New
Mexico State Office. P.O. Box 1449.
Santa Fe. New Mexico 87504-1440,505-
988-6071.
By virtue of the authority vested in the
Secretary of the Interior by Section
204(a) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2751:
43 U.S.C. 1714. and as directed by I
Law 100-559. it is ordered as follov
1. Public Land Order No. 2051. wl _
withdrew public land and reserved it
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
the Interior for use by the New Mexico
College of Agriculture and Mechanic
Arts, now New Mexico State University.
• for research programs in connection
with Federal programs, is hereby
revoked insofar as it affects the
following described land:
New Mexico Principal Meridian
T. 23 S.. R. 2 E..
sec. 22. lots 5 and 6:
sec. 23. lots 1 and 2. and 5 to 16. inclusive.
The area contains 566.30 acres in Dona
Ana County.
2. The land described above is hereby
opened to the land exchange as
authorized and directed by Section 502
of Public Law 100-559.
Dated: April 26.1991.
Dave O'Neal
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
(FR Doc. 91-10339 Filed 4-30-91: 8:45 am)
UUJNQ COW 4310-Ft-M
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Parts 580,581 and 583
[Docket No, 91-11
Bonding of Non-Vessel-Operating
Common Carriers
AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.
ACTION: Notice of extension of time.
SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime
Commission is extending until May 24.
1991, the time by which non-vessel-
operating common carriers ("NVOCCs")
may file new tariffs to become effective
on one day's notice. The granting of this
authority does not constitute an
exemption from the penalty provisions
of the Shipping Act of 1984 for those
NVOCCs that may be operating without
a tariff on file as required by section 8 of
the 1984 Act
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24.1991.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryant L VanBrakle. Deputy Director.
Bureau of Domestic Regulation. Federal
Maritime Commission. 1100 L Street.
NW., Washington. DC 20573. (202) 523-
5796.
SUmiMBMTARV INFORMATION: On
January 15,1981, the Commission
published in the Federal Register. 56 FR
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 89
Revision to the Petroleum Refining Primary and Secondary
Oil/Water/Solids Separation Sludge Listings (F037 and F038)
56 FR 21955-21960
May 13, 1991
(RCRA Cluster I, HSWA Rule)
Note: This checklist amends the listings of F037 and F038 which were made at 55 FR 46354
(November 2, 1990; Revision Checklist 81). This rule revises and narrows these listings by 1)
excluding non-contact, once-through cooling water from F037 and F038 listings and 2) not
including, within the scope of the F038 listing, floats generated in or after aggressive biological
treatment units. States wishing to adopt this optional change are strongly encouraged to adopt
this change at the same time the Revision Checklist 81 provisions are adopted.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
1 HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
revise description of
F037 and F038
261. 31 (a)
May 13, 1991 - Page 1 of 1
CL89.11 - 8/14/91
(Printed: 11/4/92)
-------
Federal Register / VoL 56, No. 92 / Monday. May 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 21955
any provision at a lease, license, or
permit issued pursuant to the Act or
any provision of any regulation issued
under the Act (hereinafter referred to as
"violation") probably occurred and that
such violation continued beyond actual
notice of the violation and the
expiration of any reasonable period
allowed for corrective action or that the
violation may constitute or may have
constituted a threat of seiious,
irreparable, or immediate harm or
damage to life (including fish and other
aquatic life), property, any mineral
deposit, or the marine, coastal, or human
environment, the Regional Director may
direct the preparation of a case file, and
appoint a Minerals Management Service
(MMS) employee to serve as a
Reviewing Officer. In making this
determination, the Regional Director
shall have the authority to summon
witnesses, administrator oaths, and
issue orders to produce evidence.
Chairmen of investigative panels
appointed by the Regional Director to
investigate violations or other matters
shall also have authority to summon
witnesses, administer oaths, and issue
orders to produce evidence while
conducting investigations.
• * * * *
(b) The Reviewing Officer shall
proceed with provisions of paragraph (c)
of this section upon determining that
there is sufficient evidence that a
violation probably occurred and that:
(1) The violation continued beyond
any notice of such failure and the
expiration of any reasonable period
allowed for corrective action, or
(2) The violation constitutes or
constituted a threat of serious,
irreparable, or immediate harm or
damage to life (including fish and other
aquatic life), property, any mineral
deposit, or the marine, coastal, or human
environment.
(c) The Reviewing Officer shall notify.
in writing, the person alleged to have
committed the violation (hereinafter
referred to as "party") of the following:
(IJThe alleged violation, citing the
applicable provision of the Act. or the
applicable term of a lease, license, or
permit issued pursuant to the Act or the
applicable provision of a regulation or
order issued under the Act upon which
the action is based;
(2) The amount of penalty that
appears to be appropriate in the event h
is determined that the party it
responsible for the alleged violation
based upon the material men available
for the Reviewing Officer
(3) The party's right to examine the
material in the case file and to have a
copy of all written documents provided
upon request, except mow which would,
in a civil proceeding, discioee or lead to
the disclosure of a confidential
informant: and
(4) The fact that, subject to the
provisions in { 25O201 of this part the
party has a right to a hearing before the
Reviewing Officer prior to any finding of
fact regarding the alleged violation.
• * • e •
4. In | 250-203, redesignate paragraph
(b) at paragraph (c), revise paragraph
(a), and add a new paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
§250,203 Reviewing Officer's derision.
(a) The Reviewing Officer's decision
shall be in writing and shall include the
Reviewing Officer's conclusions and the
basis for the conclusions. Any decision
shall be based upon substantial
evidence in the record. The Reviewing
Officer shall dismiss the case and
remand it to the Regional Director if the
Reviewing Officer finds that:
(1) there is not substantial evidence in
the record establishing that the alleged
violation occurred.
(2) for a violation under S 25O200(b)(l)
of this part, either the required notice of
the alleged violation was not provided
or that the alleged violation did not
continue after the termination of any
period provided for the taking of
corrective action, or
(3) for a violation under S 250.200(b)(2)
of this part there is not substantial
evidence on the record that, at the time
of the discovery of the violation or
during a time prior to the discovery of
the violation, the violation constituted a
threat of serious, irreparable, or
immediate harm or damage to life
(including fish and other aquatic life),
property, any mineral deposit or the
marine, coastal, or human environment
(b) A dismissal under paragraph (a) of
this section is without prefudice to the
Regional Director's right to refile the
case and have it reheard if additional
evidence is obtained. A dismissal
following a rehearing is final and with
prejudice.
• • • • «
5. In 9 2S0.20C, revise the heading and
paragraph (a)(l) to read as follows:
§250306 CtvlpenaMea.
(a)(l) If the Reviewing Officer
determines that a civil penalty is to be
assessed, the penalty shall not exceed
$20.000 for each day of the continuation
of the violation. For violations described
in $ 250.200(b)(l) of this part the penalty
may be assessed for each day the
violation continue* after notice and a
reasonable period for corrective action.
For violations described in
S 250.200(b)(2) of this part the penalty
may be assessed for each day the
violation continued after it first
occurred.
• * * * *
[FR Doc. 91-11314 Filed 5-10-91: 8:45 am]
MUJNaCOOf 4JW-MM-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
Toiaraoce Processing Fees
CFR Correction
In title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, parts 150 to 189. revised as
of July 1.1990. 5 180.33 appears twice, at
pages 269 to 270 and again at pages 270
to 272. Section 180.33 Fees had been
revised at 55 FR 521 B, February 14.1990.
This revision starting at page 269 and
ending on page 270 is the correct text.
The superseded text was incorrectly
retained in the volume. The superseded
text of $ 180.33 at pages 270 to 272 is
removed.
40 CFR Parts 2«1,271, and 302
[FRL-fFFF-F; 3*22-3]
RW 20SO-AB70
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Wast* CERCLA Hazardous
Substance Dastgnaflon PstroisiKfi
Refinery Primary and Secondary OS/
Water/Solids Separation Sludge
Listings (F037 and F03»)
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request
for comments.
SUMMARY: On November 2,1990 the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recover Act
(RCRA) to add two wastes to the list of
hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.31.
These wastes, designated as F037 and
FOSB, are generated in the separation of
oil/water/soKds from petroleum refinery
process wastewaten and oily cooling
wastewaters.
New information acquired by the
Agency since the promulgation of the
F037 and P038 listings indicates that
inclusion of non-contact once-through
cooling waters in the definition of "oiry
cooling waters" has included within the
scope of the listing separation sludges
that are not similar in constituent
-------
21956
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 92 / Monday, May 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
concentration or oil/grease content to
other sludges generated in the
separation of oil/water/solids from
petroleum refinery process wastewaters
and oily cooling waters. Based on the
newly received information, the Agency
is today promulgating an interim final
rule revising the definition of wastes
subject to the F037 and F038 listings to
state that sludges from non-contact,
once-through cooling waters are not
included.
Further, the Agency is amending the
definition of petroleum refinery
secondary (emulsified) oil/water/solids
separation sludge. FC38, to clarify that
floats generated in aggressive biological
treatment units are not included in the
listing description of that waste stream.
DATES: This interim final rule is effective
May 2.1991.
Comments on today's action and any
additional data must be received on or
before June 30.1991.
ADDMEMtt: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket
Number F-01-PTlF-FFFFF and is
located in the EPA RCRA Docket Room.
M2427,401M Street, SW., Washington.
DC 20460. The docket is open from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. To review
docket material, the public must make
an appointment by calling (202) 475-
9327. The public may copy a maximum
of 100 page* of material from any one
regulatory docket at no cost Additional
copies cost $0.15 per page. The public
must send an original and two copies of
their comments to the above docket
Place the Docket Number F-91-PT1F-
fffflf on your comments.
ron PUMTHEM INFORMATION CONTACT
For general information about this
mlemaking. contact the RCRA/
Superfuhd Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or
(703) 920-9610. For technical
information, contact John Austin. Office
of Solid Waste (WH-562). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460 or by
telephone at (202) 382-4789. For further
information on the CERCLA portions of
this rule, contact Gerain Perry. Response
Standards and Criteria Branch.
Emergency Response Division (OS-210),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401M Street SW.. Washington. DC
20460: (202) 382-2198.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CERCLA
section 103(a) requires that the person in
charge of a vessel or facility from which
a hazardous substance has been
released in a quantity that equals or
exceeds its RQ shall immediately notify
the National Response Center of the
release. The toll-free telephone number
of the National Response Center is (800)
424-6802; in the Washington. DC
metropolitan area, the number is (202)
267-2675.
A. Background
On November 2,1990 (55 FR 46354)
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) promulgated regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) adding two wastes to the
list of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
261.31. Those wastes, designated as
F037 and F038, are generated in the
primary and secondary separation of
oil/ water/solids from petroleum
refinery process waste water and oily
cooling wastewaters.
Development of listings for sludges
generated in the primary and secondary
treatment of process wastewaters and
oily cooling wastewaters in the
petroleum refining industry has been a
long process, dating back ten years.
Prior to promulgation of the final
regulation, notices were published
regarding primary and secondary
treatment sludges on November 2,1980
(45 FR 74893). February 11.1985 (50 FR
5637), and April 13,1988 (53 FR 12182).
In the November 2,1990 final rule, the
preamble discussed the scope of the
listing and described those process and
oily cooling wastewaters generating the
listed waste (55 FR 46364). The preamble
indicated that "oily cooling waters" for
the purposes of the listing included
once-through cooling water from C. (six
carbon) hydrocarbons and heavier
operations. However, since publication
of the final rule, the Agency has teamed
that the inclusion of non-contact once-
through cooling water (as opposed to
once-through contact cooling water) in
the definition of oily cooling waters
unintentionally may extend the F037 and
F038 listings to wastes that are not
similar in constituent concentration to
others included in the listing. The
American Petroleum Institute (API)
provided data, which is included in the
docket for today's notice, that supports
the conclusion that sludges from non-
contact once-through cooling waters are
not similar to other primary and
secondary oil/water/solids separation
sludges generated at petroleum
refineries and should, therefore, be
excluded from the listings.
Consequently. EPA has determined that
sludges from once-through, non-contact
cooling water should not be listed and is
therefore today amending the listing
description.
In addition, the Agency today is
revising the definition of wastes subject
to the F038 listing for petroleum refinery
secondary (emulsified) oil/water/sou'ds
separation sludge, to clarify an
ambiguity in the listing description/The
revised language clarifies that b
sludges and floats generated in
aggressive biological treatment
defined in 40 CFR 261.31{b)(2)(i), and not
included in the F038 listing, are excluded
from the scope of that listing. It was not
EPA's intent to include those floats in
the F038 listing, and today's rule adds
language to clear up any confusion on
this issue.
B. Interim Final Rule
1. Non-Contact Once-Through Cooling
Water
Section 3001 of RCRA requires EPA to
list particular hazardous wastes that
must be subject to the RCRA hazardous
waste management system. Regulations
listing specified wastes must be based
on EPA-developed criteria codified at 40
CFR 261.11. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
among other provisions, added a new
secton 3001(e)(2) directing EPA to make
a determination whether or not to list as
hazardous a number of wastes.
including refinery wastes. In the
previously published notices, the
Agency explicitly discussed the
inclusion of cooling waters from C» and
heavier operations in the scope ofjhe
listings (see 53 FR 12164, April 12
However, the notice did not indl
that cooling water included non-cTJTTiac
once-through cooling water, which is
segregated wastewater used for cooling
that does not come in contact with oil.
Further, the Agency did not request
comment or data on the composition of
non-contact once-through cooling water
in any of the notices. Further, the cost of
managing such wastes was not analyzed
when EPA evaluated the regulatory
impact of the listings.
After publication of the final rule. EPA
received comments from the regulated
community contending that waste
produced in oil/water/solids separation
of non-contact once-through cooling
water is not similar in constituent
concentration to other wastes included
in the listing. As noted above, API
submitted data supporting their
contention that non-contact once-
through cooling water should not have
been included in the definition of oily
cooling waters.
The Agency's inclusion of once-
through cooling water from Ct (six
carbon) hydrocarbons and heavier
operations in the definition of oily
cooling waters was based on a 1969 API
petroleum refinery waste dispos
manual that was developed pric
implementation of current Clean^SJKer
Act (CWA) requirements. Discussion of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 92 / Monday, May 13. 1991 / Rale* and Regulation* 21957
liquid wMtM in the manual described
"once-through cooling water from
surface condensers and coolers handling
oil which will not vaporize rapidly on
exposure to air (Ct and heavier)" as one
t;/pe of oily cooling waters. The manual
indicated that such oily cooling waters
wen of concern because they can
can tain minor oil contamination from
sources such as spills or leaks in heat
exchange equipment. The manual made
a clear distinction between oily cooling
waters and oil-free cooling wastewaters,
such as once-through cooling water from
surface condensers and coolers which
normally handle gaseous products (Ct
a ad lighter).
In response to CWA requirements
rdated to surface water discharges that
were promulgated after publication of
the manual API contends that refineries
h we changed processes and adapted
their facilities to separate non-contact
once-through cooling water from other
wastewaters. Thus, these wastewaters
ai-e segregated from other oily
wastewaters. As a result sludges from
treatment of these wastewaters for the
most part contain metals (e.g.. arsenic.
n ckel. lead, and chromium) at much
lower levels than found in other primary
and secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludges. Further, the API
data indicate that the semivolatile
constituents of concern (e.g., benzene.
bi!nzo(a)pyrene, and chrysene), when
present are detected at levels at least
ICO times less than the average found in
olher wastes included in the F037 and
Fl)38 listings.
Based on the comments received by
the Agency after promulgation of the
November 2,1990 final rule. EPA has
concluded that wastes from the
separation of non-contact once-through
cooling water are significantly different
from the sludges the Agency intended to
lint as F037 and F038 and, thus, should
not be included in the scope of these
lintings. The Agency, however, is not
making a final listing determination on
these wastes and may, in the future,
evaluate sludges generated from non-
contact once-through cooling waters.
Today, the Agency is promulgating an
interim final rule that amends the listing
definitions for F037 and F038 to exclude
shdge generated from non-contact
once-through cooling waters that are
segregated for treatment from other
process or oily cooling wastewaters. It
should be noted that non-contact once-
through cooling waters that are mixed
with the wastewaters that will generate
the listed waste or with any other listed
hazardous waste become subject to
Subtitle C regulations under the mixture
rule (40 CFR 281.3(a)(2)(iv)). It also
should be noted that these wastewaters,
and any sludges generated from them,
could still exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, and
if so. would be subject to appropriate
RCRA Subtitle C controls.
2. Floats Generated in Aggressive
Biological Treatment
The Agency also has learned that the
F038 listing description published in the
final rule on November 2.1990 could be
misinterpreted to include floats
generated during or after aggressive
biological treatment. Today's rule
further revises the F038 listing definition
to clarify that the F038 listing for
petroleum refinery secondary
(emulsified) oil/water/solids separation
does not include floats generated in or
downstream from aggressive biological
treatment units. EPA believes this was
clearly implicit in its discussion in the
final rule. The Agency spelled out in
detail what units were aggressive
biological treatment units in the
preamble to the final rule (see 55 FR
46358, November 2,1990) and
promulgated a detailed definition for
such units under 40 CFR 281.31(b)(2)(i).
The Agency believes its intent was plain
in both the preamble discussion and the
regulatory language. However, the
Agency agrees that some potential for
misinterpretation may exist and.
therefore, is clarifying the listing
description.
The Agency used the term "[a]ny
sludge and/or float" to describe the
listed F038 waste in the definition at 40
CFR 261.31 (55 FR 46396). This phrase
indicated the Agency's intent to regulate
all sludges and floats generated in the
physical and/or chemical separation of
oil/water/solids in process wastewaters
and oily cooling wastewaters. However,
the Agency used the term "sludges" to
describe the waste generated in an
aggressive biological treatment unit not
included in the listing. By failing to
include "and/or floats" the Agency did
not mean to suggest floats generated in
aggressive biological treatment unite
remained within the scope of the listing
as well However, because of the
potential for some confusion, the
Agency is amending the definition of
F038 specifically to exclude floats .
generated in aggressive biological
treatment unite from the F036 listing.
EPA today is soliciting comments on
its action today. In particular, the
Agency is seeking additional date that
would support or refute APTs contention
that non-contact once-through cooling
waters are substantially different from
other wastewaters included in the
definition of oily cooling waters, and
comment on the date the Agency has
received to date.
C. State Authority
1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization. EPA retains enforcement
authority under section 3006, 3013, and
7003 of RCRA. although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to HSWA. a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State.
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit When new. more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law. In
contrast under RCRA section 3006(g) (42
U.S.C. 6926(g)), new requirements and
prohibitions imposed by HSWA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
nonauthorized States. EPA is directed to
carry out these requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States.
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While Steles must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim. Consequently. In light of today's
revision. Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.l(j) also
has been amended. Table 1 identifies
Federal program requirements
promulgated pursuant to HSWA that are
effective regardless of a Stele's
authorization status.
2. Efftct on State Authorizations
EPA will implement the provisions of
today's interim final rule in authorized
States until their programs are modified
to adopt the final listings for primary
and secondary oil/water/solids
separation sludge and die modification
to the State's program is approved by
EPA. See discussion in the final rule at
55 FR 46381 (November 2,1990). In
nonauthorized Steles EPA will, of
-------
21958
Federal Register / Vol. 5«, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 1991 / Roles and Regulations
course, implement the provisions of
today's rule.
As previously noted, the primary and
secondary oil/water/solids separation
sludge listings were promulgated
pursuant to a HSWA provision and must
be adopted by States that intend to
retain final authorization. However,
today's rule revises and narrows the
scope of the listing for primary and
secondary oil/water/solids separation
sludge from that of the final regulation
as promulgated. Today's interim final
rule (1) excludes non-contact, once-
through cooling water from the F037 and
F038 listings and (2) does not include
within the scope of the F038 listing floats
generated in or after aggressive
biological treatment units.
Consequently, such wastes are not
hazardous wastes for the purposes of
Federal regulation and regulation of
these wastes is not required. At the
same time, under section 3009 of RCRA,
States remain free to impose more
stringent requirements than those
imposed under Federal regulations. As a
result, States, as authorized by State
statute, may chose to regulate the
wastes from non-contact once-through
cooling wastes or aggressive biological
treatment units or may require other
more stringent conditions upon
management of these wastes.
D. CERCLA Designation and Reportable
Quantities
AH hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR
261.31 through 281.33. as well as any
solid waste that meets one or more of
the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous
waste (as defined at 40 CFR 281.21
through 281.24). are hazardous
substances under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended, pursuant to
CERCLA section 101(14). Therefor*, the
waste streams that were listed as
hazardous waste in the November 2.
1990 rule (55 FR 46354) will, on the
effective date of the rule. May 2.1991,
automatically become hazardous
substances. CERCLA hazardous
substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40
CFR 302.4 along with their reportable
quantities (RQs).
Under CERCLA section 103(a). the
person in charge of a vessel or facility
from which a hazardous substance has
been released in a quantity that equals
or exceeds its RQ shall immediately
notify the National Response Center of
the release. In addition to the reporting
requirements under CERCLA, section
304 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1966
(EPCRA) requires owners or operators
of certain facilities to report the releases
of a CERCLA hazardous substance or
Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS)
to State and local authorities. EPCRA
Section 304 notification must be given
immediately after the release of an EHS
in the amount of an RQ or more to the
community emergency coordinator for
each local emergency planning
committee (LEPC) for an area likely to
be affected by the release, and to the
State emergency planning commission
of any State likely to be affected by the
release.
With the revision of the definitions of
waste subject to the F037 and F038
listings, as discussed previously hi
today's notice, the Agency is revising
the F037 and F038 listings in 40 CFR
302.4 and the codified list of CERCLA
hazardous substances.
Under Section 102(b) of CERCLA. all
hazardous wastes newly designated
under RCRA will have a statutory RQ of
one pound unless and until the RQ is
adjusted by regulation under CERCLA.
The November 2.1990 rule provided that
the RQ for the newly added FD37 and
F038 wastes would be one pound until
revised under a CERCLA rulemoking.
On March 27.1991. the Agency
published a separate rulemaking under
CERCLA (55 FR 12826), which proposed
to adjust the RQ for these wastes at one
pound. The changes in today's rule do
not change the proposed RQs.
E. Regulatory Requirements
1. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must determine whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirements of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The overall effect of today's
rule is to narrow the definition of those
wastes subject to the F037 and F038
hazardous waste listings for petroleum
refinery primary and secondary oil/
water/solids separation sludge. The net
effect of this proposal is to extend cost
savings to the regulated community.
Consequently, no regulatory impact
analysis is required.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act 5 U.S.C. 601-612. whenever an
agency is required to publish a General
Notice of Rulemaking for any proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required, however, if the
head of the Agency certifies that die rule
will not have a significant tmpactj
substantial number of small enr
The narrowing of the defuiitic
cooling waters as applied to petroleun.
refinery primary and secondary oil/
water/solids separation sludge (F037
and F038) promulgated today is
deregulatory in nature and thus will
only provide beneficial opportunities for
entities that may be affected by the rule.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This
regulation, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no reporting, notification, or
recordkeeping (information) provision in
this rule. Such provisions, were they
included, would be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act 44 U.S.C 3501 et sea.
List of Subjects
4O CFR Part 261
Hazardous wastes, hazardous
constituents, recycling.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous material
transportation. Hazardous wasl
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control
Water supply. Interim and final State
authorizations.
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control. Chemicals.
Hazardous materials. Hazardous
substances. Intergovernmental relations.
Natural resources. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Superfund.
Water pollution control Water supply.
Dated: May 1.1991.
P. Hwy Hsbkkt 0.
Deputy Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART261-IDENTIF!CATK>N AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority for part 261 continues
to read as follows:
AuttMdty: 42 U.S.C. 6006. (kn2(a). 0221.
Q92S. and MS*
2. The table in | 261.31(a) is amended
by revising the entries F037 and F038 to
read as follows:
5261.51
it* from
(a)' * •
-------
F«d«*«l Register / Vol 56» No, 92 / Monday. May U 1991 / Rules and Regulation* 21968
No.
Hazard
cod*
-Any dudg* ganaralad I
aparaoon of ot/watar/soads (T)
i and cay cooing wastawatsrs num patrolaum rannariaa. Such akjdgaa tnduda.
aparators; tank* and Impoundmanl*. dHchaa and othar oemiayancaa. aumpa;
P03T Patrolaum raflnaryprinwy oa/watar/*oWs*
during tht fttofAQ*) or frsctrMnt of pfOOMi
but ara not Itmttad to. thoaa ganaralad ire (
and atormwatar units racaMng dry waatnar flow. Sludga ganaratad m normwatar units that do not raoaHra dry waathar flow, ahidgaa
ganaratad from norvcontact onca-through cooling watars aagragatad for traatmant from othar procaaa or dry cooing watars, skidgaa
ganaratad in aggrasaiva biological traatmant units as daflnad In { M1.3t(bM2) (Inducing skidgas ganaratad in ona or mora addrttonal
units sftar wastawaters have baan traatad In aggraasfce biological traatment units) and KOSt wasta* ara not Indudad In this listing.
F038 Patrolaum raflnary secondary (amulaiflad) oH/watar/*olids saparatlon sludga—Any sludga and/or float ganaratad from tha physical and/or (T)
chamtcat aaparmlion of oU/watar/solds in procass wastawatars and dry cooing wastawatars from patrolaum laftiaila*. Such wastaa
induda. but ara not Hmitad to, al studgaa and float* ganaratad ire Induoad air flotation QAF) units, tank* and Impoundmants, and al
studgaa ganaratad in OAF units. Sludga* ganaratad in stormwatar unit* that do not racatva dry waaftar flow, sludgas ganaratad from
non-contact onca-tfwough cooing watars aagragatad for traatmant from othar procass or ofy cooling watars. akjdgaa and float*
ganaratad in aggraasrva biological traatmant units as daflnad in 126l.3l
artaa. Sucft atudgaa mctuda. but ara not Imaad tt. ttoaa
ganaralad ire oU/vMAar/aoNd* aapamora; tank* and Impound*
mantK oMehaa and othar convayanca*. sumps; and itormoatar
unM racaMng dry oaathar flow. Sludga ganantad In •torm*
wiiv unM* tttat do not naba dry waajhar flow, aludgaa
ganaraaM from non^oontact onoa^nrougn cooing watara aagfa*
1 tar traatmant from othar prooasa or cay cooing
Indudad m tHa Hating
**
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 5«, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 1991 / Roles and Regulation*
TABU 302.4.—UST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QuANTmES—Continued
Statutory
ubata
CASRN
Ragutatory
synonyms
BO
Cod*+
HCRA
WWM
no.
Catagory
Pounds
Patretoum raftnary taeondary (amuWntd) ol/vMMr/wUi i
ton riudga—Any stodga and/or float genanrtad from tha physl-
cat mnd/or chemical tepvatkxi of ol/wttar/toflds In procas*
Mtstowatars and oily cooling wastowstsr* from patrolaum rafin-
anas. Such wtstas include, but am not hnaad to, al akjdgw
and floats ganaratad Ire induced air flotation (1AF) unto, tanks
and knpoundnwnti. and al tludgas gsnarstad In OAF unfta.
SbdgM ganarsiad in stormwater unit* that do not racaiva dry
wVaittMr flow, 9RjdQM Ojtotnrtvd frocn oncai through rxxwocv
tact ooolno wattwt stgrtgiMd for fr«*im«rt from otf»f proo-
•M or d coofing wastet. »fudg-M «nd floats tftfXfttad in
•QpMitVV bidooiCAf tpxtnmnt unfts u dvfinto In
1261.31 (bM2) (Including sludge* and floats generated in ona or
mom additional unit* attar wastewatars hava baan treated in
aggrasrtve Wotogfcal traatmant unit*) and F037, K048, and
K061 waste* ara not indudad m tNa listing
+ Indteataa tna sta«jtory aoureas at daftnad by 4 balow.
* IndKataa that tha statutory aourca lor daaignatton of tNa haz
1* mdteataa that tna 1-pound RO « a CERCLA statutory RQ,
»# Tna Aoancy may adjust tna ttatutory HO tor this hazardo
ubsta
i undar CEROLA fs RCRA Sacaon 3001;
i» m a fuhra futamaJung undl t>an tha stamtory BQ ippin.
[PR Doc 91-1G80B Filed 5-10-01; &45 am)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National OeMric and Atmospheric
Administration
SOCFRPsft64«
(Docket No 910607-11071
Snappcr*aroupsr Flshsry of the South
Atlantic
AOCNCY: National Marine Fliheriet
Service (NMFS), NOAA. Commerce.
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce
changes the quota for wreckfUa in the
snapper-grouper fishery off the Smith
Atlantic states in accordance with the
framework procedure of the Fishery
Management Plan for the Snapper-
Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region (FMP). as amended. This nodes-
establishes an annual quota for
wreckfiah of up to three million pound*
(1,360.791 kilograms), whole weight as
follows: One million pounds (453.507
kilograms), whole weight during each of
the periods April 10,1991. through July
15,1991, and July 16.1991. through
October 15.1991; with an additional one
million pounds for the period October
16,1991. through January 14.1992.
available if analysis of current data
indicates that it is the appropriate
harvest level for the resource. The
intended effect to to protect the
wreckfish resource.
tMSCIIVB OATK May 10.1991.
TOM FURTHCR INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter J. Eldridge. (813) 893-3161.
SumiMlNTARY INFORMATION: Snapper-
grouper species, including wreckfiah, are
managed under the FMP, prepared by
the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Council), and its Implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 648, under the
authority of the Magnuaon Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson Act).
In accordance with procedure*
approved in Amendment 3 to the FMP,
the Council recommended and NOAA
published a proposed rule changing the
wreckfish annual quota (56 FR 14496,
April 10.1991). That notice (1) described
the framework procedure of the FMP
through which the Council
recommended the change; (2) specified
the change; and (3) described the need
and rationale for the change. Those
descriptions and specification* are not
repeated here. No comments were
received on the proposed rule.
The Regional Director, Southeast
Region. NMFS, concurs that tha
Council's recommended wreckfiah quota
i* necessary to protect the resource aad
finds that it is consistent with the goal*
and objectives of the FMP. In addition,
NOAA finds that it is consistent with
the Magnuson Act and other applicable
law. Accordingly, the Council's
recommended wreckfish quota is
implemented for the fishing year mat
commenced April 16.1991.
Because this change in quota ts for a
fishing year that ha* already
commenced the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries. NOAA.
finds for good catue, namely, to provide
effective conservation and management
of the wreckfiah resource, that it is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to delay for 30 days the effective
date of this rule under the provisions of
section 563(d)(3) of the Administrative
Procedure Act
Other Matters
This action is authorized by 50 CFR
64&2S and complies with E.0.12291.
List of Subjects in 5* CFR Part 6tt
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated May 7.1891.
MichaalF. Tinman.
Acting AiMlf toot Adminiitrator for Fisheries
National Marint Fithtriet Service.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 846 is amended
aa follows:
PART $46—SNAPPER-GROUPER
FISHERY OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC
1. Tha authority citation for part 848
continues to read as follows:
Authority. 18 U.S.C 1801 ft MO.
2. Section 64*24 is revised to read as
fallows:
fteftj* WrccMah quota and eleeur*.
(s) Persons fishing for wreckfish are
subjsct to s quota of up to 3 million
poamda (U80.791 kilogram*), whole
weight each fishing year, distributed as
follows:
(1) A quota of one million poisVto
(46&S07 kilograms) is available on^\pri
165
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 90
Mining Waste Exclusion III
56 FR 27300-27330
June 13, 1991
(RCRA Cluster I, Non-HSWA Rule)
Notes: 1) This is the third revision to the mining waste exclusion, with the two previous revisions
addressed by Revision Checklist 65 (54 FR 36592; September 1, 1989) and Revision Checklist 71
(55 FR 2322; January 23, 1990). As such, states which have not yet been authorized for these
checklists are encouraged to apply for Revision Checklist 90 at the same time the provisions in
Revision Checklists 65 and 71 are applied for. States already authorized for Revision Checklists
65 and 71 requirements are encouraged to adopt the corrections addressed by Revision Checklist
90 as quickly as possible.
2) In the FR notice addressed by this checklist, a series of appendices follows the change made
to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7). These appendices were not included in this checklist because they will
not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations and because the subjects of these appendices are
the Public Comments on EPA's Report to Congress and the Notice of Data Availability.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
SUBPART A - GENERAL
EXCLUSIONS
remove "until EPA
completes a report to
Congress and a
regulatory determi-
nation on their
ultimate regulatory
status"
261.4(bH7)
•
June 13, 1991 - Page 1 of 1
CL90.11 - 8/14/91
[Printed 3/18V93]
-------
Thursday
June 13, 1991
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 261
Special Waates From Mineral Processing
(Mining Waate Exclusion); Final
Regulatory Determination and Final Rule
-------
27300
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA/OSW-FR-91-018; FRL-3959-1]
40 CFR Part 261
RIK 20SO-AC41
Final Regulatory Determination for
Special Wastea From Mineral
Processing (Mining Waste Exclusion)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final regulatory determination
and final rule.
SUMMARY: Today's action presents the
Agency's final regulatory determination
required by section 3001(b)(3)(C) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) for 20 special wastes from
the processing of ores and minerals.
EPA has concluded that regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA is
inappropriate for alt 20 of the special
wastes that were studied. EPA plans to
address 18 of the wastes under subtitle
0. possibly in the program being
developed for mining wastes. For the
remaining two wastes (phosphogypsum
and process waste water from
phosphoric acid production), EPA plans
to proceed with the development and
promulgation of a program under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
that will address their management,
including possible regulations
concerning waste minimization/
pollution prevention for these wastes. In
addition, EPA plans to use existing-
authorities under either RCRA Section
7003 or CERCLA section 106 to address
any site-specific ground-water
contamination problems that are
believed to pose substantial and
imminent endangerment to human-
health or the environment. EPA has also
decided to postpone consideration of a
possible ban on the utilization of one of
the special wastes, slag from elemental
phosphorus production in construction
and/or land reclamation.
The rationale and salient facts used
by the Agency to arrive at these
decisions are provided below.
EPncrtVI DATE July 15.1991.
FO* PUKTHfR INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the regulatory
determination, contact the RCRA/
Superfund hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll
free) or (703) 928-9810. or Bob Hall at
(703) 308-8412.
SUSVtEMCNTAftY INFORMATION:
Table of CootanU
1. Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. History of the Mining Wa»te Exclusion
C. Overview of the Report to Coqpess
D. St^plenenul Analysis and Netfesot
Data Avsitebiiiry
0. Factors Considered in Making the
Regulatory Determination
III. Regulatory Determination for the 3D
Special Wastes from Mineral Processing
IV. Decision to Postpone Consideration of •
Possible Ban on Elemental Phospaoras
Slag Utilization
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VI. Agency Initiatives
VII. Regulatory Determination Docket
Appendix A—Analysis of and Response to
Public Comments on the Report to
Congress
Appendix B—Analysis of and Response to
Public Comments on the Notict of Oats
Availability
I. Background
A. Statutory Authority
Today's notice is issued under the
authority of section 3001(b)(3)(C) of
RCRA. which requires that after
completion of the Report to Piaiflroeii
mandated by section 8002(p) of RCRA.
the Administrator must determine
whether or not subtitle C regulation of
the special study wastes is warranted.
Wastes for which the exclusion it*
retained will continue to be subject to
regulation under RCRA Subtitle D as
solid wastes.
B. History of the Mining Waste
Exclusion
In October, 1980, RCRA was amended
by adding section 3001(b)(3)(A){H) to
exclude "solid waste from the
extraction, beneficiation, and processing
of ores and minerals" from regulation a*
hazardous waste under subtitle Cof
RCRA, pending completion of a study
and a Report to Congress required by
section 8002 (f) and (p) and a
determination by the EPA Administrator
either to promulgate regulations ander
subtitle C or that such regulation! err
enwarranted and that the exclusion
should continue (as required by suction
3001(bH3)(C}). EPA modified its
hazardous waste regulations in
November 1980 to reflect this "Mining
Waste Exclusion," and issued a
preliminary, and quite broad,
interpretation of the scope of its
coverage. In particular. EPA interpreted
the exclusion to include "solid waste
from the exploration, mining, miffing,
smelting and refining of ores and
minerals" (45 FR 78618, November 1ft,
1980).
In 1984. EPA was sued for failing to
submit the Report to Congress and make
the required regulatory determinatkm.br
the statutory deadline (Concerned •
Citizens ofAdamstown v. EPA No. 84-
3041. D.D.O, August 21.1985). In
responding to this lawsuit, the
explained that it planned to propose a
narrower interpretation of the scope of
the Mining Waste Exclusion, so that it
would encompass fewer wastes, and,
nsoposed to the Court two schedules^
One for completing the section 8002
studies of extraction and beneficiation
wastes and submitting the Report to
Congress addressing these wastes, and
one for proposing and promulgating a
reinterpretation for mineral processing
wastes. In so doing, the Agency, in
effect, split the wastes that might be
eligible for exclusion from regulation
into two groups: Mining (mineral
extraction and beneficiation) wastes.
and mineral processing wastes. The
Court agreed to this approach and
established a schedule for the two tasks.
On December 31.1985. EPA published
the required Report to Congress on solid
wastes from mineral extraction and
beneficiation, and on July 3,1988 (51 FR
24498) published a determination that
regulation of such wastes under subtitle
C of RCRA was not warranted. Since
the determination was made, the
Agency has been developing a tailored
regulatory approach for these wastes
under RCRA subtitle 0.
In keeping with its Court-ordered
dkective to reinterpret the Mining
Waste Exclusion for mineral processing
wastes, in October, 1985, EPA proposed
to narrow the scope of the Exclusion
mineral processing wastes to incluc
only a few specific waste streams I
BO FR 40292, October 2,1985). However.
the Agnacy did not specify the criteria
that it used to identify these wastes, or
to distinguish them from other wastes
that were not identified as being eligible
for the exclusion. In response to this ,
proposal, many companies and industry
organizations "nominated" wastes that
they believed were eligible for the
regulatory exemption. Faced with an
inability at that time to articulate
criteria that could be used to distinguish
exempt from non-exempt wastes and the
approaching Court-ordered deadline for
Gnat action. EPA withdrew its proposal
on October 9.1988 (51 FR 36233).
In July, 1988, the court in
Bnrifonnental Defense Fund v. EPA.
862 PJd 1318 (D. C. Cir. 1988). cert.
denied, 109 S. Ct. 1120 (1989) held that
EPA's withdrawal of its 1985 proposal
was arbitrary and capricious, and
ordered EPA to reinterpret the scope 01
the Exclusion for mineral processing
wastes. In particular. EPA was directed
by the court to restrict the scope of the
Exclusion as it applied to mineral
processing wastes to include only "lnrge
wjlume. low hazard" wastes. In a series
of rmusnaking notices. EPA has. c
the past three years, established
-------
Federal Regbter / Vol 5ft Na> 114 / Thuraday. June 13. 1901 / Rute» *ad Regulations 27381
boundaries of the Mining Waste
Exclusion for mineral processing wastes.
hat articulated the criteria that were
used to define "mineral processing," and
haa evaluated whether individual
wastes are large volume and low hazard
and, thus, eligible for the temporary
exclusion provided by RCRA section
3001(b)(3)(A)(iJ). This rulemaking
process was completed with the
publication of final rules on September
1.1989 (54 FR 36592) and January 23.
1990 (55 FR 2322). With the completion
of these notices, the Agency established
that the temporary exemption from
subtitle C requirements established by
the Exclusion for mineral processing
wastes and. therefore, the scope of the
Report to Congress, was limited to 20
specific mineral processing wastes.
EPA then prepared and submitted a
detailed and comprehensive Report to
Congress addressing the 20 special
mineral processing wastes, in
compliance with the Court-ordered
deadline. In addition to the explicit
consideration of the eight study factors
listed at section 8002(p) of RCRA, the
Agency included in the Report a
proposed regulatory status for each of
the 20 special wastes. Thus, the Report
serves both as an information source
and as a tentative indication of the
Agency's final determination.
Accordingly, and In compliance with
statutory directive, the Report.the data
and analyse* that underlie it and the
comments received on it have served as
the primary basis for the regulatory
decisions that are articulated in today's
notice.
EPA did not complete the regulatory
determination within the six month
statutory deadline. As a result the
Environmental Defense Fund Bled a new
RCRA citizen's suit which was settled
by consent decree. EOF v. EPA. No. fl-
0429 (D.D.C Mar. 4.1991). Under the
terms of the consent decree, EPA nuut
issue the regulatory determination no
later thaa May 20.190L Today**
decision is issued in compliance with
that decree.
C. Overview of the Report to Congivu
\. Scope of th* Report
The scope of the Report to Congress
was limited to 20 mineral processing-
wastes, representing 12 mineral
cosuDodity sectors. TheMwattes an
generated by 91 facilities located in ^y
states. The 20 wastes covered by the
Report to Congress, organized by sector.
follow:
Sector
Alumina..
Chromium (Sodium
Criromata/
dichromate).
Coal gasification
Copper..
Elemental
Ferrous Metals...
Phosphoric MX)..
Titanium
tetrachtoride.
Zinc
Wa*te(s)
Red and brown muds from
bauxite refining.
Treated residue from roasting/
teaching of chrome ore.
Gasifter ash from coal gasifi-
cation.
Process wastewater from coal
gasdicafion.
SlaQ from primary pioceating.
Calcium sultate wastewater
treatment plant sludge from
primary processing.
Slag tailings from primary
processing.
Stag from primary production.
Iron blast furnace APC dust/
Iron Wast furnace stag,
Basic oxygen lumaee and
open hoertt) furnace APC
Baste oxygen furnace and
open hearth furnace slag.
Ruorogypeum.
Process wastewaJ
by ma anhydrous proceea.
Prwaphogypsum.
CMorldB procesamM
Stag from primary processing.
2. Study Factors
The RTC addressed the following
eight study factors isquired by section
8002(p) of RCRA:
1. The) sources and volume* of such
materials generated per yean
2. Preaent disposal and utilization
practices:
3. Potential danger to human heahb
and the environment from the disposal
and reuse of such materials;
4. Documented cases in which danger
to human health or the environment ha»
been proved;
5. Alternatives to current disposal
methods:
8. The costs of such alternatives;
7. The impacts of these alternative* on
the use of phosphate rock, uranhm on.
and other natural resource*; and
6\ The current and potential utilization
of such material*.
In addition, the statute suggests that
the Administrator may review studies
and other actions of other federal and
state agencies, and invite participation
by other concerned parties, including
industry and other federal and state
agencies, with a view toward avoiding
duplication of effort
The Agency's approach in preparing
this Report was to combine certain
study factors, for purposes of analysis
and exposition, into seven sections. The
first section provides a brief overview of
the industry, including the types of
production processes used and the
number and location of operating
facilities that generate one or more of
the mineral processing special wastes.
The second section summarizes
information on waste characteristics.
generation, and current management
practices (study factors 1 and 2). while
thi» third f"~*'"n provides a
-------
27302 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
REPORT TO CONGRESS TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS l
Waste stream
Red and Brown Muds from Bauxite Refining .- -
Treated Residue from Roasting/Leaching of Chrome Ore __. .
Gssrher Ajh from Coal Gasification _ _ _
Process Wastewater from Coal Gasification _ _ _
Slag from Primary Copper Processing _ _ _ _
Slag TaiBngs from Primary Copper Processing _ _..
Slag from Elemental Pheaphen* Production .,.. „,„ ,, ,
Iron Blast Furnace Slag .,.„
Basic Oxygen Furnace and Open Hearth Furnace Slag from Carbon Steel Prod. _
Ftuorogypaum from Hydrofluoric (HF) Acid Production _ _..
Process Wastewater from Magnesium Processing _ _ _ _
Slag from Primary Zinc Processing
Phoaphogypeum from Phosphoric Acid Production „. _ _ „_ _ _
Process Wastewater from Phosphoric Acid Production _ _
A» Pollution Control Oust/Sludge from Iron Blast Furnaces. _
Air Pollution Control Duet/Sludge from Basic Oxygen Furnaces and Open Hearth Furnaces from Carbon Steel Production..
Slag from Primary lead Precesatog „ _
Calcium Sulfata Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge from Primary Copper Processing
Process Wastewater from HF Add Production
Chloride Process Wast* Sohds from Titanium TetracrHortde Production __ _.„
Approach 1 (
sftjdyl
Ful subtitle
C
0
0
0
D
0
o
0
o
D
0
o
o
D
o
o
0
0
0
C
D
using 9002(p>
actors)
Subtitle C-
mnu*
0
D
D
D
0
o
D
o
0
0
o
D
o
o
D
C
C
C
c
^p
study
factors and
additional
consxJer-
toons)
D
0
o
0
o
0
Q
o
Q
o
rj
0
0
0
D
1 Source: USEPA, 1990. Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Mineral Processing. Vol. I, pp. 11-17.
a. Approach 1: Application of the RCRA
Section 8002(p) Study Factors
1. Wastes EPA Tentatively
Recommended to Remain Under RCRA
Subtitle D
Using the study factors listed in RCRA
section 8002(p), EPA examined: (1) The
potential for and documented danger to
human health and the environment; (2)
the need for additional regulations; and
(3) the costs and impacts of subtitle C
regulation for the 20 special wastes.
EPA's analysis did not merely evaluate
whether the wastes should be treated as
hazardous in light of the criteria under
subtitle C for other wastes, but took into
account Congress' desire to examine
"special wastes" in a different light
EPA's analysis suggested that regulation
under subtitle C of RCRA would be
inappropriate for the following 16
mineral processing wastes:
• Red and brown muds from bauxite
refining:
• Treated residue from roasting/
leaching of chrome ore;
• Gasifier ash from coal gasification;
• Process wastewater from coal
gasification:
• Slag from primary copper
processing:
• Slag tailings from primary copper
processing;
• Slag from elemental phosphorus
production;
• Iron blast furnace slag;
• Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
production;
• Air pollution control dust/sludge
from iron blast furnaces;
• Air pollution control dust/sludge
from basic oxygen furnaces and open
hearth furnaces from carbon steel
production;
• Huorogypsum from hydrofluoric
acid production;
• Process wastewater from primary
magnesium processing by the anhydrous
process;
• Process wastewater from
phosphoric acid production;
• Phosphogypsum from phosphoric
acid production; and
• Slag from primary zinc processing.
Three of these sixteen wastes (treated
residue from roasting/leaching of
chrome ore: process wastewater from
coal gasification: and slag tailings from
primary copper processing) were found
not to pose an actual or potential danger
to human health and the environment
The thirteen remaining wastes were
identified as having some actual or
potential hazard associated with current
management practices or plausible
mismanagement scenarios, and so were
further evaluated.
EPA found that the potential risk
associated with slag from primary zinc
processing, process wastewater from
primary magnesium processing by the
anhydrous process, air pollution control
(APC) dust/sludge from iron blast
furnaces and from basic oxygen and
open hearth furnaces used to make
carbon steel, red and brown muds from
bauxite refining, elemental phosphorus
slag, and gasifier ash from coal
gasification, was comparatively low;
that is, the Agency found that
management of these materials did not
present a substantial hazard to human
health or the environment. In particular.
no documented damages attributaJ^B|
these wastes were identified. In V^p
addition. State regulations are in effect
for the one primary magnesium facility
and revised/strengthened regulations
have been proposed for the primary zinc
processing facility. EPA also found that
several facilities recycle rather than
dispose of ferrous metal production APC
dust Therefore, the Agency found that
subtitle C regulation was not
appropriate. In the case of elemental
phosphorus slag, the Agency found that
while there appeared to be some
significant hazards associated with use
of the material in construction
applications (that is, off-site utilization).
the best means of dealing with this
problem was through the use of
authorities provided by RCRA section
3001(b)(3)(B)(iii) (which allows for
special controls from phosphate rock
mining and mineral processing wastes)
rather than through imposition of the
subtitle C hazardous waste management
standards.
EPA identified four wastes that did
not exhibit a hazardous characteristic
(with the exception of one sample of
copper slag at one facility) but for which
documented cases of adverse
environmental impacts that af
surface water were identified at
one facility:
-------
Federal Register / Voh 5ft No. 114 / Thursday. |uac 13. 19» f Rules and Regulations 27S03
• Iron blast furnace slag;
• Slag from primary copper
processing;
• Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
production: and
• Fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric
acid production.
For ad four wastes, however, these
surface water releases (one of which
occurred via ground water) have been .
and/or are being addressed under
existing regulatory authorities at the
state and/or federal level Therefore, the
Agency concluded that regulation of
these four wastes as hazardous would
not provide additional protection to
human health or the environment
justifying the elimination of the special
status of these wastes; thus, subtitle C
regulation wat not considered
appropriate.
Pbosphogypsum and phosphoric acid
process wastewater were also of
concern because damage case
information Indicated that both closed
and currently active phosphogypsum
stacks (in which both the
phosphogypsum and the wastewater are
managed) and wastewater cooling
ponds have caused ground-water
contamination at IS of the 16 facilities
for which monitoring data are available.
The available waste composition data
indicated that phosphogypsum tested EP
toxic at one of the ten facilities with
available data, and process wastewater
exhibited the characteristic of
corrosivity at most facilities and the EP-
toxiciry characteristic at some facilities.
However. EPA also estimated that the
total industry-wide, incremental
annualized cost of either full subtitle C
regulation or the Subtitle C-Minus
scenario " for phosphogypsum and
process wastewater. as compared to the
Subtitle D-Plus scenario * developed for
cost estimating purposes, could exceed
$500 million and $50 million
respectively, and could significantly
affect several facilities. The Report
estimated that economic impacts
associated with subtitle C or C-Minus
regulation at these facilities were
expected to be significant and it was
unlikely that these facilities could pas*
along their higher costs. As a result EPA
tentatively concluded that regulation for
these wastes was most appropriate
under RCRA subtitle D.
provided bj KOtA
•AtubmUDpto
developed for extnctioo ud beneficlatioa wejtt*.
2. Wastes EPA Tentatively Considered
for Regulation Under RCRA Subtitle C
orD
EPA found, based on the information
available at that time, that the remaining
four wastes (calcium suifate wastewater
treatment plant shidge from primary
copper processing, slag from primary
lead processing, process wastewater
from hydrofluoric acid production, and
chloride process waste solids from
titanium tetrachloride production) have
posed or may pose a danger to human
health or the environment. Available
data indicated that all four of the wastes
exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes. In
particular. EPA found that all of the
wastes except process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production exhibit the
characteristic of EP toxiciry at at least
one facility; process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production was found
to be corrosive at all facilities where rt
is generated. In addition, damages
associated with these wastes were
documented as follows: (1) Current lead
slag management practices have
resulted in surface water contamination:
(2) ground-water contamination that
may in part be attributable to calcium
suifate sludge from primary copper
processing was found at one of the two
facilities that generate the waste; and (3)
ground-water contamination that may in
part be attributable to chloride process
waste solids from titanium tetrachloride
production was identified at at least one
facility that generates this waste.
Furthermore, the Report stated that the
Agency was not confident that current
practices and regulations are adequate
to prevent further danger to health or
the environment from these four wastes.
Nevertheless. EPA tentatively
concluded that regulation of three of the
four wastes as hazardous (calcium
suifate wastewater treatment plant
sludge from primary copper processing,
slag from primary lead processing, and
chloride process waste solids from
titanium tetrachloride production).
under full subtitle C was not appropriate
due to cost considerations. The
Agency's basis for this finding was a
cost comparison between full subtitle C
and the D-Plus scenario (with Subtitle
D-Plus including subtitle D requirements
similar to those being developed for
extraction and beneficiation wastes)
that snowed that the coats for fid)
subtitle C regulation would be
significantly higher and the associated
impacts would be more significant at
nearly all facilities than the estimated
costs of regulation under the Subtitle D-
Plus scenario.
For process wastewatw from
hydrofluoric acid production. EPA found
that the estimated compliance costs for
regulation under rail subtitle C and
regulation under die Subtitle D-Plus
scenario were comparable and that the
likely economic impacts were not
expected to be significant Based on
these factors, EPA tentatively concluded
that process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production may
warrant regulation under subtitle C.
On the other hand, EPA also
estimated the cost of managing these
four wastes under a subtitle C scenario
that utilizes the flexibility provided by
RCRA section 3004(x) (Subtitle C-
Minus).* The Agency then compared die
costs for Subtitle C-Minus regulation
(rather than full subtitle C regulation) to
the estimated costs that might result
from regulation under a subtitle 0
program similar to those being
developed for extraction and
beneficiation wastes (Subtitle D-Plus).
EPA found that the estimated costs for
the Subtitle C-Mirms and Subtitle D-Plus
scenarios are comparable for nearly all
facilities. Assuming a Subtitle C-Minus
scenario, EPA tentatively concluded 'hat
all four wastes might warrant regulation
under subtitle C
b. Approach £• Application of the RCRA
Section 8OO2(p) Study Factors and
Additional ConaJderatiom
Sections 3001(b)(3) and 8002(p) of
RCRA and the decision in
Environmental Defense Fundv. EPA.
852 P.2d 1909 (D.C. Clr. 1988) make it
clear that the Agency may and should
consider the specific factors of section
8002(p) (1MB) in making its decision
regarding the appropriate regulatory
status of special wastes. In addition, the
Agency stated In the Report that in
making its regulatory determination, it
might be appropriate to consider other
factors relating to the broader goals and
objectives of the Agency and RCRA.
such as developing and maintaining
strong stale mining and mineral
processing waste regulatory programs
and facilitating implementation of
federal programs.
Accordingly. EPA stated in the Report
to Congress that In order to facilitate
both development and maintenance of
strong state programs and
implementation of any federal
regulations that may be necessary for
mineral processing wastes. It slight be
« The SubtiDi C4ttui«
MMktorad IB tfce RTC it brpwbebcaj «nd »••
luumed only far &• pvpoee of co»t estimation tl
don ml necMMrfy feprwMt what BPA wouU
coniidar in appropriate regulatory prepM.
-------
27304 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 19OT / Rules and Regulations
appropriate to regulate all 20 of the
special wastes under subtitle D of
RCRA. In addition, the Report stated
that some mining and mineral
processing wastes might be excluded
from any further federal regulation
under RCRA.
In light of these considerations, the
results of Approach 2 indicated that it
might be appropriate for the waste
streams identified under Approach 1 for
potential subtitle C (full C or C-Minus)
regulation not be subject to the
hazardous waste management
standards, but instead to be retained
within the Mining Waste Exclusion. If
such a finding was appropriate. EPA
stated that it would need to be
conditioned on the premise that major
steps be taken to control releases from
the facilities generating these waste
streams. Some corrective measures are
already being taken under a variety of
Agency authorities (e.g., RCRA,
Superrund, CWA) and more can and
would be undertaken. EPA also asserted
that the states must act to address the
most immediate problems posed by
these wastes, as well as any of the other
mineral processing special wastes that
have been found in the Report to pose
significant actual or potential hazard to
human health or the environment. To
assist in this effort. EPA pledged to
provide technical and other resource
support to the involved states to
improve their programs. If near term
actions did not result in adequate
control of such wastes, EPA would then
take action to reconsider its regulatory
determination and could designate
certain waste streams as subtitle C
hazardous wastes.
4. Public Comment Process
With publication of the Report to
Congress, EPA initially established a 60-
day public comment period that ended
on September 28,1990. In response to
requests from several commenters.
however, EPA extended the comment
period to October 19.1990. In addition. •
public hearing on the Report was held in
Washington. OC on October 17.1990.
EPA received 91 sett of written
comments prior to the close of the
comment period and eight late
comments. All individual comments and
a transcript from the public hearing are
available for public inspection in the
docket (Docket No. F-90-RMPA-FFFFF).
The docket also contains a summary of
all the comments presented at the
hearings or submitted in writing. EPA's
responses to those comments are
provided in the docket as well as in
appendix A to this regulatory
determination.
D. Supplemental Analysis and Notice of
Data Availability
Supplemental analyses were
conducted on five wastes that were
addressed in the Report to Congress,
including gasifier ash and process
wastewater from coal gasification, basic
oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace
air pollution control dust/sludge, and
phosphogypsum and process
wastewater from phosphoric acid
production. A Notice of Data
Availability (NODA). which announced
the availability of this information, was
published in the Federal Register on
January 7,1991.
A 30-day public comment period was
provided, which closed on February 6,
1991. As in the case of the Report to
Congress, EPA received requests that it
extend the comment period. However,
EPA did not extend this comment period
because of the need to proceed with the
regulatory determination process at
expeditiously as possible and because
the Agency believed that the comment
period provided was adequate. In
addition. EPA took steps to ensure that
commenters could make the maximum
use of the time available. For example.
EPA made the supplemental data
publicly available as soon as possible.
immediately following Agency
signature, rather than waiting until the
NODA was published in the Federal
Register. Also, at the request of industry,
EPA delayed the start of the public
comment period until after the holidays.
Included in the new data was
information on phosphoric acid process
wastewater and phosphogypsum
concerning generation and management
of these wastes, the engineering
feasibility and cost of alternative waste
management practices, waste
characteristics, ground water monitoring
data, and state regulations. The Agency
specifically solicited comments on the
engineering feasibility and accuracy of
cost estimates for the alternative waste
management practices presented as part
of the new data.
The Agency received 22 written
comments addressing the NODA. All of
the comments are available for public
inspection in Docket No. F-91-RM2A-
FFFFF. Agency responses to the
comments are provided in the docket
and appendix B to this regulatory
determination.
II. Factors Considered in Making tha
Regulatory Determination
The RCRA statute, as amended,
directs EPA to make a regulatory
determination for the special study
wastes based upon its Report to
Congress and comments received from
interested parties. The statute contains
the following eight study factors:
1. The sources and volumes of s|
materials generated per year
2. Present disposal and utilization
practices;
3. Potential danger, if any, to human
health and the environment from
disposal and reuse of such materials;
4. Documented cases in which danger
to human health or the environment has
been proved;
5. Alternatives to current disposal
methods;
6. The costs of such alternatives;
7. The impact of those alternatives on
the use of phosphate rock and uranium
ore, and other natural resources; and
8. The current and potential utilization
of such materials.
In addition. RCRA section 8002(p)
suggests that EPA review studies and
actions of other federal and state
agencies, and invite participation from
concerned parties, including industry
and other federal and state agencies in
an attempt to avoid duplication of effort.
EPA has complied with the
Congressional mandate in developing
the required Report to Congress and
soliciting and incorporating comments
received from affected parties. In
making today's regulatory
determination, the Agency has ;
upon the analysis of the eight stu|
factors described as "Approach 1'TTTthe
RTC, modified slightly in response to
public comments. EPA believes that this
approach is most consistent with
Congressional intent. To the extent that
the Agency were otherwise to conclude
that subtitle C regulation was warranted
based upon consideration of all of these
factors and information. EPA believes.
upon further reflection, that it is
unnecessary and probably inappropriate
to look outside the Report to Congress.
public comments, and supplemental
technical information, as outlined for
Approach 2 in the RTC. to Justify a
different determination.
In addition, as discussed in more
detail in appendix A to this preamble.
EPA believes that the so-called
"additional factors" upon which
Approach 2 was based are. in large part.
already embodied within the contours of
the inquiry that Congress intended for
EPA to make in the Report and
regulatory determination. The Report
identifies (1) the development and
maintenance of strong state mining and
mineral processing regulatory programs.
and (2) the facilitation of an integrated
federal mining regulatory progranus. the
key considerations under Approd
Section 8002(p)(5) instructs EPA l
consider "alternatives to current
3(
i l"*HTtl
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 27303
disposal methods" at a factor in
developing the Report and regulatory
determination. Certainly, consideration
of alternative state regulatory schemes,
in addition to federal schemes, is
contemplated by this section. Also,
facilitation of a potential integrated
federal mining program was actually
considered by EPA in its cost estimates
(reflected in the "Subtitle D-Plus
scenario").
Nonetheless, EPA does not believe
that it should rely on "possible"
improved state programs to determine
that subtitle C is not warranted unless
EPA is confident that such programs are
being developed and can address the
problems associated with mineral
processing wastes that may pose a
significant risk. Thus, EPA believes that
section 8002(p) requires that EPA not
consider these factors in a way that
would supplant any decision the Agency
makes under the decision making
methodology outlined in Approach 1.
In any event. EPA notes that the issue
is effectively moot As discussed below.
EPA has determined, on the basis of
Approach 1. that subtitle C is not
appropriate for any of the 20 wastes
analyzed. Thus, even if EPA were to
employ Approach 2 as outlined in the
Report it would not change any of the
decisions made today.
In "Approach 1," the Agency
evaluated the RCRA section 8002(p)
study factors by first assessing the need
for additional regulatory controls (or
absence thereof), then evaluating the
options for appropriate requirements
that could be applied to each Individual
waste stream for which additional
controls might be in order, and. finally,
estimating the associated costs and
impacts. In applying the decision
criteria, EPA believes that the factors
that are most important in establishing
the regulatory status of the special
wastes should be given major emphasis.
Therefore, potential risks posed and
documented damages caused by the
wastes, the need for additional
regulations, and the costs and impacts
that would be associated with more
stringent regulatory controls are the
focus of the three steps in the analytical
process. The reason for this is that in the
absence of a realistic showing of a
potential risk and/or documented
damages from current management (or
in appropriate cases, plausible
mismanagement), EPA believes that
Congress would not intend to eliminate
the special status of these wastes by
imposing hazardous waste regulation
under RCRA Subtitle C; if greater
regulatory controls may be appropriate
because of significant potential or
documented danger, the costs and
impacts of regulatory controls are the
critical factors in determining whether a
given alternative would conform to
Congress' expressed goals for these
wastes (adequate protection of human
health and the environment and
continued operation of the affected
industries).
The overall decision making process
as described in the RTC was left
basically intact for the purpose of this
regulatory determination. However, a
number of specific changes have been
made to the individual decision criteria
in response to public comments; these
changes are detailed below, and address
the specific questions considered in this
step-wise process, as well as how the
answers to these questions interact
when deciding whether to go from one
step to the next
The modified step-wise process that
the Agency applied to the available
information is outlined below.
Step 1. Does management of this waste
pose human health/environmental
problems? Might current practices causa
problems in the future?
Critical to the Agency's decision
making process is whether the special
waste either has caused or may cause
human health or environmental damage.
To resolve these issues, EPA has posed
the following key questions:
1. Has the waste, as currently
managed, caused documented human
health impacts or environmental
damage?
2. Does EPA's analysis indicate that
the waste may pose a significant risk to
human health or the environment at any
of the sites that generate it (or in off-site
use), under either current management
practices or plausible mismanagement
scenarios?
3. Does the waste exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste?
In the RTC. EPA concluded that
further evaluation was necessary if the
answer to any of these three questions
was yes. However, numerous
commenters argued that several of the
damage cases included in the RTC do
not represent today's conditions, for a
variety of reasons, that the risk
assessment conducted for the RTC tends
to overstate risk, and that the leachate-
concentrations measured using the EP
leach test overestimate actual leachate
concentrations. Although EPA disagrees
with many of the specific points made
by commenters in support of these
arguments, as discussed In appendix A
to this preamble, the Agency believes
that a more flexible decision making
approach is warranted in response to
the general concerns expressed.
Concluding that further evaluation is
necessary if the answer to just one of
the above questions is yes, without
taking into account the overall certainty
and conservativeness of that answer
relative to the answers to the other
questions, could unnecessarily lead the
Agency into Step 2 of the decision
making process.
Therefore, for this regulatory
determination. EPA answered each of
these questions and then considered the
combined answers as a whole in
deciding whether further evaluation was
necessary. A fundamental concept in
this approach was that no one question
is more significant in reaching a
decision regarding potential hazard than
the others, as the answer to one
question could offset, somewhat, the
answer to another. That is. rather than
following a very rigid approach of
proceeding to Step 2 if the answer to just
one question was yes, the Agency
considered how the answers traded off.
taking into account each answer's
supporting weight of evidence and
certainty.
For example, the scenario for a given
waste could be that (1) there was not a
documented damage case that could be
•attributed to the waste with reasonable
certainty (Le.. the answer to question 1
was no); (2) the reasonably conservative
risk analysis provided a sound basis for
concluding that the potential for human
health and environmental problems was
low under current management
practices-or plausible mismanagement
scenarios (l.e.. the answer to question 2
was no); and (3) the waste exhibited the
toxicity characteristic using the EP leach
test (i.e., the answer to question 3 was
yes), but only rarely and never for
samples analyzed using the Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP).
Under this scenario, EPA would have
reached an overall low hazard
conclusion because the balance of the
information supporting the answers to
questions I and 2 effectively outweighs,
in the Agency's judgment the answer to
questions.
By following this approach, the
Agency considered all of the relevant
Information in making its decision on
the potential for each waste to pose
human health and environmental
problems. If this analysis led the Agency
to conclude that there is a reasonable
potential for problems, then EPA
concluded that further evaluation was
necessary. If the conclusion was that the
potential for problems is low. then the
Agency determined that regulation of
the waste under RCRA subtitle C is not
appropriate. EPA believes that this
"balancing" approach to the analysis in
-------
2730S Federal Bagfater / Vol. SB. No. 114 f Thnraday. June 13. 1991 / Roles and Regulations
Step 1 allow* EPA to determine with
more precision the actual hazards posed
by those wastes, consistent with the
intent of the Bevill Amendment. 852 F.2d
at 1314. EPA also notes that this
analysis does not precisely match the
approach EPA uses to lilt or identify
non-special wastes as hazardous, but is
more conservative in the direction of not
imposing regulation unless the potential
risk justifies elimination of special
status.
Step 2. Is more stringent regulation
necessary and desirable?
If the waste has caused or may
potentially cause human health or
environmental impacts as determined in
Step 1, then EPA concluded that an
examination of alternative regulatory
controls was appropriate. Given the
context and purpose of the study, die
Agency focused on an evaluation of the
likelihood that such impacts might
continue or arise in the absence of more
stringent regulation, and whether
subtitle C would be an efficient
mechanism for controlling these •
impacts. Specifically, the Agency posed
three questions:
1. Are current practices adequate to
limit contaminant release and
associated risk?
2. Are current federal and state
regulatory controls adequate to address
the management of the waste?
3. Will Subtitle C effectively address
problems associated with the waste
without imposing significant
unnecessary controls that are
inconsistent with the special status of
the waste?
Due to changes made in response to
public comments, these questions differ
from the questions presented Cor Step 2
in the RTC, in two ways. First, the
Agency eliminated a question
concerning the likelihood of new
facilities opening IB the future and
generating and managing a special
waste in a different environmental
setting than those examined in the RTC.
The Agency acknowledges that this ia •
relevant issue and considered it in die
Report to Congress for each industry
and waste that was stadiad. However.
EPA agrees with public oommeateis that
an analysis of this issue relies largely ea
conjecture about the potential
conditions thai might exist at a new
facility, if OM were to open. Therefore,
the Agency believes that the potential
for problems at hypothetical new
facilities is less importaat than the other
factors considered in the Hflfima
making process, and did not f-^B«iidsr
the question explicitly ia developing the
regulatory determination.
Second, several comnenters argued
that subtitle C regulation, evei with
Section 3004(x) fiexibiicty, would impeae
numerous prescriptive standards that
would not necessarily be needed to
control the problems at a given facility
or across a commodity sector. While
EPA disagrees with many of the specific
points made by these commenters in
support of their arguments, as presented
in the appendices to this preamble, lite
Agency agrees that the suitability of
subtitle C controls relative to the
magnitude and extent of the problera(i)
defined in Step 1 is an important issue tn
the decision making process and the
approach ia also consistent with EPA's
previous approach to making regulatory
determinations under the Bevill
Amendment which focused on whether
subtitle C even with the use of Section
3004(x). might be too " cumbersome and
uncertain" to accomplish the goals at
effective regulation of the risks from
special wastes, or put another way,
whether subtitle C is the right
"template" for regulating the special
wastes at issue. 852 F.2d at 1313, 1315.
Therefore, the Agency added the third
question listed above for the purpose of
developing today's regulatory
determination.
EPA considered the answers
developed for these questions together
with the answers to the questions
addressed in Step 1 to reach aa overall
conclusion on the need for further
evalaation, If current practices or
existing regulatory control were found
to be adequate, or Subtitle C would net
be an effective regulatory ahematrve.
and if the potential for actual furore
impacts was considered low (e.g.,
existing facilities in remote locations,
low ttketihood of actual risk, adequate
federal or state regulatory eontrott
already exist), then the Agency
concluded that the waste should not be
regulated under Subtitle C. Otherwise,
further examination of regulatory
alternatives was considered necessary.
Step 3. What would be the operational
and economic consequences of a
decision to regulate a special waste
under Subtitle C?
If, based upon the previous two stepa.
EPA believed that a waste might be •
candidate for regulation under subtitle
C, then the Agency estimated and
evaluated die costs and impacts of two
regulatory alternatives diat an ba*ed
upon subtitle C and one regulatory
alternative mat reflects one possible
approach that might be taken under
RCRA subtitle 0 ("Subtitle D-Pfa»").
Two evamatioas wen performed. The
first focused oa the '
distribution, and significance of the
incremental costs of regulation under
full Subtitle C as compared to the
Subtitle D-Pios scenario for each
potentially afracted facility. The se^
focused on incremental costs and
impacts associated with regulation
under a modified subtitle C ("Subtitle C-
Minus") scenario, that incorporates
waste management standards based
upon site-specific risk potential, as
compared to Subtitle D-Plus. The key
questions in the Agency's decision
making process for both comparisons
were as follows:
1. Are predicted economic Impacts
associated with the fall subtitle C (or
Subtitle C-Kfimrs in the case of the
second comparison) scenario significant
for any of the affected facilities?
2. Are these impacts substantially
greater than those that would be
experienced wider the Subtitle D-Plus
scenario?
3. What is the hkety extent to which
compliance costs could be passed
throagh to predict markets or input
costs could be reduced. Le. to what
extent could regulatory cost burdens be
shared?
4. In the event that coats are-
significant could a large proportion of
domestic capacity or product
consumption be affected?
5. What effects wowtt hazardour
waste regulation have upoa the vij
of the beneficial use or recycling d
special waste?
In EPA's Judgment an ability to pass
through costs or an absence of
significant impacts suggested that
subtitle C regulation (or Subtitle C-
Minus in the case of the second
comparison) might be appropriate for
wastes that pose significant risk. In
cases in which the sabtroe C (or Subtitle
C-Maras) scenario would impose
widespread and significant impacts on
facilities, malt <• redactions IE
dosasatie capacity or supply, and/or
deter the safs and beneficial nse of the
waste, EPA cenclndad that regulation
under some other regulatory authority,
including Subtitle D or TSCA. might be
more appropriate.
QL Regulatory Determination for the 20
SpadaJ Wastes From Mineral Processing
The fallowing discussion presents
EPA's condosioos regarding die
appropriate regulatory staruf of esch of
the special wastes boat mineral
processing, baaed oa information
obtained by analysing the statutory
study factor* si the manner outlined
above. The isrformenoa nmmarized
hen incorjMrates Infonution reeejjjed
during the public comment period
additional ••*••••«* of the data1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 27307
presented in EPA's July 1990 Report to
Congress and January 1991NODA.
EPA has decided that regulation under
subtitle C is inappropriate for all 20 of
the mineral processing wastes. For nine
of the wastes, no comments were
received that objected to EPA's
tentative determination in the Report to
Congress that regulation under subtitle
C for these wastes is unwarranted.
These nine wastes include:
(1) Red and brown muds from bauxite
refining;
(2] Treated residue from roasting/
leaching of chrome ore;
(3) Gasifier ash from coal gasification:
(4) Process wastewater from coal
gasification;
(5) Pluorogypsum from hydrofluoric
acid production;
(6) Iron blast furnace slag;
(7) Basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace slag from carbon steel
production;
(8) Slag tailings from primary copper
processing; and
(9) Process wastewater from primary
magnesium processing by the anhydrous
process.
For the remaining eleven wastes, EPA
received at least one comment arguing
that subtitle C regulations should be
promulgated. EPA's determination
rationale for each of these wastes
follows.
Slag From Primary Copper
Processing. An examination of available
information regarding copper slag leads
to the following findings regarding the
three key questions outlined above for
Step I in the Agency's decision making
process.
First copper slag rarely, if ever,
exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic. Only one sample out of
70 exceeded EP-toxicity regulatory
levels, for cadmium and lead. The
Agency agrees with commenters that the
accuracy of the one sample is
questionable, because the cadmium
concentrations in the EP leachate
extract are inconsistently high compared
to concentrations in the total sample
analysis.
Second, although one commenter
pointed out that the slag contains a
number of constituents in
concentrations that exceed the
conservative risk screening criteria used
in the Report to Congress, these
concentrations by themselves do not
demonstrate that the slag poses •
significant hazard. An examination of
the slag management practice* and
environmental conditions at the 10
active primary copper facilities
indicates that copper slag currently
generated at these facilities poses an
overall low risk to human health and the
environment This is largely due to the
fact that most of the active facilities are
located in areas with low-risk
environmental and exposure
characteristics (e.g., very low
precipitation and net recharge, large
depths to ground water, large distances
to surface water, and great distances to
potentially exposed populations). As
pointed out by several commenters, with
whom EPA agrees, the Agency's risk
modeling for copper slag was very
conservative (tending to overestimate
risks) and supports a conclusion that the
slag poses low risks as currently
managed.
Finally, following careful review of
the information and public comments on
the copper slag damage cases, EPA
believes that the damages documented
in the RTC for copper slag resulted from
unusual circumstances that generally do
not represent current management
practices. For example, the damages at
Commencement Bay (Puget Sound) were
caused by the use of copper slag, as well
as other wastes, as fill in a wetland or
tideflats area. The nearby copper facility
that generated the slag is now inactive,
and the ten active primary copper
processing facilities are generally
concentrated in arid areas where it is
very unlikely that slag could be
disposed of in a wetland. Similarly, at
the inactive copper facilities in Midvale,
UT and El Paso, TX. environmental
contamination has been caused by the
co-management of slag from copper,
lead, and/or zinc processing since the
late 1800's. Based on the available
damage case information, survey
responses, and public comments, EPA
believes that these cases do not reflect
the industry norm today. In addition.
EPA presently does not have damage
case information that suggest* that
current copper slag management
practices are causing problems.
Based on these findings, EPA
concludes that current management of
copper slag does not appear to pose
significant human health or
environmental hazards, and current slag
management practices appear unlikely
to cause problems in the future. A* a
result Federal regulation under subtitle
C is not appropriate. Given this finding,
EPA did not evaluate the questions
addressed in Steps 2 and 3 of the
decision making methodology.
Slag From Elemental Photphomt
Production. Addressing the questions in
Step 1 of the decision making process,
the information included in the RTC and
provided in public comments leads to
the following major findings for
elemental phosphorus slag.
First elemental phosphorus slag does
not exhibit any of the four
characteristics of hazardous waste. One
commenter contends that the slag is
intrinsically dangerous because it is
radioactive and contains toxic
constituents. EPA agrees that the
radionuclide content may pose a direct
radiation threat when the slag is used
off-site. (See further discussion on this
issue later in this section and in section
IV.) However, the slag contains few
chemical constituents that exceed the
RTC's conservative risk screening
criteria by a significant margin, and
none exceed regulatory levels that
would qualify the slag for subtitle C
controls.
Second, current on-site slag
management practices and
environmental conditions at the five
active elemental phosphorus facilities
generally pose a low risk via the ground-
water and surface water exposure
pathways. Significant risks via these
pathways are limited by the low
concentrations of potentially harmful
constituents in slag leachate and the
generally large size of slag particles that
limit stormwater erosion potential. In
addition, the potential for the slag piles
to cause significant impacts-to surface
water is precluded by the relatively
great distance (more than 500 meters) to
the nearest water body at two facilities,
the use of stormwater run-off controls at
the slag piles at two facilities, and the
large flow and assimilative capacity (30
cubic meters per second or 1.058 cubic
feet per second) of the creek closest to
the fifth facility. As the RTC and one
commenter point out one of the sites is
located within a mile of a wetland, one
site overlies an area of karst terrain, and
one facility is located in a National
Forest While these facts are pertinent
the Agency believes, based on all the
evidence, that existing management
practices for elemental phosphorus slag
should not significantly threaten these
environments through the ground-water
and surface water pathways, given the
small potential for releases to these
media.
Moreover, although one commenter
points out that ground-water
contamination has been observed at
three of the five active facilities,
available information on the
documented damages at elemental
phosphorus facilities indicates that the
ground-water contamination is due to
other wastes and waste management
practices (e.g., historic unlined ponds
used to store process wastewater). This
supports the above finding that on-site
management of the slag does not pose a
significant ground-water risk.
On-site management at three
facilities, however, may pose a
-------
2730S Federal Register / Vot 56, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, l«9t / Rule* and Regulation
moderate risk via the air exposure
pathway due to the chromium, cadmium.
and uranium-238 concentrations in the
slag. Although the vitrified nature and
generally large size of particles tends to
limit wind erosion, there is some
evidence that dust from slag piles may
be blown into the air and potentially
lead to exposures. As noted in the RTC
and reiterated by one commenter. three
of the facilities are located in fairly
densely populated areas and three are
located in agricultural areas where
airborne deposition and subsequent
food chain exposures are possible.
Based on these findings. EPA
concludes that current on-site
management practices for elemental
phosphorus slag do not appear to pose a
significant ground-water or surface
water risk and are not lively to cause
significant problems through these
pathways in the future. However, there
is some potential for airborne releases
and resulting impacts; because of the
Agency's desire to fully evaluate all
potential risks, the Agency proceeded to
Step 2 of its decision making process to
evaluate whether more stringent
regulation is necessary and desirable.
In this step, EPA made three bask
findings:
• The relatively low to moderate risk
from the on-site management of
elemental phosphorus slag la expected
to continue hi the future in the absence
of subtitle C regulation given current
waste management practices and
environmental conditions at the five
active facilities. The slag characteristics
and existing management practices at
the five active facilities are unlikely to
change significantly.
• None of the states where elemental
phosphorus slag is generated
specifically apply fugitive dust control
requirements to slag piles. However.
adequate authority and mechanisms
already exist under the Clean Air Act to
control this dust. For example, the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
include a standard for the airborne
concentration of particulate matter, and
the dust could be controlled under the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, if necessary.
• Regulation under subtitle C would
impose significant and specific
requirements (e.g.. linen, caps, ground-
water monitoring) that are directed at
controlling releases/risks that do not
appear to exist or are otherwise
controlled and. thus, are not appropriate
given the special status of the waste.*
Baaed on these combined findings
from Steps 1 and 2, EPA concludes that
regulation of elemental phosphorus slag
under subtitle C is not appropriate under
the circumstances. (Accordingly, EPA
did not proceed to Step 3 of its decision
making process.) EPA plans to further
examine the potential impacts of fugitive
dust emissions from elemental
phosphorus slag piles and will
determine whether controls for these
releases are needed, and if so. whether
they can be developed mnder the Clean
Air Act
The Agency is uncertain about the
potential gamma radiation exposures
and risks associated with off-site use of
elemental phosphorus slag in
construction and land reclamation. As
discussed in more detail in section FV of
this preamble, the Agency has
postponed any decisions about the
significance of this risk and the need for
additional control of off-site uses
pending more extensive review. In
response to comments. EPA
acknowledges that the RTC is in error in
its statement that radon emissions from
elemental phosphorus stag pose
significant risks, as other EPA studies
clearly show that the slag is not a
significant source of radon emissions.
However, the fact that radon gas
emissions from elemental phosphorus
slag an inconsequential does not
eliminate concern about the potential for
direct exposure to gamma radiation
emitted from the slag.
SlagFraa Primary Zinc Pnceiaiag.
Regarding the question* raised in Step 1
of the Agency's decision making
process, a careful review of the RTC
information and public comments on
zinc slag leads to the following out*
conclusions.
Based on available data, zinc slag
frequently exhibits EP-toxicity, as 25 of
37 samples contained lead in
concentrations that exceed the EP-
toxteity regulatory level by a factor of
between 6 and 13. Using the SPLP test.
however, lead concentrations never
exceeded the EP toxicity regulatory
level although the SPLP test has been
shown on occasion to underestimate the
amount of teachable lead in a sample.
At the same time, based on a review
of existing waste management practices
and predictive modeling results. EPA
believes that zinc slag, as currently
managed at the sole active factittr in
Monaca. PA. poses an overall low risk
to human health and the environment
For example, the Agency predicts that
metals leached from sine stag at Am
Monaca facility would be largely bound
' To be regulated under lubtitU C the watt*
would hive to be Mvted n e tmzarriow watt*
becauae It doe* DM exhibit any a* tke lav
cbaracUibtiea that would othejwlae ehwffy It ae a
hazardoua waste.
to subsurface soil and would aot reach
the deep naeable aquifer within 200
yean. Even if a shallower aquifer exisls
at t-.z Mle as die RTC and one
cotn-sster suggest, any shallow gru^
water that may become contaminated
with siag leachate is Ukerf to discharge,
without being withdrawn for human use,
into the adjacent Ohio River via the
steep bluff adjoining the site. The Ohio
River is very large at this point, and EPA
modeling predicts that it can readily
assimilate any chronic loading of
contaminants that may occur, and any
such release would be controlled
through permitting under the Clean
Water Act
A portion of the zinc slag is also sold
for use at off-site locations as road
gravel or construction aggregate, and
another portion is stockpiled until it caa
be sold for off-site use as a source of
iron. Given the high concentrations of
lead measured in EP leach tests of zinc
slag, EPA recognizes that possible off-
site use locations may be more
condoerw to releases and risks than the
existing processing facility in Monaca,
PA. although the Agency has no
evidence that such risks are occurring or
would occur, m fact the Agency did not
discover any damages attributable to
such slags used off-site.
Third. EPA did not discover any
damage cases attributed to zinc si
the Monaca facility. Damage case
studies at inactive sites did demonstrate
the potential lor surface water
contamination via stormwater run-off
from zinc slag piles, however. While
these cases demonstrate the potential
for problems if zinc slag is not properly
controlled, they do not by themselves
indicate that more stringent controls are
needed for slag at the one active facility.
la fact, the lack of documented damage
associated with the active facility
supports the conclusion that zinc slag as
currently managed at that facility poses
a low risk. One cosameater argued that
the lack of damage case data from the
active facility may be a reflection of the
inadequacy of the facility's
environmental monitoring system, and
not the absence of actual damage.
However, the Agency believes that slag
at the Monaca facility does not pose a
threat, principally because the slag
composition at the Monaca facility is
not considered comparable to diet of the
inactive facilities, Le« it arises from
feedstocks earring a different chemical
composMea. It saoold also be noted that
with respect to the commerrter's specific
point tke facility kee been in opera}
for over 6t yean and there are i
available sMoctoring data that i
-------
FashnA Register / Vol. 561 No. 114 / Thursday, Jane 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulation! 27309
evidence of damages resulting from the
management of zinc slag.
The Agency considered these findings,
by themselves, to be insufficient to
support a final regulatory determination.
Although on-site risks and damages at
the sole active facility are low. the
elevated EP leachate concentrations (as
well as difficulties in interpreting the
low SPLP leachate concentrations) and
the prospect of zinc slag being managed
at off-site locations that may present a
problem prompted the Agency to
proceed to Step 2 of its decision making
process to determine whether more
stringent regulation is necessary and
desirable. In answer to the questions
addressed in Step 2. the Agency found
that:
• The waste management practices
and environmental conditions that
currently limit the potential for
significant threats to human health acd
the environment at the Monaca facility
are expected to continue in the future in
the absence of subtitle C regulation.
Similarly, management practices at off-
site locations would not be expected to
change significantly. The characteristics
of the slag are also unlikely to change in
the future.
• EPA's recently promulgated
stormwater regulations (55 FR 47990,
November 16* 1980} under the Clean
Water Act will minimize the potential
for adverse impacts of stormwater run-
off from zinc slag piles in the future.
• The only potential problem
associated with these slags that EPA
has identified is with their off-site use or
disposal However, the Agency has no
evidence that such, use or disposal is
resulting in environmental damage.
Control under subtitle C would impose
tiignificant and specific requirements
(e.g., liners, closure and post-closure
care) that are directed at controlling
teleases/risks that do not appear to-
exist or are otherwise controlled and,
thus, are not appropriate given the
special status of the waste.
Finally, the Agency notes that the State
cif Pennsylvania has proposed
regulations that would impose more
stringent environmental controls on the
en-site management and off-site use of
zinc slag, although the exact nature and
extent of these controls cannot be
predicted with certainty. The proposed
rule would require generators to certify
tiat they have attempted to reuse andV
or recycle the slag before disposal ami
v/ould require permits to contain
provision* for liners, leachate collection
systems, monitoring wells, and disposal
ofleachsrte.
Beees) on these combined, findings
from Steps 1 and 2. EPA concluded that
regulation of sine slag under subtitle C t>
inappropriate under the circumstances.
(As a result the Agency did not proceed
to evaluate the questions addressed in
Steo 3 of its decision malting process.)
Air Pollution Control (APC) Dust/
Sludge From Iron Blast Furnaces,
Addressing the questions in Sfep 1 of the
decision making process, the
information provided in the RTC and in
public comments on the RTC leads to
the following findings for this waste.
First. EPA found that lead
concentrations measured in iron blast
furnace APC dust/sludge leachate using
the EP leach test only occasionally
exceeded the EP-toxicity regulatory
level (4 out of 70 samples from 3 out of 16
facilities with data). In addition, the
waste is recycled (completely at one
facility and partially at another) at two
of the three facilities where the waste
was found to be EP-toxic. Although lead
concentrations determined by SPLP
analyses never exceeded the EP toxidty
regulatory level the Agency has
difficulty interpreting these
measurements because the SPLP test
has been shown on occasion to
underestimate the amount of teachable
lead in s sample.
At the same time, based on an
examination of the site specific
conditions at 15 of the 26 facilities that
generate this waste, current
management practices and
environmental conditions are highly
variable, with the potential for
contaminant releases existing at some
sites. For example, there is potential for
ground-water contamination at five
facilities that manage at least some of
the dust/sludge in surface
impoundments, although the low EP
leachate concentrations at these
facilities (none exceeded the EP-toxicity
regulatory levels) would appear to
suggest that any such contamination
would not likely be significant The
dot/sludge also consists of small
particles that are amenable to release
and transport via stormwater and wind
erosion when the wsste is managed in
exposed piles. Due to site-specific
management practices and
environmental conditions, there appear*
to be some potential for migration into
surface water at four facilities and a
potential for airborne releases and
exposures at seven facilities.
One commenter argued that risks
posed by this waste could be
substantially higher than repotted,
because, as the commenter pointed out.
the RTC did not consider the site-
specific conditions at all active fatiattesv
inactive facilities that could be
reactivated in the future, end potential
new facilities. While the commenter
raises a good point the Agency notes
that the sample of facilities examined hi
the RTC represents more than half (15)
of the 26 active facilities and seven of
the ten states where active facilities are
located. Furthermore, the conditions
examined in the RTC represent a wide
diversity of management practices and
environmental conditions. Specifically.
all known management practices for the
dust/sludge were represented by the 15
sample facilities, including disposal
methods (landfills and ponds) and
temporary storage methods (storage
pads and transfer areas), such as might
be present at facilities that recycle the
waste or send it off-site for disposal.
Some of these units are equipped with
engineered controls to prevent releases
(e.g., liners and run-off controls}, while
others are not In terms of
environmental conditions, the facilities
examined represent a variety of depths
to ground water, net recharge rates,
distances to surface water, and
proximities to potential receptors. As a
consequence, the Agency believes that
the faculties examined reasonably
represent the conditions that might exist
at the other facilities. EPA thus believes
that the hazards that were evaluated
reflect the diversity and nature of
hazards posed by iron blast furnace
APC dust/sludge at the other facilities.
Finally, despite the Agency's
theoretical conclusions about the
potential for iron blast furnace APC
dust/sludge to be released into the
environment at tome facilities, EPA did
not find any riatn»g« cases attributable
to this waste, which EPA believes to be
significant when evaluating the actual
hazards posed by special wastes. One
commenter alleged that there are such
documented damage cases, but that EPA
did not discover them because it did not
review files for inactive sites and other
key information sources. However, as
stated in the Agency's responses to
comments on the RTCs analytical
methodology (see appendix A of this
preamble), the Agency maintains the
view that its damage case investigation
effort for these and other wastes was
comprehensive and thorough. The
Agency closely evaluated the specific
information sources referenced by the
commenter and. though the information
clearly shows environmental problems
at ferrous metal production facilities,
EPA does not believe thai the damages
can be attributed ID the special wastes
studied in the Report to Congress. For
example, surface water and ground-
water impacts were found related to
"slag landfills" at two facilities, but the
landfills contained a number of co-
disposed wastes, incfading sludges, fly
-------
27310 Federal Register / Vol 50, No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ash, waste acid, and coke plant tars, all
of which may have contributed to the
observed impacts.
In summary, this waste exhibits
hazardous waste characteristics only
rarely—only three facilities out of 18
with data generate dust/sludge that
exhibits the toxicity characteristic, and
even then the data suggest that the
waste exhibits the characteristic only
occasionally. Moreover, the waate is
recycled (completely at one facility and
partially at another) at two of the three
facilities where it occasionally exhibits
the toxicity characteristic. The Agency
recognizes that existing waste
characteristics, management practices,
and environmental conditions could
lead to releases at selected facilities.
However, the low EP leachate
concentrations at most facilities, and the
lack of documented cases of damage
attributable to the dust/sludge indicate
that the potential effects of such
releases are not of sufficient magnitude
to warrant removal of the special status
of these wastes. In addition. EPA's
recently promulgated stormwater
regulations (55 FR 47990, November 16,
1990) under the Clean Water Act will
minimize the potential for adverse
impacts of stormwater runoff from the
dust/sludge. Based on these findings,
EPA concludes that regulation of this
waste under subtitle C is inappropriate
under the circumstances. (Accordingly,
the Agency did not evaluate the
questions addressed in Steps 2 and 3 of
its decision making process.)
Basic Oxygen Furnace and Open
Hearth Fumaca Air Pollution Control
(APC) Dust/Sludge From Carbon Steel
Production. Based on a review of
information in the RTC, supplemental
analysis, and public comments on steel
APC dust/sludge. EPA's responses to
the questions in Step 1 of the decision
making process are basically the same
as those outlined above for iron blast
furnace APC dust/sludge. Specifically:
• Steel APC dust/sludge appear* to
be EP-toxic only rarely. Of seven
samples analyzed from five facilities.
the concentration of selenium exceeded
the EP-toxicity regulatory level in only
one sample, and in this on* case, only
by a factor of 1.5. Selenium
concentrations as determined by SPLP
analyses did not exceed the EP-toxicity
level
• Based on an examination of the
site-specific conditions at 11 facilities
that generate the dust/sludge, current
management practices and
environmental conditions are highly
variable, with the potential for
contaminant releases existing at certain
facilities. Like the iron blast furnace
APC dust/sludge, however, there
appears to be only a minor potential for
ground-water contamination at a few
facilities that manage the steel APC
dust/sludge in impoundments. The steel
APC dust/sludge consists of small
particles that would be amenable to
release and transport via stonnwater
and wind erosion if the waste is not
properly controlled.
• EPA did not identify a single case of
documented damage that can be
attributed to steel APC dust/sludge.
Based on these findings, EPA
concludes that subtitle C regulation for
steel APC dust sludge is inappropriate
under the circumstances that exist
(Therefore, the Agency did not employ
Steps 2 and 3 of its decision making
methodology.) The basic rationale for
this conclusion is the same as that for
iron blast furnace APC dust/sludge.
That is, the dust/sludge rarely if ever
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste. Although existing management
practices and environmental conditions
have the potential for environmental
releases at certain facilities (although no
evidence exists that such contamination
has occurred or would occur), the
waste's low contaminant concentrations
and lack of damage cases indicate that
the potential for adverse effects is not of
sufficient magnitude to warrant removal
of the special status of the waste. Thus.
to the extent that additional controls
may be justified, and state management
controls an deemed to be inadequate,
EPA may pursue appropriate controls
for steel APC dust/sludge management
under the Subtitle D program being
developed for mineral extraction and
beneficiation wastes.
Calcium Sulfate Wastewater
Treatment Plant Sludge From Primary
Copper Processing. In the Report to
Congress. EPA tentatively recommended
subtitle C regulation for this waste
under Approach IB. However. EPA
received data in comments indicating
that only one facility now generates and
disposes of this sludge. In addition, as
outlined in section II of this preamble,
the Agency modified Step 2 of it»
decision making methodology in
response to public comments to
deemphasize consideration of potential
threats that could exist at any new
facilities that open in the future in favor
of the other Step 2 factors, in light of the
speculative nature of EPA's predictions
regarding industry expansion. The
possibility of expansion was an
important factor contributing to the
RTCs Subtitle C recommendation for
this waste. EPA. therefore, has
reconsidered the RTC tentative
recommendation, focusing only on the
remaining active generator (located in
Garfield. UT).
Addressing the three questions
considered in Step 1 of the decision
making process:
• The sludge at the Garfield facjj
EP-toxic for arsenic (7 out of 7 sac
average 44 times the regulatory levelJT
cadmium (6 of 7 samples average 3 times
the regulatory level), and selenium (7 of
7 samples average 5 times the regulatory
level). SPLP leach test concentrations.
however, were below the subtitle C
regulatory levels for all of the samples
analyzed.
• One commenter argued that calcium
sulfate sludge poses a large risk that
should be controlled under subtitle C:
however, based on a review of existing
management practices and the arid
setting of the Garfield facility, EPA
believes that the hazards associated
with calcium sulfate sludge at this site
are low. Predictive modeling that
accounts for the low net recharge and
high evaporation rate, depth to ground
water, and clayey subsurface at the site
indicates that the potential for ground-
water contamination is very low.
Similarly, the potential for significant
surface water contamination is
negligible given the great distance of the
sludge management units to the nearest
surface water body (over 2 miles to the
Great Salt Lake), and windblown
dusting is significantly limited by the
surface crust that forms on the dr
sludge.
• No cases of documented dar
caused by the sludge at the one active
facility were discovered by EPA.
Even though the site-specific risk
findings and lack of damage cases
indicate that management of the sludge
does not pose human health or
environmental problems, the high
intrinsic hazard of the sludge compelled
EPA to consider additional factors
before reaching a final regulatory
determination. Therefore, EPA
proceeded to Step 2 of its decision
making process to examine whether
more stringent regulation is necessary
and desirable.
In Step 2, EPA found that current
practices at the Garfield facility appear
adequate to limit contaminant releases
and associated risks in the future in the
absence of subtitle C regulation. The
sludge is well managed at present and
the potential for releases appears to be
precluded by the environmental
conditions at this site. Specifically.
potential release* to ground water are
significantly limited by the site's very
arid setting (liquids discharged to
impoundment* along with the sludge are
expected to quickly evaporate and little
precipitation and recharge is i
to carry contaminants to the
-------
Federal Regnter / Vcl. 5fl£ No. 114 / Thursday; June 13, 199T / Rules and Regulations 27811
subsurface), clayey subsurface, and
depth to ground water (8 meters to the
water table and 90 meters to the
uppermost uaeable aquifer). Because die
nearest surface water near the sludge
units, the Great Salt Lake, is over two
miles away, significant releases to
surface water also should not be a
problem. Finally, the potential for
significant releases to air is limited
because a surface crust forms on the
dried sludge, largely preventing the
wind from blowing dust into the air, and
because the dried sludge is exposed to
the wind only temporarily before it is
stabilized and buried in an on-site
landfill.
EPA also found in Step 2 that existing
state regulatory programs provide only
limited controls over the management of
calcium sulfate sludge. Some
commenters argued that the RTC's
analysis of state regulations
significantly understates the regulatory
requirements applicable to copper
processing wastes. However, upon
further consideration of available
information and communication with
state officials. EPA concludes that the
states have been regulating copper
processing wastes, including calcium
sulfate sludge, only to a limited extent
However, as discussed below, the
Agency does not believe, based on
available information, that this limited
regulation has resulted in any
environmental problems.
Finally, EPA also concluded in Step 2
that Subtitle C regulation of calcium
sulfate wastewater treatment plant
sludge would impose significant and
specific requirements (e.g., linen, caps,
ground-water monitoring) that are
directed at controlling releases/risks
that do not appear to exist or are
otherwise controlled and. thus, are not
appropriate given the special status of
the waste.
Based on these combined findings
from Steps I and 2, EPA concluded that
existing sludge management practice* at
the one facility in question currently
limit the potential for damages.
Therefore, considering all of these
findings together, EPA concludes that
subtitle C regulation of calcium sulfate
sludge is inappropriate given the
existing circumstances. (Accordingly,
EPA did not evaluate the question*
addressed in Step 3 of its decision
making methodology.) EPA may address
the generation and management of this
sludge under the subtitle O program
under development for the mining
industry.
This subtitle D determination differs
from the RTC's tentative
recommendation for two reasons. Pint
potential human health and
environmental problems at one copper
processing facility were dropped from
consideration because public comments
indicate that the facility no longer
generates and disposes of calcium
sulfate stodge. Second, the Agency
agreed with commenters that concerns
expressed in the RTC about potential
problems at new facilities that may open
in the future are somewhat speculative.
Therefore, EPA did not place as much
weight on these concerns in making the
regulatory determination as it did in the
RTC.
Chloride Process Waste Solids from
- Titanium Tetrachloride Production. In
the RTC, EPA tentatively recommended
subtitle C regulation for this waste
under Approach IB. However,
additional data submitted in public
comments and reanalysis of the RTC
data indicate that the waste is not EP-
toxic for lead as indicated in the RTC •
and. therefore, is EP-toxic only for
chromium. In addition, this waste would
currently be exempt from subtitle C
regulation by 40 CFR 261.4(b)(6), which
exempts wastes that are hazardous only
because they exhibit the EP toxitity
characteristic for chromium, contain
only trivalent chromium, and are
managed in non-oxidizing environments.
For these reasons, EPA decided to
reevaluate the RTC's tentative
conclusions.
Considering the three questions in
Step 1 of the Agency's decision making
process, the Agency has made the
following findings. First, the waste is
characteristically hazardous only as a
result of its chromium content, which is
currently exempted from regulation
under subtitle C of RCRA by
S 261.4(b)(8](i)(A). In addition, chromium
concentrations in the waste solids
measured using the SPLP leach test are
below the EP-toxicity regulatory levels.
as indicated by further analysis of the
RTC data and information submitted in
comments.
Second, based on an examination of
existing conditions at the nine active
titanium tetrachloride facilities, EPA
found that current management of the
waste solids may allow contaminants to
migrate in the environment at certain
sites, but that the potential for this
migration to cause significant impacts is
low. For example, there appears to be a
potential for leachate from this waste to
reach ground-water at half of the sites,
• Tht wU aampj* found to contain Uad above, tka
EP-toxic Itvtl was determined to ba for tht waata
add* tnd tntntnttl toHda diacharsad to an on-ritt
Impoudnaat not the tttaalaai waala toUd* (tto
ipacial WMM) that tattfe to th* bonom ol tha
impoundment. EPA haa dctarmiaad. therefor*, thai
this tampla la not appropriate for UM la
characterizing the warte aoHd*.
but predictive modeling at the "most
sensitive" site indicates that
contaminant concentrations at the
property boundary would be below
drinking water standards. Similarly, the
Agency's modeling predicts that
concentrations of contaminants in
surface waters near the sites would be
well below human health and
environmental protection benchmarks,
and that the risks associated with the
inhalation of windblown dust from the
waste solids piles would be negligible.
One commenter argued that the risks
posed by this waste are sufficiently high
to warrant regulation under subtitle C.
In particular, the commenter argued that
chemical concentrations (e.g., of
chromium, lead, radium, and arsenic) in
the waste solids could be much higher
than the few samples examined in (he
RTC. that the wastes threaten fragile
ecosystems near several of the facilities.
and that drinking water threats could
exist if private wells were installed
closer to existing facilities. While EPA
agrees there is always a possibility that
the waste could contain higher chemical
concentrations than those reported, the
Agency used 17 samples from 7 facilities
and believes the resulting
characterization of the waste is
adequate. The Agency also recognizes
that several sites are located near
"fragile" ecosystems: Six of the nine
active facilities are located within 1,600
meters (1 mile) of a wetland, one is
located within 2,600 meters of an
endangered species habitat, and three
are located within 1,600 meters of a
National Park, Wildlife Refuge, or
Recreation Area. However, the Agency's
conservative modeling predicts that it is
very unlikely that contaminants
released from the waste solids
management units could migrate to
these areas in harmful concentrations.
Finally. EPA's ground-water modeling
for the "worst-case" facility predicts
that contaminant concentrations at the
property boundary are below health-
baaed and ground-water protection
criteria. Therefore, it does not appear
that releases to ground water would
pose a serious threat to the
environments surrounding each plant.
Third. EPA found no documented
cases of damage attributable to titanium
tetrachloride waste solids. No evidence
of damages was uncovered in the RTCs
comprehensive review of all nine active
and two inactive titanium facilities, and
no new damage case information was
submitted in public comments.
Based on these findings. EPA
concludes that regulation of titanium
tetrachloride waste solids under RCRA
Subtitle C is inappropriate under the
-------
27312 Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
circumstances. (Accordingly, the Agency
did not evaluate Steps 2 and 3 of the
decision making methodology.) Current
on-site management practices do not
appear to pose a significant risk. In
addition, management practices are
likely to be improving because the
waste is currently comanaged with
waste acids from titanium tetrachloride
production, a waste that recently
became subject to subtitle C controls.
EPA plans to follow closely the changes
in management practices that are
expected to result from the change in
regulatory status of the waste acids.
changes that in some cases may result in
management of the waste solids in units
subject to subtitle C requirements. At
those facilities where the waste is not
managed in units regulated under
subtitle C. EPA believes that releases
that may occur can be adequately
addressed under subtitle 0 given the
special status of these wastes. In
addition, in the final Toxicity
Characteristic rulemaking, EPA
indicated that it would re-evaluate the
trivalent chromium exemption in
§ 261.4(b)(6) (55 FR11812. March 29.
1990). If EPA finds that this exemption is
not protective of human health and the
environment and if an examination of
titanium tetrachloride waste
management shows any continuing or
new problems, the Agency will
reconsider this subtitle D determination
for chloride process waste solids from
titanium tetrachloride production.
Today's subtitle 0 determination is
warranted and differs from the RTC's
tentative recommendation primarily due
to changes in the data base used to
characterize the waste, such that the
waste only exhibits the toxicity
characteristic of hazardous waste for
chromium and is exempt from subtitle C
regulation. As discussed above.
consideration of changes in management
practices for waste solids that are
expected as a result cf the classification
of waste acids from titanium
tetrachloride production as a hazardous
waste supports a subtitle 0 decision. In
addition, if the decisionmaking process
had been carried to Step 2, the fact that
the Agency modified Step 2 of its
decisionmaking methodology (in
response to public comments) to
deemphasize consideration of potential
threats that could exist at any new
facilities that open in the future, would
also have contributed to the change
from the subtitle C tentative
recommendation in the RTC to today's
subtitle D regulatory determination.
Slag from Primary Lead Processing. In
the Report to Congress. EPA tentatively
recommended subtitle C regulation for
lead slag under decision making
Approach IE Further Agency analyse*
in response to public comments.
however, provided a clearer picture of
the three damage cases presented in the
Report and the risks associated with one
facility's practice of shipping its slag off-
site for disposal. EPA. therefore.
reconsidered the RTC's tentative
recommendation to account for this
additional information.
Addressing Step 1 in the Agency's
decision making process, which
evaluates whether management of the
waste poses human health or
environmental problems. EPA made four
basic findings. First, lead slag is EP-
toxic using results of the EP leach test:
EP-toxicity leach tests show that lead
exceeded the regulatory level at all five
active facilities in a total of 27 out of 101
samples; the maximum lead
concentrations exceeded the regulatory
level by a factor of 19. Cadmium
concentrations exceeded the regulatory
level at two facilities, by as much as a
factor of seven. Arsenic, mercury, and
selenium concentrations also exceeded
the regulatory levels at the one facility
that is only a refinery (the other
facilities are either combined smelters
and refineries or, in the case of one
facility, only a smelter). No samples
analyzed using the SPLP test contained
contaminants in concentrations above
the EP-toxicity regulatory levels;
however, the SPLP test has been shown
on occasion to underestimate the
concentration of teachable lead in a
sample.
Second, current practices for
managing lead slag at the five active
lead processing facilities appear to limit
the potential for significant impacts
caused by the slag. The potential for
lead slag to cause significant surface
water contamination at all but one
facility is limited by the use of control
systems that retain and treat stormwater
run-off from slag piles prior to discharge.
or by an expected small contaminant
loading that is well within the
assimilative capacity of nearby water
bodies and is subject to control under
the Clean Water Act. Risk modeling
indicates that stormwater erosion of a
lead slag pile at one facility could result
in surface water contamination.
However, due to releases to ground
water from unlined wastewater ponds at
this facility, the site is presently being
cleaned up under the Superfund
program, and any potential surface
water impacts associated with erosion
from the slag pile will be addressed as
part of the site's overall Superfund
response. EPA's recently promulgated
stormwater regulations (55 FR 47990.
November 16.1990) under the Clean
Water Act will also minimize the
potential for adverse impacts of
stormwater runoff from lead slag.
The Agency's modeling indicates
it is possible for some contaminants to
leach from lead slag piles at two of the
active facilities and migrate into
underlying ground water. However.
increased on-site concentrations of
constituents in ground water are
expected to be well within applicable
drinking water standards. Air pathway
modeling also indicates that it is very
unlikely for lead slag piles to cause
harmful concentrations of contaminants
in the air at the nearest residences. One
commenter contends that lead slag
should be regulated under subtitle C
because windblown dust from slag piles
could pose a significant risk by resulting
in an accumulation of contaminated
dust in residential areas where people
could be exposed directly. However, a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study at the facility in East Helena. MT
has shown that slag management is a
very minor contributor to windblown
particulate matter and accumulated dust
in the site environs.7 As much as 95
percent of the lead particulate matter
measured in air near the East Helena
facility was found to come from ore
processing areas and other sources, not
the slag piles.
Third, there is a greater potentia^^V
human health and environmental risWt
two off-site municipal landfills where
lead slag from one facility is disposed.
although the Agency has no evidence
that such management does present a
substantial hazard. Although the total
quantity of slag that is shipped to these
off-site landfills represents only 3
percent of the total quantity of slag that
is generated, the slag that is shipped off-
site is the highly concentrated refinery
slag that is consistently EP-toxic for
mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, and/or
selenium.
Fourth, historical slag management
practices have clearly caused ground-
water contamination at one site, but
steps have since been taken to help
prevent this contamination from
occurring in the future. The RTC
reported damage cases at two other lead
facilities, but close examination of the
RTC data and information submitted in
public comments has eliminated one of
the damage cases and called the other
one into question. Specifically, EPA's
ongoing Superfund evaluation at the
lead facility in East Helena. MT has
' Comprvhtniiv* Rtmtditl lnvt«ti|«tion/
Fusibility Study^ASARCO Incwpontxi. j
Helen*. MonUiu. Much 30.1900.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Thursday. June 13, 1931 / Rules and Regulations 27313
demonstrated that ground-water
contamination at that site has been
caused by two on-site wastewater
impoundments. Contribution to the
problem from the lead slag pile is
thought to be limited, though further
study is planned. At the other site,
located in Boss, MO, observed ground-
water contamination is not clearly
attributable to slag, as it too may have
been caused by nearby wastewater
impoundments. The Agency's risk
modeling predicts that ground-water
contamination from the slag pile at this
site is unlikely.
Based on these findings, EPA
concludes that the potential for lead slag
to cause significant impacts is limited by
the current management practices and
conditions at the five active facilities,
but there is some potential for adverse
impacts that may be caused by the off-
site disposal of relatively small
quantities of lead slag from one facility.
Therefore, EPA proceeded to Step 2 of
its decision making process to evaluate
whether more stringent regulation is
necessary and desirable. In this step of
the process, EPA found that:
• Current practices at the off-site
landfills that are receiving lead slag for
disposal may not be adequate to limit
contaminant release and associated
risk. As mentioned above, these are
municipal landfills that may or may not
be adequately equipped to contain
contaminant migration from lead slag.
• In Nebraska, where all of the
present off-site disposal of slag takes
place, the slag could continue to be
managed at off-site locations in the
future with minimal state regulation.
The other states where primary lead
processing occurs have varying degrees
of regulatory control. The State of
Missouri, for example, where three
facilities are located, has recently
developed strengthened permitting.
closure, maintenance, and financial
assurance requirements for facilities
that manage mineral processing wastes.
In addition, stormwater run-off from
lead slag piles into nearby surface
waters is subject to control under the
Clean Water Act in all three states
where the slag is currently managed.
• Because subtitle C regulation would
subject the slag to strict hazardous
waste management standards, it would
prevent the disposal of slag in municipal
landfills. However, a subtitle C
determination for this waste would also
impose significant and specific
requirements for on-site management
(e.g.. liners, closure and postclosure
care, ground-water monitoring) that are
directed at controlling releases/risks
that do not appear to exist or are
otherwise controlled at the five active
lead processing facilities and. thus, are
not appropriate given the special status
of the waste. In particular, the Agency
does not believe that it is appropriate to
subject the entire industry to stringent
subtitle C controls when any potential
problems appear to be associated
primarily with only 3 percent of the lead
slag that is currently produced.
Based on the combined findings from
Steps 1 and 2, EPA concludes that
regulation of the waste under subtitle C
is inappropriate under the
circumstances. (Accordingly, EPA did
not proceed to evaluate the questions
addressed in Step 3 of its decision
making process.) The Agency, therefore,
will work to ensure that both on-site and
off-site slag management practices are
adequately protective under subtitle D
and under the Clean Water Act. In
particular. EPA will investigate further
the offsite disposal practices used by the
Omaha facility to determine the extent
to which slag is currently co-disposed
with municipal waste. If the
management of this waste does prove to
be problematic, EPA may, for example,
classify co-disposal of the slag with.
municipal wastes as open dumping
under RCRA section 4004. Open
dumping is a prohibited practice under
criteria promulgated under section 4004.
This determination differs from the
RTC's tentative recommendation
primarily because the Agency closely
reexamined the three lead slag damage
cases discussed in the Report to
Congress in response to public
comments. As outlined above, this
examination determined that controls
have already been established at one
site to address the problem, that another
case appears to be mainly if not entirely
due to wastes other than lead slag, and
that attribution of the third case to slag
management practices is questionable.
Therefore, an important factor in
tentatively recommending Subtitle C
regulation in the RTC has been removed.
Process Wastewater From the
Production of Hydrofluoric Acid. EPA
tentatively recommended subtitle C
regulation for hydrofluoric (HF) acid
process wastewater under Approach 1A
and IB in the Report to Congress.
Additional data submitted in public
comments and follow-up with the State
of Louisiana, however, confirm that the
documented damages cited in the Report
are attributable to phosphoric acid
wastewaters. and not HF process
wastewater as reported in the RTC. EPA
also found that two of the three active
HF acid production facilities neutralize
their wastewater. Accordingly, EPA has
reconsidered the RTC's tentative
recommendation.
Reconsidering the three questions
addressed in Step 1 of the Agency's
decision making process, the Agency
reaches three basic findings. First, all
nine samples of-process wastewater
analyzed (from two of three active
facilities) exhibited the hazardous waste
characteristic of corrosiviry. However.
no constituent concentrations exceeded
EP-toxiciry regulatory levels (all eight
inorganic constituents with EP toxicity
regulatory levels were measured in
concentrations that were no more than
0.6 times the regulatory levels).
Second, as the RTC and one
commenter who argued for subtitle C
regulation pointed out, there is a
relatively high potential for process
wastewater to migrate into shallow
ground water at the three active
facilities. However. EPA does not
believe that this migration will pose
significant health risks, either because
the shallow ground water is not likely to
be used at close downgradient distances
or because the waste management units
are equipped with controls (e.g., a
monitoring well network and slurry
walls) to detect and help contain
ground-water contamination.
One commenter identified a number
of factors that would, according to the
commenter, tend to make risks higher
than presented in the RTC (e.g.. the
presence of shallow ground water, the
current lack of liners beneath existing
impoundments, the potential for changes
in population and land use patterns
leading to higher risks in the future, the
wastewater's corrosivity. and the close
proximity of each existing facility to
wetlands). All of these factors were
considered in the RTC and contribute to
EPA's concern that shallow ground
water near existing units may be
affected. However. EPA does not agree
that the RTC understates the potential
impacts associated with this
contamination, because the
concentrations of contaminants in the
wastewater are generally low. No
constituents in the wastewater were
measured in concentrations above the
subtitle C regulatory levels, and few
exceeded the highly conservative risk
screening criteria used in the RTC by
more than a factor of 10. Therefore.
although the ground-water may become
contaminated above levels of concern in
the immediate vicinity of waste
management units, contaminants are not
expected to migrate downgradient to
potential human or ecological exposure
points.
Third, new data provided in
comments appear to indicate that
shallow ground water at one of the
active facilities has been contaminated
-------
27314 r«J«Ml Regater / Vol. 5& No. 1M / Thomigy, June 13.
with sulfett, total dissolved sofids
(TDS), and fluoride.* Concentrations of
sulfate and TDS in a few wells
surrounding wastewater management
units exceed upgradient concentrations
and secondary drinking water standard*
(designed to prevent an unpleasant
taste). Fluoride concentrations in the
ground .water exceed background
concentrations but do not exceed the
health-based drinking water criterion.
Contamination above the sulfate and
TDS standards appears to have
migrated at least SO meters
downgradient from the units. No
significant effect on pH has been
observed, however, even though the
very low pH of the wastewater would
appear to pose the greatest threat. In
addition, no data are available on the
concentrations of metals and other
constituents with subtitle C regulatory
levels, but any contamination by these
constituents is expected to be minor
because concentrations in the
wastewater are low, as discussed
above. No other cases of documented
damage attributable to HF acid process
wastewater are known to exist
Based on these findings, EPA
concluded that additional waste
management controls for HF acid
process wastewater might be
appropriate, and proceeded to Step 2 of
its decision making process. In this step
of the process, the Agency found that:
• Current practices at two of the three
active facilities are probably adequate
to limit contaminant release and
associated risk. One of the two manages
the wastewater in a surface
impoundment bounded by a slurry wall
and conducts ground-water monitoring.
while the other neutralizes the
wastewater prior to using it for gypsum
transport.
• It does not appear that existing
state controls adequately address the
management of this waste at all
facilities. Of the three states where
active facilities are located {LA. TX. and
KY). Louisiana appears to be most
comprehensive in its regulation of
hydrofluoric acid process wastewater.
The other two states impose less
stringent requirements, though Kentucky
recently proposed new solid waste
regulations that may address process
wasrewater more directly.
• Though the corrosivity of the
wastewater is a potential concern, it
does not appear to pose a significant
problem at the three active facilities
based on available ground-water
monitoring data. In addition, the
concentrations of RCRA Appendix VHI
constituent* in the waste are fow
enough that they ate not expected to
resoh hi exceedances of applicable
standards in ground water. Regulation
under subtitle C would also impose
significant and specific requirements
(e.g., linen, financial responsibility) that
are not appropriate given the special
status of the waste.
Based upon the combined findings of
Steps 1 and 2. EPA concludes that
regulation of process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production under
subtitle C is inappropriate. Although the
waste exhibits the hazardous waste
characteristic of corrosivity, the low pH
of the wastewater does not appear to
pose significant human health or
environmental hazards at the three
active facilities. Moreover, the only
constituents which were found in the
wastewater at significant levels (e.g..
sulfares, fluoride) are not listed in
appendix VIII of part 261. Thus, aside
from corrosivity, subtitle C would not
identify or list this waste as hazardous
under subtitle C. Consequently, to the
extent that stale programs are
determined to be inadequate, the
Agency plans to pursue methods within
the developing subtitle D mining wastes
program to control risks posed by this
waste. (Accordingly, EPA did not
proceed to evaluate the questions
addressed in Step 3 of its decision
making process.)
This determination differs from the
RTC's tentative recommendation
primarily because the Agency closely
reexamined the reported damage case in
response to public comments. As
outlined above, this examination
demonstrated that the damages
described in the RTC are actually
attributable to a different waste, rather
than to HF acid process wastewater.
Therefore, the primary reason for
tentatively recommending subtitle C
regulation in the RTC has been removed.
Phosphogypsum and Process
Wastewater from Phosphoric Acid
Production. The Report to Congress
considered two special wastes from
phosphoric acid production:
Phosphogypsum and process
wabtewater. EPA believes that it is
appropriate to address these two wastes
together in this regulatory
determination. Although the wastes do
not necessarily have to be co-managed.
all of the active phosphoric acid
facilities presently manage the gypsum
and wastewater together in one system.
consisting of a phosphogypsum stack
and associated impoundments.*
Therefore, it is not possible to make a
determination for one waste without, in
practice, affecting the status of the i
waste at all of the operating facihrU
addition, thoBgh the two wastes hav
distinct physical and chemical
properties, it is very difficult to attribute
environmental problems m the vicinity
of the waste management units to one
waste or the other. Moreover, given the
existing co-management of the wastes, it
is also appropriate to evaluate the two
wastes together from the standpoint of
alternative management practices and
cost/economic impacts.
In the Report to Congress, EPA
tentatively recommended Subtitle 0-
Plus regulation for both phosphogypsum
and process wastewater. Since
publishing the RTC EPA has conducted
a supplemental analysis of management
technologies and state regulations for
the two wastes, and received and
evaluated public comments on the RTC
and supplemental analysis. In addition.
in response to public comments, EPA
ha* more doseVy evaluated existing
ground-water monitoring data for the
active phosphoric acid facilities and
analyzed the potential costs associated
with the corrective action provisions in
RCRA sections 30M(u) and 3006(h). EPA
therefore reconsidered the RTC's
tentative recommendation to account for
this additional information.
AddresragStep 1 in the Agency
decision making process, which
evaluate* whether management of the
wastes pose* human health or
environmental problems, EPA made
three finding*.
First, both the gypsum and process
wastewattr exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste, but the gypsum
appears to de sw only rarely. Out of 11
facilities witfi data on the composition
of phosphogypsvn. only the gypsum at
the facility hi Rock Springs, WY exhibits
the characteristic of EP-roxicity. Two
out of two samples of phosphogypsum
from this facility contained
concentrations of chromium that exceed
the toxicity characteristic regulatory
level, by a factor of six, on average. This
appears to be a characteristic restricted
to gypsum derived from the processing
of certain phosphate rock mined in Utah
and processed at the Rock Springs
facility. Available data indicate that the
concentrations of chromium and other
EP constituents in gypsum at facilities in
Louisiana and Florida, which process
rock from Florida, and facilities in Idaho
and North Carolina, which process
locally derived rock, ax* usually one to
• Thit information doea not constitute •
documented d«ntf* CIM.
' The gypiunt it (lurried to the atack tiling
procei* waatewaler and large quantiliei of the
waatewtaiar ate held a (he tnteniiti*! |
within a phoaphosypaum ateck.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 27315
two orders of magnitude below the
regulatory levels.
In contrast the process wastewater
routinely exhibits the hazardous waste
characteristic of corrosivity (i.e.. it has a
pH of less than 2). Out of IS facilities
with data, all process wastewater
samples examined at six facilities had a
pH less than 2 and most samples
examined at six other facilities had a pH
below 2. All of the pH values available
for the other three plants with data are
greater than or equal to 2. Process
wastewater at three out of six facilities
with data also exhibits the toxicity
characteristic. A total of 19 of 19
wastewater samples from the three
facilities contained cadmium
concentrations that exceed the
regulatory level (by a factor of four on
average), and two out of two samples
from one of the facilities also contained
chromium concentrations that exceed
the regulatory level (by a factor of two.
on average).
Second, existing practices for
managing phosphogypsum and process
wastewater appear to pose substantial
risks of environmental contamination
and impacts through the ground-water
and surface water pathways.
Considering the hydraulic head created
by gypsum stacks and process
wastewater impoundments and the net
recharge, depth to ground water, and
subsurface permeability at the 20 active
facilities, EPA believes that there is a
moderate to high potential for ground-
water contamination across the
industry. This potential for ground-water
contamination is limited significantly at
the one Wyoming facility, which has
equipped its waste management units
with synthetic liners and a seepage
collection ditch, but the units at most
other facilities are either unlined or only
lined with the clay and silt that
naturally exist in the area. EPA's
concern about potential ground-water
contamination at the 11 facilities in
Central Florida is compounded by the
presence of underlying karst in the deep
Floridan Aquifer karst is prone to form
caverns or solution cavities that can
serve as contaminant migration
pathways. Available data indicate that
the background ground-water quality is
suitable for drinking 10 and that there is
10 Background data for the aurficial aquifen
indicate that (hallow ground water at tha litn la
generally drinkable, but low yield* at the Florida
lite* limit uae* primarily to irrigation and liveatock
watering. Lower aquifer*, where pment are
generally of equal or better quality, and appear to
be either current or potential public drinking water
supplies.
either a private or public well, where
potential human exposures could occur,
within 1.600 meters (1 mile)
downgradient of the waste management
units at 14 of the 20 active facilities. In
addition. 15 of the active facilities are
located within 1,600 meters of a wetland
and 16 facilities have waste
management units within 500 meters
(less than a third of a mile) of a surface
water body where contamination could
pose ecological threats. Phosphogypsum
does not appear to pose a significant air
pathway risk. Radon emissions to the
air from gypsum stacks are controlled
under the Clean Air Act at a level
designed to ensure "acceptable" risk
within an "ample margin of safety" (see
54 FR 51654, December 15,1989).
Windblown dust releases from gypsum
stacks also appear to be effectively
precluded by the crust that forms on the
dried gypsum solids.
Third, a close examination of
available monitoring data reveals that
there are numerous cases of
documented ground-water
contamination across the industry. For
example, out of 16 facilities with data,
the phosphogypsum stacks and/or
process wastewater ponds at 13
facilities appear to have caused
groundwater contamination that
exceeds background levels and primary
(i.e.. health-based) drinking water
standards. Contamination by
constituents with toxicity characteristic
regulatory levels is seldom evident more
than 500 meters from the waste
management units, but other
contaminants with health-based limits
(gross alpha radiation, radium, and
sodium) have migrated in potentially
harmful concentrations over greater
distances. Based on a review of the
monitoring data and plant
configurations, EPA believes that
contamination above primary drinking
water standards has migrated or is
likely to migrate beyond the facility
property boundary (unless corrective
measures are implemented) at 12 of 15
facilities with data.
Based on these findings. EPA
concluded that management of
phosphogypsum and process
wastewater poses potential health and
environmental problems. Therefore, EPA
proceeded to Step 2 of its decision
making process to examine whether
more stringent regulation is necessary or
desirable. In this step. EPA found that
• Current phosphogypsum and
process wastewater management
practices are often not adequate to limit
contaminant release and associated
risk. As discussed above, current-
management practices generally consist
of disposal or storage in large unlined
piles and ponds, typically in areas that
are conducive to ground-water
contamination,
• Current state and federal
regulations generally do not appear
adequate to control current and likely
future ground-water contamination.
Although Florida is in the process of
developing strengthened regulations, the
State presently permits the special
waste units to contaminate ground
water, usually as far as. but sometimes
beyond, the facility property boundary.
Given the intrinsic hazards of the
wastes, the widespread potential for
contaminant release and migration, and
the potential for human and ecological
exposures in the vicinity of active
facilities, EPA believes a more stringent
regulatory approach is needed.
• EPA believes that regulation under
subtitle C would impose significant and
specific requirements that are directed
at controlling the types of releases/risks
that have been documented for
phosphoric acid production wastes
across the industry.
Based on the combined findings from
Steps 1 and 2, EPA concluded that
existing management practices create
the potential for environmental
problems and that more stringent
regulation is both necessary and
desirable. EPA therefore seriously
considered subtitle C regulation for the
phosphoric acid wastes and proceeded
to Step 3 of its decision-making process
to evaluate the operational and
economic consequences of a subtitle C
determination.
In Step 3 of the decision-making
process, EPA examined the costs and
impacts of the three regulatory scenarios
examined in the RTC and the
Supplemental Analysis, and used the
insights gained thereby in deciding
whether the economic impacts of
subtitle C (or C-Minus) regulation might
cause extensive and significant
economic dislocations within the
phosphoric acid production industry.
Cost impacts were reevaluated
subsequent to release of the RTC and
were based upon an integrated
management strategy for controlling
risks posed by the two special wastes in
combination. This departure from the
Agency's initial approach was required
by new knowledge gained through
additional plant visits and analysis;
these findings are summarized in the
Supplemental Analysis and discussed
further in comment response documents.
Extensive comments received on the
Supplemental Analysis have cast doubt
upon the engineering feasibility of some
of the watte management alternatives
-------
F»aWat Renter / Vol. 5» No. 114 / Thursday, JUIM l» 199i / Rules an* Begnia4one
presented in that document.
Consequently, the Agency has based its
cost analysis in support of today's
regulatory determination on the use of
lined phosphogypsum stacks and
cooling ponds (Engineering Alternative 3
in the Supplemental Analysis). The
technology required to implement this
alternative has been amply
demonstrated (i.e., is feasible), though
the costs involved are higher than those
of some of the other alternatives
evaluated in the Supplemental Analysis.
Because EPA is not confident at present
that full subtitle C compliance is
technically feasible for existing
phosphoric acid plants, principally
because of the predicted operational
effects of the large-scale lime
neutralization required fox compliance
(the only Engineering Alternatives that
would comply with promulgated Subtitle
C Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) for
corrosive wastes rely on lime
treatment), the cost and impact analyses
conducted for today's notice focus
exclusively on the Subtitle C-Minus and
D-Plus scenarios.
EPA has estimated that the total
industry-wide cost of compliance with
the Subtitle C-Minus scenario (assuming
implementation of Engineering
Alternative 3) would be approximately
$465 million annually, with an additional
$15 million to $60 million required
annually for corrective action.
depending upon the analytical
assumptions employed. Estimated
annuali?.ed compliance costs for the
Subtitle D-Plus scenario are
approximately one-third lower, at about
$330 million for the industry in total:
corrective action costs under this
scenario could range from $13 million to
$48 million annually. These costs
represent from M.0 to 21.« percent of tb*
value of shipments (VOS) under Snbtitle
C-Minus. and from 6.2 to 15-2 percent of
the VOS under Subtitle D-Pkis
(excluding corrective action cost*).
depending upon the facility involved.
Costs of this magnitude exceed typical
operating margins in the affected
industry, could not be passed through.
and hence, could not be sustained over
an extended period.
As required by Section 8002(p)(7),
EPA has also conducted an analysis of
the impacts associated with the costs of
regulatory compliance Based upon the
results of this analysis, the Agency has
concluded that the costs and impacts of
regulatory compliance under th« Subtitle
C-Minus and D-Phis scenarios w«uld be
highly significant far moat phosphoric
acid facilities, witk C-Minut costs being
particularly difficult to withstand. These
costs woulid create «^>nfmMc hardship
for and threaten the centimed economic-
viability of many of (be facilities in the
industry. Consequently, the Agency has
decided that while the management of
phosphoric acid production wastes
requires additional controls, hazardous
waste controls under RCRA are too
inflexible and costly For the industry to
implement and remain economically
viable. Even a less rigorous approach
under the auspices of RCRA Subtitle D
could impose costs and impacts that the
domestic industry would find difficult to
withstand. Therefore, the Agency has
serious reservations regarding the
economic feasibility of a traditional
waste management program designed
within the contours of the RCRA statute.
Given these facts and the need for
action to address the risks posed by
phosphoric acid production processes
and associated wastes. EPA believes
that a different approach is required.
The Agency has therefore developed a
two-pronged approach to address these
wastes. First, the Agency will rely upon
existing authorities under RCRA Section
7003 and CERCLA Section 106 to
respond effectively to emergency
situations that arise. In addition. EPA
will accelerate the collection of facility-
specific information, consider the risks
posed by these facilities, and take
appropriate action to contain or
stabilize wastes at facilities that present
a risk to human health and the
environment In this manner, EPA
believes that it can respond
appropriately to any problems that arise
while developing a program that is both
adequately protective of human health
and the environment and economically
feasible and achievable for affected
industry.
Second. EPA believes that a
regulatory program specifically designed
to address the complex issues
associated with phosphoric acid
industry special wastes can be
developed under authorities affbfded by
the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Like RCRA. TSCA providas a
mechanism to address threats posed to
human health and the environment and,
unlike RCRA Subtitle C. does not
contain prescriptive requirements.
TSCA provides the additional and
significant advantage of being broader
in scope, and explicitly allows EPA to
address various parts of the production
and waste generation process itself.
Therefore. EPA plans to proceed with
examination of this problem under
TSCA to consider how to develop •
program that will address phosphoric
acid production practices and processes
to reduce the risks posed by
phospbogypsura and process
wastewater.
The TSCA regulatory inrestigation
already underway vrifl focus on
developing risk management strategy
to reduce or eliminate risks posed by
phosphoric acid production wastes. EPA
is evaluating the chemicals and the
processes involved in phosphoric acid
production and the resulting wastes to
determine how TSCA authorities can
best be used to reduce the toxicity and/
or volume of these wastes. The Agency
will analyze the efficacy and feasibility
of some of the alternatives to current
practices that were described i:i the
Supplemental Analysis, wilh sn
emphasis on developing so-jnd methods
(in both a technical and economic sense)
of reducing the toxicity and/or the
volume of the special wastes. EPA will
assess pollution prevention
opportunities based on a phosphoric
acid life-cycle analysis, the
Supplemental Analysis, and other
information obtained during the TSCA
investigation. The investigation will also
address the risk reduction potential and
associated costs for identified regulatory
options, such as restrictions on
manufacturing, processing, or disposal.
Depending on the results of this
assessment site specific risk reduction
strategies may be considered as most
appropriate. As specific wastes or
toxicity reduction techniques are {
identified. EPA will work with the
industry to implement the most
promising alternatives as quickly as
possible. EPA believes that by
developing a tailored program under
TSCA. the Agency will be able to more
fufly explore, promote, and enforce
several promising pollution prevention
and/or source reduction ideas (e.g., •
more efficient raw product filtration,
fluosinac acid recovery) tiian would be
possible under a RCRA program.
In addition, EPA plans to further
explore and evaluate containment
strategies of vaxioas kinds, so that
whatever wastes are generated will not
resmh in contaminant releases to the
environment. If information obtained or
findings developed during the TSCA
investigation are such that RCRA could
better handle this matter, the Agency
will revisit today's regulatory
determination, and determine whether
subtitle C regulation of the phosphoric
acid special wastes remains
inappropriate.
IV. Dvcnmn TB Postpone Conside
of a Possible Ban an Elemental
Phosphorus Slag mfn»"*iftn
In the RTC, EPA found that the-
radionuclide content and potential
ration
-------
Renter / VfrL 5B. Ncv 114 / Thursday. Jane 13-. 1991 / Rales an* frigttfatfotiB 27317
radiation risk » a concern for slag Cram
elemental phosphorus production. The
primary basis for this finding was EPA's
Idaho Radionuclide Study,11 which
estimated that average life-time cancer
risks range from 4xl(T4 to 1x10"' in
Soda Springs and Pocatello, Idaho as a
result of the use of elemental
phosphorus slag in a wide range of off-
site construction applications. Based on
these findings, EPA stated in the RTC
that it planned to use the authority of
RCRA section 3001(b)(3}(B)(iii) to ban
the use of the slag in construction and/
or land reclamation when the Agency
issued its regulatory determination for
mineral processing wastes. EPA
solicited comments on the appropriate
regulatory language that should be used
and how such a ban should be
implemented.
In response, five commenters
questioned the validity of the Idaho
Radionuclide Study. The commenters
argued that the study was not conducted
according to required procedures, has
not been sufficiently peer-reviewed,
contradicts epidemic-logical studies that
show that cancer risks in Idaho are low,
and suffers from several technical flaws.
For example, according to the
commenters, the data collection
methodology was inadequate to support
valid risk estimation, the study relies on
a zero threshold low-dose risk model
that is not supported by experimental
evidence, and the study relies on aerial
radiation measurements that exaggerate
actual radiation levels. The commenters
argued, therefore, that the Idaho study
cannot be used as a basis for a decision
to ban off-site uses of the slag.
Since the release of the RTC, the
Idaho Radionuclide Study and
supporting data have been distributed
for review by industry, EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB), and the Ageacy
for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. A public hearing on the study
was also held in Soda Springs, ID OR
August 21,1990. Because of the concern*
raised, EPA has postponed its final
determination on the validity of the
itudy's conclusions until the Agency
decides how to incorporate SAB'S
'.findings and after the Agency's review
of information provided at the public
hearing is completed. In addition, the
Agency is postponing its consideration
of a possible ban on elemental
phosphorus slag utilization until it
completes its review of the technical
basis for such an action. EPA will
propose a supplemental notice at the
appropriate time.
" EPA. ma Ifeho RMfemeMt Study. Offio* of
llmcwck OH! OwMlapaMnt U« V«fM rhe
Vtfu. NV. EPA/m/0-m/OOS, April 1MDL
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFAJ
of 1980 (Pub. L 96-354), which amends
the Administrative Procedures Act,
requires Federal regulatory agencies to
consider "small entities" throughout the
regulatory process. The RFA requires in
section 603 an initial screening analysis
to be performed to determine whether a
substantial number of small entities will
be significantly affected by a regulation.
If so, regulatory alternatives that
eliminate or mitigate the impacts must
be considered.
EPA conducted a detailed analysis of
the facilities and companies that
generate the 20 special wastes from
mineral processing during the
preparation of the Report to Congress.
The Agency established at that time that
no companies that meet the definition of
"small business" generate any of the
special mineral processing wastes. Also,
EPA has not received any information in
public comment on the Report that
would contradict this finding, and
therefore concludes that today's action
will not adversely affect small mineral
processing companies. Consequently, an
explicit Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
is not required.
VI. Agency Initiatives
To follow up on the findings that have
resulted in today's regulatory
determination, EPA plans to continue
several initiatives that directly relate to
some of the mineral processing wastes
addressed in this regulatory
determination. These initiatives include
the following four activities:
(1) Evaluation of the radiation
exposures and risks associated with the
off-site use of elemental phosphorus
slag:
(2) Review of hazards posed by
wastes containing diffuse naturally
occurring radioactive material (NORM);
(3) development of a management
program under RCRA Subtitle D for
mineral extraction and beneficiatkm
wastes: and
(4) Development of a program under
TSCA addressing the phosphoric acid
industry.
As discussed in section IV of this
preamble, in April 1980, EPA released
the Idaho Radionuclide Study, which
provided an assessment of the direct
radiation exposures and risks
associated with the use of elemental
phosphorus slag in construction in Sod*
Springs and Pocatello, Idaho. A pubfic
hearing on the study was held in Soda
Springs. ID on August 21.1990. EPA has
also requested its Science Advisory
Board (SAB) and other scientific
organizations to review the study's
underlying data, methodology, and
conclusions. The SAB is scheduled to
issue its findings this year. When
available, EPA wiB review these
findings together with other scientific
and public inputs to define needs for
further study. Final conclusion* from
this study will be used to help evaluate
the need for any added controls on the
off-site use of elemental phosphorus
slag.
In a separate study, EPA is presently
evaluating the characteristics, risks, and
regulatory control options under TSCA
for diffuse NORM wastes. The scope of
this study is much broader than the
Idaho Radionuclide Study, and includes
phosphate and elemental phosphorus
wastes, metal mining and mineral
processing wastes (including wastes
from bauxite and aluminum, copper,
zinc, tin. titanium, and zirconium and
hafnium processing), and a variety of
other wastes (e.g* coal ash, oil and gas
production scale, water treatment
sludges, and certain consumer items).
The purpose of the study is to determine
whether the routine management of
these wastes pose a sufficient
radiological hazard to warrant
additional regulatory controls. EPA
plans to complete the study in the
summer of 1991, at which time the
Agency will begin to evaluate whether
any added controls are necessary to
limit the radiation hazards, what
authorities exist for such controls, and
what the form and substance of a
NORM waste program might be. As
appropriate, EPA wiQ evaluate
authorities and opportunities to address
NORM wastes under RCRA, the Toxic
Substances Control Act. and other
programs.
EPA is in the process of developing a
RCRA Subtitle D program for mineral
extraction and beneficiation wastes.
EPA plans to include those mineral
processing wastes determined here to
warrant regulation under subtitle D
under the regulatory "umbrella" for
extraction and beneficiation wastes,
making it the extraction, beneficiation.
and mineral processing wastes program.
As the development of this program
proceeds, the Agency may find it
necessary to control certain mineral
processing wastes, such as waste acids,
that have little in common with the
majority of extinction and beneficiation
wastes under • separate regulatory
program^
Finally, as discussed in the regulatory
determination for the phosphoric add
wastes, EPA pUaa to proceed with an
examination of nhoaphogyptum and
process vnstewater nanagement under
TSCA. HPAwiU consider how to
-------
2731& Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13. 1991 / Roles and Regulations
develop a program under TSCA,
including pollution prevention
opportunities, that will address
phosphoric acid production practices
and processes to reduce the risks posed
by these two wastes.
VII. Regulatory Determination Docket
The EPA RCRA docket is located at:
United States Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA RCRA Docket, room
M2427. 401 M Street, SW.. Washington.
DC 20460.
The Docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m.. Monday through Friday except for
Federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
materials. Call the docket clerk at (202)
475-9327 for appointments.
Documents related to this regulatory
determination are available for
inspection at the docket.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281
Hazardous waste. Waste treatment
and disposal, Recycling. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Manifests.
Dated: May 20.1991.
William K. Reilly.
Administrator.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
1. The authority citation for part 281
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 0905.8812(a). 8921.
6922. and 6938.
2. Section 281.4 is amended by
revising the last sentence of the
introductory text of paragraph (b)(7) to
read as follows:
§ 261.4 Exclusion*.
(b) * • •
(7) * ' * For the purpose of
S 261.4(b)(7), tolid waste from the
processing of ores and minerals includes
only the following wastes:
« * • • •
Note: The Following Appendices Will Not
Appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Appendix A—Analysis of and Response
to Public Comments on the Report to
Congress
EPA received numerous public
comments on the Report to Congress,
including comments on the overall
methodology used to evaluate the eight
study factors and comments on the
specific analysis and discussion of each
of the 20 wastes. All of the comments
are available for inspection in Docket
No. F-90-RMPA-FFFFF. EPA has
carefully considered each of these
comments in developing this regulatory
determination and includes in this
appendix responses to certain major
comments that have a particularly
significant bearing on the Agency's final
determination. All other comments and
detailed responses are included in a
supporting comment response
background document, available for
inspection in the RCRA docket.
/. Report to Congress Methodology
The Agency received a number of
comments on the Report's scope (i.e.. the
particular wastes studied) as well as the
approach that EPA used to evaluate five
of the study factors: (1) Waste
characteristics, generation, and current
management practices; (2) potential
danger to human health and the
environment; (3) documented danger to
human health and the environment; (4)
compliance costs; and (5) economic
impacts. Commenters did not raise
significant methodological issues
concerning the Agency's evaluation of
Federal and State waste management
controls or waste management
alternatives and potential utilization.
A. Scope
Several commenters took exception to
the Report's overall scope, with some
stating that the scope was too narrow
and some stating that the scope was too
broad. The commenters that argued that
the scope was too narrow said that EPA
improperly narrowed the scope of the
mining waste exclusion, leaving several
mineral processing wastes potentially
subject to subtitle C regulation when
they should have been studied further in
the Report to Congress. For example,
one commenter said that certain wastes
that exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic, such as coal tar wastes
from historic town gas manufacturing.
constituted exempt mineral processing
wastes and should have been studied in
the Report. The commenters that
believed the scope was too broad said
that EPA wrongly studied materials that
are not solid wastes and thus not
subject to RCRA regulation, such as
some slags.
EPA believes the argument that the
scope of the Report was too narrow is
not an issue pertaining to the Report to
Congress, but rather pertains to the
scope of the Agency's final rulemakings
interpreting the scope of the exclusion
for mineral processing wastes. As EPA
explained in the preambles to the rules
as well as the Report to Congress, two
final rules established the scope of the
exemption for mineral processing, and •
EPA did not solicit further comment on
this issue in the RTC. EPA also notee
that the coal tar wastes mentioned in
the comment are no longer generated
(the last plant that manufactured gas for
municipal use using coal closed in the
1970*8) in high volumes (if they ever
were), and the Bevill Amendment
applies only to currently generate
waste and historical stockpiles of
currently generated waste. Mor
the coal tar wastes remaining from
historic town gas manufacturing are
substantially different from the coal gas
wastes studied in the Report to
Congress, as the coal tar wastes have a
different chemical makeup and were
generated by different processes.
With respect to the argument that the
scope of the Report is too broad, EPA
acknowledges that some of the
materials examined in the Report are
not always solid wastes, depending on
how they are managed in particular
instances. In fact, if they are not defined
as solid wastes under EPA's regulations.
the Agency agrees that regulation under
RCRA is not appropriate. However, the
Agency believes that all of the materials
examined are managed as a solid waste.
as defined by RCRA regulations, at least
part of the time at some facilities.
Therefore, all of these wastes were
appropriate for study in the mineral
processing report.
B. Waste Characteristics. Generation,
and Current Management Practices
One commenter argued that EPA's
consideration of waste characteristics in
the RTC did not recognize the
in composition of a given
one facility to the next. Accordinthe
commenter, this variability provides
support for a determination that subtitle
C regulation is unwarranted because
regulation under other state and federal
authorities provides the flexibility
necessary to address the geographic
variability in waste characteristics
(which subtitle C does not). For
example, data for phosphogypsum and
process wastewater from phosphate
rock processing clearly demonstrate,
according to the commenter, the
variability of characteristics of these
wastes and the relationship between
that variability and the geographic
origin of the phosphate rock being
processed. The commenter went on to
contend that the RTC used waste
characterization data only to determine
whether a waste contains constituents
at concentrations of potential concern.
ignoring the critical aspect of geographic
variability.
EPA disagrees with this comment
Waste characteristics and the
variability in chemical concentrations
from one facility to the next were
critical elements in the risk and cost
analyses, as well as in the Agen
final decision making. Specific
variability in waste compositioi
-------
Federal Regular / Vol. 5fr No. 114 / Thuryjay. June 13, 1991 / Rules and Regulations 27319
explicitly highlighted in the analysis of
each waste's intrinsic hazard, and the
facilities that were examined in the cost
and economic impact portions of the
analysis were selected as a function of
whether their wastes exhibit a
hazardous waste characteristic. If
subtitle C regulation for a given waste
warranted serious consideration based
on an analysis of the study factors, EPA
closely examined on a facility-by-
facility basis the frequency and
magnitude with which the waste
exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic in order to reach a final
regulatory determination.
C. Potential Danger to Human Health
and the Environment
1. Leaching Procedures. Four
commenters addressed the
appropriateness of different laboratory
leach tests used to measure contaminant
concentrations in leachate from mineral
processing waste samples. Three of the
commenters objected to the RTCs use
of data generated from the Extraction
Procedure (EP) leach test. These
commenters stated that EP leachate
concentrations overestimate actual
leachate concentrations because the EP
test mimics an implausible
mismanagement scenario in which
mineral processing wastes are co-
disposed with municipal solid waste in a
municipal landfill and exposed to an
organic leaching medium. In general,
these commenters believed that
analytical results from a distilled water
leaching procedure or the Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)
would provide a more realistic
assessment of the teachability of metals
from mineral processing wastes under
actual field conditions. In contrast
another commenter suggested that use
of the EP leach test data is reasonable
because, among other reasons, co-
disposal with municipal wastes cannot
be ruled out for some mineral processing
wastes that are disposed off-site, and
because at the time the RTC was being
prepared, the EP leach test was the
required procedure for determining
whether a mineral processing waste
would be regulated as EP toxic if the
Bevill exemption was removed.
The Agency believes that the RTCs
use of EP leach test data for mineral
processing waste characterization and
risk assessment is reasonable for three
main reasons. First use of the EP
leachate data is a reasonably
conservative approach. While several
constituents were found to be present in
higher concentrations in EP leachate
than SPLP leacnate for some samples
that were tested naiag both procedures.
results for the two test* are often similar
(and for liquid wastes, they are-identical
since liquids are not leached, but simply
compared directly to the appropriate
regulatory concentration levels). There
are also cases where EP leachate
concentrations were found to be less
than SPLP leachate concentrations. For
example, the results of an EPA study '
analyzing the validity of the SPLP test
showed that the SPLP test has been
shown on occasion to underestimate the
amount of teachable lead in a sample.2
Other constituents that are commonly
present in higher concentrations in EP
leachate than SPLP leachate include
iron, zinc, aluminum, cadmium, copper,
and nickel. In contrast arsenic,
vanadium, molybdenum, and barium are
commonly found in higher
concentrations in SPLP leachate than EP
leachate. In addition to the fact that EP
leachate concentrations appear
reasonably conservative relative to the
SPLP concentrations, the Agency
believes use of the EP leachate data is
reasonable because mineral processing
wastes may be plausibly mismanaged in
a municipal landfill in certain cases. For
example, lead slag from one of the
primary lead processing plants, and
steel (basic oxygen furnace and open
hearth furnace) air pollution control
dust/sludge from one plant are presently
shipped off-site for disposal in a
municipal landfill. Given the existing
regulatory regime, it is not inconceivable
that other mineral processing wastes
from other facilities could be disposed in
a similar manner in the future.
Second, as noted by one of the
commenters, the EP leach test at the
time the RTC was being prepared was
the legally required procedure for
determining whether the mineral
processing wastes under study exhibit
the hazardous waste characteristic of EP
toxicity. The test that has replaced the
EP test, the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure, assumes the same
mismanagement scenario and will also
be used to determine the toxicity of
wastes for regulatory purposes.
Third, the vast majority of available
leachate data for mineral processing
wastes are from EP leach tests. The
amount of data from other laboratory
leach tests or from samples of actual
1 Performance Testing of Method 1312—QA
Support (or RCRA letting. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Environment*! Monitoring
Svatema Laboratory. Lit Vega*. NV. March its*.
Docket No. F-40-MWRP-FaoQS.
• Given recent data that Indicate that lead ia •
health hazard at tlgmficimly lower level* tea
previously believed (U-S. Department of HeeJtfc end
Humm Setvieee, Torioological Profile far Lead,
Ag**ry for Toxic Subettncea and DUeeaa rUgMry,
IUM 1SSB1 EPA bellevee It to ccpecteDy Import*!*
that H Ml rely eolely oa a pcoeedwa tfax may
undemtimale teed leecfaebtUty..
leachate collected in the field is
insufficient to support a comprehensive
evaluation.
The Agency recognizes that there are
some uncertainties associated with
using EP leachate data to estimate the
concentrations of metals in leachate
generated from the mineral processing
wastes as they are currently managed.
As a result the differences between
measured EP and SPLP leachate
concentrations were factored into the
Agency's decision making for this
regulatory determination. Also. EPA
acknowledges that the RTC's use of EP
leachate data differs from the approach
used in the Agency's previous
rulemakings on mineral processing
wastes (reinterpreting the scope of the
Mining Waste Exclusion), but believes
the reasons outlined above provide a
sound basis for using the EP data in the
analysis leading to the regulatory
determination. In the previous
rulemakings, the Agency used limited
SPLP data in order to establish which
wastes qualified as "low hazard" and
thus were eligible for detailed study in
the RTC (I.e., use of the SPLP data was a
reasonable approach for selecting the
wastes to be studies, because wastes
that exhibit hazardous characteristics
under the SPLP test are clearly not low
hazard). For purposes of actually
conducting a risk assessment, however,
relying primarily on the EP leachate
data is a reasonable, though more
conservative approach. The overall
conservativeness of EPA's risk
assessment is discussed further below.
2. Overall Conservativeness. Five
commenters stated that the risk
assessment methodology in general
relies on overly conservative
assumptions that grossly overestimate
risk and ignore contradictory real-life
information. The commenters said the
risk screening criteria used to evaluate
the intrinsic hazard of each waste
stream's composition are ultra-
conservative, as they are based on
worst-case assumptions regarding an
unbroken chain of events that allow
contaminant release, migration through
the environment and exposure to
receptors.
While the Agency agrees that there
are elements of the risk assessment
methodology that tend to overestimate
actual risks, these overestimates are
offset somewhat by other elements of
the methodology that tend to
underestimate actual risks. The Agency
acknowledges that most of the risk
screening criteria are conservative, as
stated throughout the RTC. However.
the Agency used these criteria or.ly for
the purpose of analyzing the intrinsic
-------
27320 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
hazard of each waste stream. EPA
interpreted an exceedance of the criteria
only as an indication that the risks of a
given waste should be evaluated in
more detail, not by itself as proof that
the waste poses a significant risk. If a
waste contained constituents in
concentrations above the screening
criteria, the analysis was supplemented
with additional evaluation of conditions
at actual facilities, and then further, if
this evaluation indicated that there were
potential problems, the Agency
conducted risk modeling in order to
develop final risk conclusions. The RTC
then proceeded to evaluate the risk
conclusions together with the damage
case conclusions before reaching an
overall finding on the hazards
associated with each waste.
Overall. EPA believes that the risk
assessment, while conservative, was
reasonable in that EPA factored the
uncertainties created by key
assumptions in the risk assessment
methodology into the regulatory
decision making process for each waste
stream. The approach that EPA used to
evaluate potential human health and
environmental problems is outlined in
section II of this preamble and applied
in section ID, which presents the
rationale for the final regulatory
determination for specific wastes.
3. Modeling inadequacies. One
commenter argued that the Agency's
risk modeling was inadequate and
significantly underestimated risks
because it did not adequately consider a
number of specific factors. Important
factors that the commenter alleged were
left out or considered incorrectly include
site-specific soil-water distribution
coefficients (Kd's). the transport of
metals in ground water by colloids,
metal-organic complexing during
ground-water transport ground-water
flow through karat terrains, storm
events, evaporation and subsequent
concentration of metals in small surface
water bodies, and the transport of
contaminated storm-water run-off to
surface water bodies.
In general, EPA acknowledges these
modeling limitations but.believea most
of them were unavoidable, forced in part
by necessary limitations in the scope/
complexity of the risk assessment, as
well as by limitations in the state of
ground-water modeling as a science. For
example, the Agency agrees that Kd
values are highly site-specific, but
believes that modeling each site using
actual Kd's would have required
prohibitively extensive field
measurements and verification. As a
result, the Agency used the next best
approach—EPA used its best
professional judgment to select
representative Kd values for each site
and each contaminant, based on a
review of data in the literature and an
examination of available data on the
soil composition at each site. In
addition, with the possible exception of
a few experimental models, the Agency
is unaware of any reliable techniques
for modeling the migration of colloids or
the flow of ground water through karst.
Overall, the Agency believes that its risk
modeling approach accounts for the
factors noted by the commenter in the
best way possible, considering the
study's time limitations. When
significant factors could not be
considered in the quantitative modeling
exercise, they were considered in a
qualitative manner so as to not
compromise the overall completeness of
the risk analysis.
4. Lack of Consideration of Off-Site
Use/Disposal and Future Changes. One
commenter argued that the risk
assessment was deficient because it did
not consider the risks associated with
off-site use or disposal of the mineral
processing wastes. This same
commenter said the risk assessment is
also fundamentally flawed because it
analyzes risks only in terms of existing
conditions at each facility that generates
the mineral processing wastes, not
accounting for possible future changes
in water use patterns or population
distributions.
While the Agency acknowledges that
it did not rigorously model the risks
associated with off-site use/disposal or
possible future locations of new
facilities, it disagrees that the RTC did
not consider these factors.3 Based on a
review of the past disposal practices
and potential utilization of each waste.
only about half of the mineral
processing wastes are candidates for
off-site use or disposal, including copper
slag, elemental phosphorus slag, all four
of the ferrous metal production wastes.
fluorogypsum, lead slag,
phosphogypsum, and zinc slag. In the
case of elemental phosphorus slag, the
RTC relied on monitoring and risk
modeling conducted by EPA's Office of
Radiation Programs to evaluate the
potential radiation hazards associated
with off-site uses: as discussed in
section VI of this preamble, EPA is in
the process of re-examining the validity
of this off-site modeling for elemental
phosphorus slag. For the other wastes.
• A* diicuiMd elsewhere. EPA did examine
potential changes in exposure scenarios •« axiiting
facilities. For example, iht Agency'* riik "•~<«lii^
examined potential groundwater expotun points •!
location* closer lo the facility than known current
well locations (e.g.. at the facility boundary).
EPA evaluated the observed and
potential hazards associated with off-
site use or disposal in the context of the
wastes' damage case record and
intrinsic hazard analysis, and factoij
the results of this evaluation into I
overall hazard findings in each waste-
specific chapter of the RTC. For
example, before reaching conclusions
about the hazards posed by iron blast
furnace slag, a waste that has been
shipped off-site for disposal and a
variety of uses for decades. EPA
searched for and evaluated any
evidence of environmental damage
caused by the off-site management
practices. The conservative risk
screening criteria used to evaluate each
waste's intrinsic toxicity also were
developed using hypothetical scenarios
that might occur if the wastes were
mismanaged (e.g.. scenarios in which an
inactive waste pile is not closed or
maintained and people are allowed to
come into direct contact with the waste).
Therefore, the Agency believes that both
off-site activities and possible future
changes have been accounted for in the
overall hazard conclusion for each
waste stream. EPA also notes, however.
that, as a general matter, the use of site-
specific risk modeling and evaluation is
appropriate for high-volume special
wastes which are typically managed on-
site.
S. Treatment of Radionuclides inl
Report to Congress. One comments
claimed that EPA's treatment of
radionuclides is different with respect to
the four wastes tentatively proposed for
removal from the Mining Waste
Exclusion and the sixteen other wastes.
The commenter argued that EPA has
determined that some radionuclide risk
exists for some of the sixteen wastes but
instead of recommending subtitle C
regulation, EPA merely expressed that it
plans to further investigate the potential
for exposure and associated radiation
risk. This commenter added that if
further investigation is warranted before
regulatory action is taken on some
wastes, the same principle should apply
to all the waste*.
EPA could not evaluate the risks
associated with radioactive constituents
for all of the wastes studied in the RTC
because the necessary data were not
available. In addition, there presently
are no controls for risks from
radioactive materials under RCRA
subtitle C, as there is not • hazardous
waste characteristic test for
radioactivity and no radionuclides or
radioactivity levels are listed in
appendix VIII to 40 CFR part 261
(Hazardous Constituents). As a i
concerns about residual radioacrii
-------
Federal Register / VoL 5Q».Na. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 1981 / Rule* and Regulations 27321
would not be resolved by removal of the
Mining Waste Exclusion, because such
an action would not result in subtitle C
regulation unless the waste exhibits a
RCRA hazardous characteristic.
To the extent that data were available
on the radionuclide concentration in
various wastes, EPA believes that it
evaluated the data and made final
regulatory determinations for the wastes
in a consistent manner. That is. EPA
uniformly compared available
radionuclide concentration data for the
wastes to risk screening criteria and
developed conclusions on the intrinsic
hazard of the wastes accordingly. The
Agency then evaluated potential
radiation risk as an element in the
overall risk assessment for each waste.
and combined the risk assessment
conclusions with the other RCRA
section 8002(p) study factors in
accordance with the decision making
methodology outlined in section 0 of
this preamble in order to reach a final
regulatory determination. Therefore,
radiation risk was but one element in an
overall evaluation process, and EPA
consistently followed that process to
reach appropriate determinations for
each waste. To the extent that
radioactivity appears to be a concern for
a given waste. EPA believes that
potential radiation risks should be
addressed along with the waste's other
potential threats within the regulatory
framework determined to be appropriate
(subtitle D in all cases). In addition, EPA
is examining potential radiation risks
associated with these and other
materials in studies currently underway.
D. Documented Danger to Human
Health and the Environment
One commenter contends that many
of the damage cases cited in the RTC
are not attributable to Bevill processing
wastes. The commenter also stated that
other damage cases cited by EPA
resulted from historical management
practices that have long since been
discontinued by the mineral processing
industry. A number of commenters made
this assertion regarding specific mineral
commodity sectors and wastes as well.
The Agency reexamined the RTC data
and evaluated the information submitted
in comments and eliminated some of the
damage cases covered in the RTC for
the purpose of this regulatory
determination (see the comment-
response background document in the
docket for details). For example. EPA
has eliminated the damage cases for
lead slag at the ASARCO facility in East
Helena. MT and for hydrofluoric acid
process wastewater at the Allied facility
in Geismar. LA because available
information indicates that the
contamination documented in the RTC
is attributable to other wastes.
Furthermore, as discussed in the RTC.
inclusion in the RTC of documented
contaminant releases to the
environment due to discontinued waste
management practices does not
necessarily demonstrate that releases
from current management practices will
occur. The Agency believes, however.
that damage case information on past
waste management practices is useful in
demonstrating the potential for
environmental and human health
impacts, for two primary reasons. First
these damage cases provide information
on combinations of management
practices and site conditions that have
resulted in environmental problems.
which is useful for anticipating and
avoiding future problems. Second,
damage cases associated with past
practices, like those associated with
ongoing practices, are useful in
demonstrating the kinds of impacts that
can result when hazardous constituents
are released from the wastes. If damage
case information on past waste
management practices was available,
EPA evaluated the particular
circumstances involved to determine if
the case represents conditions that are
likely to exist today. If. in EPA's
judgment a historical damage case did
not apply to current management
practices, it was used to supplement the
risk conclusions in the sense that it
could demonstrate how problems can
occur in mismanagement scenarios, but
it was not given the full status of a
damage case in making the regulatory
determination. However, if a historical
damage case was found to represent
today's management practices, it was
considered equally with any damage
cases for current management practices
in developing the regulatory
determination.
One commenter claimed that the
Agency did not meet the standard set by
Congress that damage cases should
relate to the individual waste stream
being studied. The commenter added
that although relating damage to a
specific stream may be difficult it is
essential if an analysis is to be
meaningful.
EPA disagrees with this comment As
mentioned previously, the Agency
reexamined the RTC data and evaluated
the information submitted in comments
and eliminated some of the damage
cases covered in the RTC because the
damages could not be attributed to a
given waste stream being studied. In
some of the cases that were retained for
the purpose of this regulatory •
determination attribution to a sole
waste stream was not possible, because
wastes were co-managed, for example.
However, the Agency believes that at
least one of the special wastes being
studied was contributing to the damages
described in cases used for the
regulatory determination. This view is
based on EPA's review of available data
on waste management practices and site
conditions as reflected in state or EPA
regional regulatory files.
One commenter argued that contrary
to the Agency's position, the absence of
damage cases is not a reliable indicator
of the absence of potential hazard from
the wastes studied in the Report. The
commenter stated that the lack of
damage cases can be attributed to two
factors: Deficiencies and flaws in EPA's
methodology for identifying damage
cases, and inadequacies within state
programs for identifying damage cases.
The Agency has reviewed these
comments and maintains the view that
its damage case investigation effort was
comprehensive and thorough. Many
sources were utilized to obtain
information on facilities, including the
National Priorities Ust (NPL) and other
lists; federal, state, and local regulatory
agencies; public interest or citizen's
groups; and professional and trade
associations. In addition. EPA followed
up on general and specific examples
cited in comments and has not found
any additional damage cases. For
example, EPA has reviewed the
evidence suggested by one commenter
linking observed damage* to forroua
metal production wastes, and concludes
that any such damages are not
attributable to any of the four ferrous
metal production wastes studied in the
Report The Agency acknowledges that
although damages may have occurred at
some facilities not identified in the
Report documentation of these damages
was not available or non-existent. This
is precisely why the RTCs findings
about the hazards of each waste stream
are based on both an analysis of
damage cases and risks in the absence
of any known damages. Moreover, EPA
believes that the lack of documented
damages for a given waste stream does
not necessarily signify a lack of hazard
from that waste stream, but believes
that the attribution of damage cases to a
waste stream is the most concrete
evidence of such a hazard,
E. Estimation of Compliance Costs
1. Incorrect Coat Estimates. Several
commenters claimed that EPA had
seriously underestimated the total
compliance costs associated with
subtitle C regulations by failing to
consider several pertinent elements.
-------
27322
Federrf Register / Vol. 59, No. 114 / Thm-aday, June 13, 1991 / Rules and Regdations
including: The cumulative financial
impact of federal and state regulation*
(including the recent Bevill
rulemakings}; hydrogeological
investigations that may include the
construction of systems of ground-water
monitoring wells; location requirements
at facilities within a 100-year flood
plain; land disposal restriction
requirements: neutralization; recycling;
remedial work to control releases; and
closure activities. One commenter, on
the other hand, asserted that EPA
overstated the cost associated with
compliance by assuming that more
facilities exhibit hazardous waste
characteristics than are indicated by
available data. For example, the
commenter stated that the Agency
incorrectly assumed that wastewater at
every facility would be regulated as
hazardous, even though the wastewater
may not actually exhibit hazardous
waste characteristics at each operating
plant.
The Agency generally disagrees with
those commenters who argued that EPA
underestimated compliance costs
associated with subtitle C regulation. As
part of its analysis, EPA did, in fact,
address many of the cited compliance
cost elements. En the Report to Congress.
EPA accounted for ground-water
monitoring systems, neutralization of
wastes, location standards, land
disposal restrictions (in some cases),
and closure requirements. The
cumulative impact of previous
rulemakmgs is not relevant to the issue
of whether the special mineral
processing wastes studied in the Report
to Congress can be managed under
RCRA subtitle C without excessive
additional costs being incurred by the
regulated community. That is, the costs
and impacts of regulating non-special
mineral processing wastes under
subtitle C have no relevance to today's
regulatory determination. EPA
acknowledges that, at certain facilities.
corrective action requirements could
result in potentially significant costs for
some wastes and, thus, has given further
consideration to the associated costs
(further discussion of this issoe is
presented below).
On the other hand. EPA acknowledges
that compliance costs may be overstated
in certain instances in which wastes
were assumed to exhibit a hazardous
characteristic when in fact they may
not. The Agency used this conservative
assumption to overcome data limitations
(i.e.. a lack of EP-toxicity test data for
some facilities) and to demonstrate the
estimated magnitude of compliance
uosts at potentially affected facilities.
While actual impacts may be less
widely distributed. EPA believes that
the approach employed was a
reasonable way of demonstrating
potential impacts to industry under
subtitle C, as contemplated by the Bevill
Amendment. In addition, the assumption
of hazardousness at all facilities and the
associated cost estimates did not affect
the regulatory determination in a
meaningful way (as discussed further
below).
2. Corrective Action Costs. Several
commenters complained that EPA failed
to consider the appropriate costs
associated with corrective action. Many
of these commenters stated that by
ignoring corrective action requirements
under RCRA sections 3004(u) and
3008{h). EPA was failing to fulfill its
statutory obligation under the Bevill
Amendment, which requires EPA to
study the costs of regulating Bevill
wastes under subtitle C. A few of these
commenters recommended that EPA
revise its cost estimates to reflect
necessary corrective actioa One of
these commenters also indicated that
EPA has the information required to
determine at least the range of likely
corrective action costs.
In response to these comments. EPA
has analyzed corrective action issues in
further detail and estimated corrective
action costs at certain facilities. EPA
focused this analysis on only those
wastes for which corrective action costs
might influence the final regulatory
determination: Phosphogypsum and
process wastewater from phosphoric
acid production. These are the only
wastes for which application of EPA's
decision making methodology required
EPA to consider potential regulatory
compliance costs. If cost had been a
factor in the decision for the other 1,8
wastes, inclusion of corrective action
costs would only have added support to
the Agency's determination not to
regulate these 18 wastes under subtitle
C.
EPA's corrective action analysis
reflects the probable response to the
predominant source and type of
contamination that has been observed
at phosphoric acid facilities, namely
contamination of underlying ground-
water aquifers by the routine operation
of gypsum stack-cooling pond
complexes. The response strategy
examined by EPA involves the
installation of a ground-water
containment system consisting of
extraction wells (in some cases
supplemented by a slurry wall) around
the entire stack-pond complex. In this
manner, contaminants entering the
subsurface would be removed, thereby
preventing them from further
contaminating the affected aquifer(s).
This strategy assumes that over time,
existing contaminants present in
ground-water system would be dilut^
and/or attenuated to below MCLs (c
m part to the gradual rise in ground-
water pH caused by eliminating the
continuous introduction of acidic
process wastewater to an unlined slack/
pond system), thereby obviating the
need for active aquifer remediation
activities over the entire contaminated
area. The Agency has identified the
facilities that would likely experience
corrective action (under either a
modified subtitle C or D situation), and
has estimated the costs of implementing
the response strategy described here.
Details regarding EPA's methodology
and the results of the analysis are
provided in a Technical Background
Document that they may be found in the
supporting docket for today's notice. In
general corrective action costs are
relatively modest «, contrary to the
unsupported statements of many
commenters, and comprise
approximately tea percent of total
annualized compliance costs at the
individual facility level.
3. Land Disposal Restrictions Costs.
EPA received several comments stating
that the Agency did not include specific
estimates of cosU associated with lac
disposal restrictions as they would^
apply to mineral processing waste I
and sectors. One of these commenterT"
argued that hi the "third third" rule. EPA
designates stabilization as BOAT for
treating metal-bearing wastes, yet the
Agency does not include stabilization
costs in its RTC cost estimates. This
commenter further argued that EPA
should have considered the additional
on- and off-site disposal costs
associated with acquiring additional
land for disposal on-site and
transportation costs to a remote
location.
Contrary to these assertions. EPA did
evaluate land disposal restrictions costs
for some of the wastes addressed in the
Report to Congress, including sludges.
These materials were assumed to be
cement stabilized prior to disposal in
subtitle C landfills. Moreover, the
resulting increase in the volume of the
wastes in question was explicitly
factored into EPA's analysis, by
calculating the incremental landfill
volume required, adjusting the landfill
'The MUM
i co*t> (ACC) of
EPA'i corrective acUoa itrategy for ih« twelve
poleirttmUy effected fodlttiM range from
•ppwriMMiy *ZJO •illoi to tt.1 million u
Subtitle C-MtaM meaerto. and from ibovt
million to SS.7 outtofi undw tbt Subbllc D-
HKJetJhe
m
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1981 / Rules and Regulations 27328
design accordingly, and calculating the
total cost of the necessary land disposal
unit(s) for the wastes in question. In
conducting the supplementary analysis
of the phosphoric acid sector, the
Agency also factored land disposal
restriction costs (lime treatment) into
the total costs for phosphogypsum
disposal.
BDATs were not applied, and costs,
therefore, were not calculated, for
copper, lead, and zinc slags because of
an assumption that slags, when
generated, are similar to wastes that
have been treated by vitrification (a
BOAT). For this reason, stabilization
was presumed to be an unnecessary
management method for these wastes.
(If stabilization is required, costs would
increase, but this would not have
affected the Agency's regulatory
determination.) Transportation costs
were not factored in for on-site
management because data in EPA's
possession and personal observations
made during site visits to a substantial
number of the facilities considered in
the Report demonstrate that many, if not
most, potentially affected facilities own
land of adequate size contiguous with or
close to their existing waste
management units to construct new
units of sufficient capacity.
4. Costs Associated With Replacing
Waste Management Units. Some
commenters argued that EPA failed to
consider the costs associated with
replacing subtitle C hazardous waste
disposal facilities in the future (i.e., after
the First operation is closed in year 15).
These commenters suggested that such
costs, when discounted to the present,
are significant (i.e., on the order of 25
percent of the total compliance costs).
EPA acknowledges this comment to
be true. A 15-year life without
replacement of equipment or facilities
was assumed for simplicity during the
analysis. Data provided by facility
operators in response to the 1989
SWMPF Survey and the Agency's
understanding of relevant mineral
commodity markets suggest that an
assumed 15-year operating life is not
unreasonable for some facilities. In
other cases, however, it is unclear
whether this is or is not a valid
assumption. In those cases, the
remaining life of the facilities cannot be
predicted with accuracy. EPA
acknowledges that in situations in
which the facilities would continue to
operate and would require new waste
management units periodically,
annualized compliance costs would
increase over those reported in the RTC,
even by 25 percent or more. In any
event such an increase does not effect
today's regulatory determination.
5. Accuracy of Cost Estimates. EPA
received several comments regarding
the accuracy of its cost estimates. While
many commenters argued that EPA
provided inaccurate cost estimates for
regulating the 20 special wastes, one
commenter contends that, although EPA
ignores many of the costliest elements of
the subtitle C program, the Agency's
economic analysis accurately
demonstrates the high cost impacts of
regulating Bevill wastes under subtitle
C.
In its analysis, EPA employed an
engineering design model and detailed
cost analyses to develop realistic cost
estimates of subtitle C regulation. After
review of the comments and upon
further analysis, EPA continues to stand
by its cost estimates (as modified) as
adequate and appropriate for their
intended use as input to the regulatory
determination, even though some cost
considerations were excluded from the
analysis for most wastes (e.g., corrective
action). Furthermore, EPA notes that
high costs alone are not determinative of
appropriate regulatory status. Rather.
the financial impact of such costs is the
real measure of economic feasibility.
Section F below provides additional
comments on economic impacts.
6. Maximum Flexibility.
One commenter asserted that EPA
should calculate subtitle C-Minus
compliance costs on the basis of a
realistic level of flexibility under RCRA
section 3004(x) rather than on the
maximum level of flexibility. Unless the
maximum flexibility rules can be
guaranteed, contends this commenter,
firms may be faced with the unpalatable
choice of investing in "maximum
flexibility" waste disposal facilities in
year one. only to find that they need
"full subtitle C" facilities in year three.
As was clearly stated in the RTC. the
purpose of EPA's evaluation of three
regulatory scenarios was to demonstrate
the range of potential compliance costs.
not to articulate a new regulatory
program (which was beyond the scope
of the RTC). The Agency believes that
using a hypothetical subtitle C-Minus
scenario is appropriate for considering
the feasibility of subtitle C regulation of
special mineral processing wastes.
because of the significant technical
challenges that stringent regulation of
special wastes (by definition) may pose.
Moreover, the Agency believes that the
"realistic" level of flexibility that may in
fact be appropriate needs to be
determined based on a detailed
evaluation of site-specific conditions,
which was not possible within the
context of the RTC because of data
limitations.
7. Relative Costa of subtitle C, C-
Minus, and subtitle D-Plus. Several
comments were submitted to EPA
regarding the relative costs of the
subtitle C, C-Minus. and subtitle 0-Plus
regulatory scenarios. Many of those who
commented, recognizing the different
cost implications of each scenario,
encouraged a subtitle D determination.
while others argued that because the
differences in estimated costs among the
scenarios for certain wastes are
insignificant, a subtitle C determination
should be promulgated. One commenter
argues that with little cost difference, a
subtitle C determination would offer
greater environmental protection
advantages. Another commenter stated
that the differences between subtitle C-
Minus and subtitle D-Plus regulation are
likely to be especially apparent with
respect to corrective action costs (which
EPA did not include) because inclusion
of the processing wastes under subtitle
C-Minus may expose the facilities to the
same corrective action requirements
(and costs) as those under full subtitle
C. This same commenter added that
non-hazardous wastes should not be
regulated under subtitle C (through
application of corrective action) simply
because such regulation is projected by
EPA to be only slightly more costly than
subtitle D regulations.
EPA responds that the cost of
alternative management practices is but
one of the study factors that EPA is
required to consider therefore, the
regulatory determination is not being
made on the basis of the comparative
cost difference between subtitle C and D
programs alone. The Agency does
recognize that similar corrective action
requirements might be applied under
both subtitle C and C-Minus, and has
examined the associated costs (as
discussed above).
In addition. EPA notes that the
regulatory scenarios that were used to
estimate potential compliance costs
were developed with consideration of
the environmental protection that they
would afford. Thus, it is not the case
that subtitle C regulation necessarily
would provide more environmental
protection that the other scenarios
considered. For example, in some cases.
adequately protective design and
operating standards for new waste
management units under subtitle C-
Minus and D-Plus have been defined by
EPA to be identical.
F. Estimation of Economic Impacts
1. Inaccurate Use of Price Data. One
commenter identified a specific concern
-------
27324 Federal teggtet / VoL 5ft No; 114 / Thnraday. June 13. 1991 f RViIes aad HfegBJatJons
with EPA's use of estimated mineral
•prices in 1995, with no explanation a* to
how they were derived other than thai
they were reported by an EPA
subcontractor. This commenter claimed
that EPA did not verify its data by
contracting industry sources.
Contrary to the commenter's claim.
the Agency used industry experts
retained for this purpose to estimate
projected 1995 prices. Industry and
affected facility input and review prior
to the publishing of the RTC were not
possible because of procedural
constraints. Affected parties were.
however, encouraged to review the RTC
estimates during the public comment
period. In response to comments
received. EPA has in fact made
corrections to the prices reported in the
RTC for refined lead and merchant
grade phosphoric acid, which had
resulted from calculation and
transcription errors; estimated impacts
on the corresponding facilities and
sectors have been revised in support of
today's regulatory determination. As no
alternative long-term price projections
were suggested by commenters for the
remaining primary mineral commodities.
estimated long-term real prices remain
as reported in the RTC.
Furthermore, the Agency notes two
points that reduce the importance of the
use or accuracy of the 19U5 projected
prices. First, while the prices are.
important in assessing the overall
magnitude of the economic impacts.
their accuracy will not greatly affect the
difference between or relative impacts
of subtitle C versus D regulation; that is,
the magnitude of the impacts will be
effected to a far greater extent than the
relative differences between scenarios.
Second, if the prices as used are
potentially underestimated (in many
cases, estimated 1995 prices are lower
than current prices), the impacts in the
RTC are overestimated because the
estimated value of shipments (price
multiplied by production quantity)
would be smaller and the coat as a
percentage of value of shipments,
therefore, larger. This is the case for the
majority of the sectors, and is consistent
with EPA's objective of performing a
conservative and defensible analysis.
Only in the titanium tetrachloride sector
were prices projected to increase
significantly, raising the possibility thai
EPA's estimated value of shipments was
overstated and the impacts on that
sector were, therefore, underestimated.
However, given the strength of that
sector (as evidenced by the planned
construction of several new domestic
plants). EPA believes that the long-tern
projection of prices for that sector are
reasonable and that impacts are not
significantly understated.
2. Impact on Industry. Several
commenters argued that industries
producing primary copper, lead, zinc
and elemental phosphorus would be
adversely affected by a subtitle C
regulatory determination because the
regulations would generate additional
and substantial annual fixed costs that
would have to be met regardless of
market conditions. Several of these
commenters argued that these costs are
likely to remain fixed even in periods of
slack demand, contributing to depressed
profits during such periods. A few of
these comraenters further argued that a
decreased profit margin would make the
market less desirable to investors.
thereby discouraging the overall
economic growth of the industry.
EPA recognizes that increased costs
that cannot be passed along reduce
profits at all times, irrespective of
market conditions. The costs of
adequate environmental protection are.
however, simply a component of the
total cost of doing business. In trying to
evaluate future trends and market
conditions, the Agency did conduct
qualitative analyses of sectors for which
it believed the industry was subject to
potentially significant compliance costs.
and included the results of these
analyses in the RTC. For example, die
impacts discussions for the copper.
ferrous metal, lead, phosphoric acid,
titanium tetrachloride, and zinc sectors
included examinations of both the
present and future general competitive
position of domestic producers, and the
potential for compliance cost pass-
through (discussed more fully below).
EPA believes that its discussion of
future trends and market conditions has
adequately addressed the concerns
regarding long-term impacts.
3. Pass-Through Potential Several
coaunenters indicated that EPA should
not assume that the mineral processing
industry can pass on the costs of new
regulatory requirements to the product
consumer in the form of higher prices. A
few of these commenters noted that the
world market sets the commodity prices;
if American producers raise their prices.
consumers will look to international
markets, where products could be
obtained at lower prices. These
commenters agreed that higher pricing
on mineral processing products could be
devastating to the industry.
EPA understands that higher prices in
any market can cause adverse impacts
on the affected industry. EPA believes.
however, that the commenters'
suggestions that all mineral processors
in all commodity sectors are "price
takers" having no ability to pass on cost
increases and tlieiefuie having to
absorb tnem internally, is demonstrabM
untrue. fl
In general, the pass-through of
compliance costs follows me path of
least market resistance. Where all
facilities in the affected sector face
similar compliance costs and produce
commodities for which there are few
alternative supply sources or substitute
materials, there is a high likelihood thai
moderate compliance costs can be
passed forward in the form of higher
product prices. On the other hand.
where only a small proportion of
facilities in a sector are effected, or
alternative supplies or substitute
materials are abundant, the opposite
may be true. Similar possibilities exist in
input and labor markets where the
regulated sector may be able to
negotiate wage or price concessions in
order to remain in operation or continue
operating at current levels. In all cases.
the ability to pass through compliance
costs depends on the initial incidence of
compliance costs within the affected
sector and the concentration and
interdependency of buyers and sellers in
relevant input and product markets. In
the RTC, EPA discussed the market
factors that, in combination, determine
the extent to which regulatory
compliance costs can be passed
for each affected commodity :
general, EPA found Httle substantive
information or data in the comments
received that suggested that the
Agency's preliminary findings with
respect to pass-through potential were
incorrect.
//. Decision making Methodology for the
Regulatory Determination
One conmenter argued that EPA's
second approach, which recommends
that the Agency not regulate any of the
wastes studied in the RTC as hazardous
because of the potential for improved
state mineral processing programs, is
not authorized by the statute, is
factually insupportable, and unlawful.
adding that the authority for EPA's
second approach does not arise from the
study factors in section 8002(p) of RCRA
and that EPA's regulatory determination
must be directed by the specific
provisions of the Bevill Amendment
This commenier further argued that
states cannot regulate mineral
processing wastes adequately without a
national hazardous waste designation,
stating that there are no federal
programs for noaaaxardous waste in
place and ao statutory authority '
ensure that state noohazardous '
programs adequately regulate mini
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Tboraday. June 13. MOT / Rules
27SB5
processing wastes. This same
conunenter stated (hat EPA's assertions
in the RTC about the success of
individual state mineral processing
waste management control efforts are
uncertain and impossible to assess at
the present, and therefore cannot
support the use of EPA's second
approach. In addition, this commenter
stated that by delaying regulatory action
with EPA's second approach. EPA
would substantially undermine the two
principal objectives of RCRA: Overall
protection of human health and the
environment and the minimization of
generation and land disposal of
hazardous waste. Finally, the
commenter argued that if the Agency
decides to consider factors beyond the
eight listed in section 8002(p), then it
must consider all objectives and goals of
the RCRA statute, not just a select few.
On the other hand, several
connnenters encouraged EPA to apply
Approach 2 to its regulatory
determination, stating that the
development and maintenance of strong
state programs and federal regulations
under other statutory authorities is. in
fact, mandated by RCRA. These
commenters further argued that the
flexibility offered by Approach 2 for
regulation of the mineral processing
industry is essential to its continued
strength and growth, which the BeviB
Amendment was enacted to ensure.
Other commenters argued that the
"other factors" discussed for Approach
2 were, in fact embodied in the study
factors and should be considered in
Approach 1.
As was stated in section II of this
preamble, EPA generally agrees that it*
regulatory determination should be
baaed on me eight study factors outlined
in section 8M2(p) of RCRA, as embodied
in the Report to Congress, a* well as the
public comments and additional
information received in response to the
Report (and developed by EPA to
supplement the Report in response to
comments). EPA also agrees that, to the
extent that the Agency were otherwise
to conclude that subtitle C regulation
was warranted based upon
consideration of ail of these factors and
information, that it would be improper
to look outside the Report to Congress.
public comments, and supplemental
technical information to justify a
different determination. Therefore. EPA
has decided not to employ Approach 2
as outlined in the Report to Congress in
making today's regulatory
determination, and has instead
employed an Approach 1 methodology
(modified slightly, as discussed in the
main text).
EPA aise agrees somewhat with
commenfers who asserted that the so-
called "additional factors" open which
Approach 2 was baaed are, in large part.
already embodied witfem the contours of
the inquiry that Congress intended for
EPA to make in the Report and
regulatory determination. The Report
identifies (1) the development and
maintenance of strong state mining and
mineral processing regulatory programs,
and (2) the facilitation of an integrated
federal mining regulatory program as the
key considerations under Approach 2.
Section 8002(p){5) instructs EPA to
consider "alternatives to current
disposal methods" as a factor in
developing the Report and regulatory
determination. Certainty, consideration
of alternative state regulatory schemes.
in addition to federal schemes, is
contemplated by this section, in
addition, facilitation of a potential
integrated federal mining program was
actually considered by EPA in its cost
estimates (reflected in the "subtitle D-
Plus scenario").
Nonetheless, EPA does not believe
that it should rely on possible improved
state programs to determine that subtitle
C is not warranted unless EPA w
confident that such programs axe being
developed and can address the
problems associated with mineral
processing wastes that may pose a
significant risk. Thus EPA disagrees that
section 8002(p) requires EPA to consider
these factors in any way that would
supplant a decision the Agency makes
under the decision making methodology
outlined in Approach 1.
In any event. EPA notes that the issue
is effectively moot. As discussed in the
section III of this preamble, EPA has
been able to make its regulatory
determination for all 20 wastes OB the
basis of a slightly modified Approach 1
alone. Subtitle C was found not to be
warranted for any of the wastes
analyzed. Thus, even if EPA were to
employ Approach 2 as originally
conceived in the Report, it would not
change any of the decisions made today.
lit Wastes for Which Regulation Under
RCRA Subtitle D is Generally Supported
Nine of the twenty special mineral
processing wastes studied in the Report
to Congress were found to pose few if
any risks to public heahh or the
environment. EPA tentatively
recommended a subtitle D regulatory
determination for these wastes in its-
Report and continue* to believe that
subtitle C regulation is unwarranted.
The Agency received no comments en
the Report suggesting a contrary
position. The nine wastes include: (1)
Red and brown muds from bauxite
refining: (2) gasifter ash from coal
gasification; (3} process wastewater
from coal gasification: (4) slag tailings
from priaaary copper processing: (5)
fluorogypsum from hydrofluoric acid
production; (6) treated residue from
roasting/leaching of ckrome ore; (7)
process wastewater from primary
magnesium processing by the anhydrous
process: (8) basic oxygen furnace and
open hearth furnace slag from carbon
steel production; and (9) iron blast
furnace slag. Therefore, the Agency is
today finalizing its decision, as proposed
in the RTC, for these nine wastes.
IV. Wastes for Which the Regulatory
Determination is Contested
EPA received numerous comments
regarding the Report's recommended
regulatory determination for 11 wastes:
(1) Slag from primary copper processing:
(2) slag from elemental phosphorus
production; (3) air pollution control
dust/sludge from iron blast furnaces: (4)
air pollution control dust/sludge from
basic oxygen furnaces and open hearth
furnaces from carbon steel production:
(5) phosphogypsum from phosphoric
acid production: (6) process wastewater
from phosphoric acid production; (7)
slag from primary zinc production: (8)
calcium sulfate wastewater treatment
plant sludge from primary copper
processing; (9) process wastewater from
hydrofluoric acid production; (10) slag
from primary lead production: and (11)
chloride process waste solids from
titanium tetiacbloride production. As
discussed in section 1.C.3 of this
preamble, the Report tentatively
recommended, based on decision
making Approach 1, that the first seven
of these wastes be regulated under
subtitle D, white the last four be
regulated under either subtitle C or D.
depending on the scenario modeled.
The comments focused on the Report's
analysis of the section 8002(p) study
factors for each of these wastes, as well
as the Report's tentative conclusions.
EPA received at least one comment
arguing that subtitle C regulation of each
of the 11 wastes is warranted The
Agency ha* coasidered each of the
comments tt lecerved, sometimes
conducting additional analyses in
response, aaid aH of me comments and
addituaai inionnenan have been taken
into account in developing this final
regulatory determination. EPA's
tewfsmiit to these comments are in the
supporting coaaeirt-reaporrae
background document
-------
2732S Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulation*
Appendix B—Analysis of and Response
to Public Comments on the Notice of
Data Availability
/. Engineering Feasibility and Cost of
Alternative Management Practices for
Phosphogypsum and Process
Wastewater From Phosphoric Acid
Production
A. Subtitle C-Minus and D-Plus
Scenarios as the Basis for the
Regulatory Determination
Twenty commenters questioned the
appropriateness of using the Subtitle C-
Minus and D-Plus scenarios as a basis
for the regulatory determination.
Specifically, the commenters contend
that because these two scenarios are
hypothetical and because regulatory
requirements for the scenarios have not
been established, the two scenarios
cannot be used as a basis for a
regulatory determination, and costs
estimated for these two scenarios
cannot be used to make a decision as to
whether or not regulation under the
existing subtitle C program is
warranted. Furthermore, the
commenters believed that the Agency
assumption (and cost estimates resulting
from that assumption) that certain sub-
scenarios for management of process
wastewater and/or phosphogypsum
would be identical under a C-Minus
scenario and a D-Plus scenario is
illogical. The commenters concluded
that EPA must make its decision
between the subtitle C and subtitle D
programs and not on variations (i.e.. C-
Minus and D-Plus) of the two programs.
EPA disagrees with these comments.
Section 3004(x) of RCRA allows the
Administrator to modify certain subtitle
C requirements, at his discretion, so as
to "take into account the special
characteristics" of the wastes in
question. Such modifications are
"hypothetical" and have not been
"established" to the extent that to date.
none of the special wastes to which
section 3004(x) applies have been
regulated under RCRA subtitle C. As
discussed at length in the RTC. the
Subtitle C-Minus scenarios articulated
in the RTC and in the Supplemental
Analysis represent realistic (though
maximal) application of the regulatory
flexibility provided by the statute. The
Agency has provided cost estimates for
implementation of section 3004(x)
flexibility because it believes that a
tailored subtitle C program is less costly
and may be less burdensome to industry
so as to address the risks posed by
phosphoric acid industry special wastes.
The Agency recognizes that the contours
of a prospective subtitle D program for
mineral processing wastes have yet to
be established. Nonetheless. EPA
believes that for analytical purposes, it
was appropriate to consider one
possible approach to such a program, to
estimate the costs and impacts that
would result from implementation
thereof, and to compare these estimates
to those of the other regulatory
scenarios, in order to develop an
understanding of the potential
differences between environmentally
protective approaches to special wastes
management under the provisions of the
two potentially applicable portions of
the RCRA statute. Finally, the fact that,
in the Agency's view, adequately
protective tailored approaches to waste
management under subtitle C and
subtitle D are very similar in terms of
requirements and their costs does not in
any way invalidate EPA's analysis.
Rather, this suggests only that: (1)
Current management controls are
inadequate in some cases (as discussed
at length in the RTC and elsewhere in
today's notice, (2) that even under a
Subtitle D program, certain site
conditions and waste management
practices (such as are found at many
phosphoric acid plants) would require
fairly stringent controls and changes in
current practice to adequately protect
the environment, and (3) that the
flexibility afforded by section 3004(x)
can be employed to develop
management standards that are
achievable while also ensuring
protection of human health and the
environment.
B. Technical Feasibility of Engineering
Alternatives
The Agency received comments on
several aspects of the feasibility of the
engineering alternatives (discussed in
the NODA). Several of the comments
are summarized below; the remainder
are addressed in the supporting
comment response background
document.
1. Use of Undemonstrated
Technologies. Several commenters
objected to EPA's presentation of
engineering alternatives that incorporate
certain technologies that are considered
by the industry to be undemonstrated.
unproven. and/or experimental. The
commenters contend that waste
management scenarios that utilize
undemonstrated technologies cannot be
used as alternatives to current waste
management practices under the
definition of section 8002(p) of RCRA.
The commenters contend that each of
the "Subtitle C compliance scenarios"
(Engineering Alternatives 1. 2. and 7)
incorporate one or more technologies
that are not currently demonstrated in
ng:
iratic^l
STW
the industry as feasible. These
technologies include the following:
• Segregation (hydraulic separatif
of waste management units for pr
wastewater and phosphogypsum
(Alternatives 1,2. and 7);
• Neutralization of phosphogypsum
slurry, disposal of limed gypsum on
existing stacks, and return of transport
water to the production process
(Alternatives 1, 2, and 7);
• Recovery of fluosilicic acid from the
reaction stage of phosphoric acid
production (Alternatives 2 and 7); and
• Use of cooling towers and indirect
cooling via heat exchangers to effect a
closed-loop cooling system in lieu of a
process wastewater cooling pond.
As an example of undemonstrated
technology, the commenters stated that
even though lime neutralization of
process wastewater is used at some
plants before NPDES-permitted
discharge, neutralization of all process
wastewater and subsequent recycle to
the production process has not been
successfully demonstrated at an existing
plant. Because this technology and the
other technologies are undemonstrated
in the industry in the manner in which
they are intended to be used in the
engineering alternatives, the
commenters argued that the subtitle C
engineering alternatives cannot be used
as a basis for a regulatory deter
to regulate the industry under:
EPA largely disagrees with
comments. The commenters' proposed
definition of "demonstrated" is extreme
and contrary to long-standing Agency
policy. While EPA agrees that there
must be an expectation that a given
technology will perform adequately if it
is to serve as the basis for a regulatory
decision, the Agency does not agree that
current use of the technology in the
industry being examined is necessary. In
fact, it is very often the case that
technologies and techniques that have
been developed elsewhere for different
purposes are used by the Agency for
achievement of new pollution control
standards. This type of "technology
transfer" is at the very heart of such
programs as Clean Water Act Effluent
Guidelines development and
establishment of Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT)
requirements under the RCRA Subtitle C
Land Disposal Restrictions.
With regard to the specific
technologies that comprise engineering
alternatives 1.2. and 7. EPA believes
that most, if not all of these
technologies have been demonstrated in
other industrial applications andj
their technical feasibility is not i
question. The fact that they are i
-------
Fadarai
/ VoL S0> N«. U4 / Thursday, ]\aar 13>. 19« / Buiea
use ia the phosphoric acid industry ia
mam reflective oi an absence of strong
regulatory central* and associated
financial incentives than of the
feasibility or availability of the
technologies themselves. Specifically.
EPA has at least anecdotal evidence
that closed loop cooling and recovery of
FSA from the reactor/flash cooler
system have been successfully
employed in other industries and in
foreign phosphoric acid plants,
respectively.
Moreover, EPA wishes to make clear
that it believes that the commenters
have misinterpreted the Agency's
response to the statutory requirement to
examine "alternatives to current
disposal methods" and "the coals of
such alternatives" (RCRA section
8002(p), study factors 5 and 6). As
pointed out by the commenters, in the
RTC, EPA discussed a number of
alternatives to current waste
management practices, focusing on
techniques that have been applied on a
commercial scale to reduce the quantity
and/or toxicity of the special wastes-
considered in the Report The intent of
tins discussion was to achieve partial
fulfillment of study factors 5 and 8
(potential utilization) by focusing on
proven means of source redaction and
waste minimization as an alternative to
on-site waste management. For most of
the 20 special wastes considered m the
RTC, opportunities for recycling and
commercial ose are quite limited, for
various reasons. In contrast. EPA's
approach to responding to the remainder
of study factor S as welt as study factor
6 was to articulate and estimate the
costs of on-site waste management
under alternative regulatory scenarios.
The Agency believes that this context
was and is the most relevant to the key
decisions to be made (Subtitle C vs.
Subtitle D regulation) based upon the
findings of the RTC and subsequent
analysis. Thus, there is no direct linkage
between EPA's criterion for discusaioa
of a waste management alternative or
opportunity for utilization and the
development and analytical
implementation of the regulatory
scenarios presented in the RTC and the
Supplemental Analysis. Accordingly,
EPA categorically rejects the
comroenters' assertion that a given
technology, device, and/or practice must
currently be in use within the domestic
phosphoric acid industry in order for it
to be considered "technically feasible.''
The Agency further rejects the
commenters' suggestion that EPA's own
methodology as articulated ia the RTC
compels such an approach. becMS*
commenters have misconstrued the
Agency's analytical methods and
undettyiag rationale.
The Agency acknowledges that there
are significant uncertainties regarding
the operational consequences of the
lime treatment of phosphogypcum. Once
again, however, commenten have based
their arguments upon an inaccurate
interpretation of EPA's analysis. The
treatment of phosphogypsuro
contemplated in engineering alternatives
1, 2, and 7 assumes that the water being
used to slurry the gypsum from the filter
to the neutralization mixing basin would
be treated process wastewater. not the
"pond water" that is currently managed
at active facilities.
Consequently, the laboratory test
results reported by the commenters in
support of their argument are. in the
Agency's view, of questionable
relevance, and by no means
demonstrate that treated gypsom would
present significant disposal and other
operational problems.
Finally, EPA believes that the
importance of the issue of segregation of
the gypsum management and cooling
water areas within a facility's waste
management system has been
overstated by the commenters. m (he
Supplemental Analysis, EPA disctwsed
a number of different approaches for
separately addressing coHtamrnanto
contained in phosphogypsum slurry amd
contaminants condensed into cooling
waters. In no case did EPA state (or
even suggest) that a complete hydraulic
separation between gypsum
management units and cooh'ng ponds
would be either necessary or
appropriate, even under a fuH subtitle C
scenario. Indeed the Supplemental
Analysis recognizes that leachate wiO
continue to be generated for many year*
from auy existing gypsum stack. To the
extent that this leachate or gypsum
transport water (which would have been
rendered non-hazardous under
engineering alternatives 1,2, and 7)
might enter the cooling water pond
treatment or product recovery would
occur through removal of this water to
the treatment system or filter,
respectively. In either case, "co-
mingling" of separate hazardous wastes
would not occur, obviating the need for
complete hydraulic separation and any
associated undesirable effects on plant
water balance.
2. Feasibility of Lime Neutralisation.
Several commenters expressed doubt
over the engineering feasibility of Mm*
neutralization of both process
wastewater and phosphogypsnm, for
several reasons, including the limited
availability of lime to meet the demand
that would be created and the formation
of a attka gel that wooU interfere with
warte management and prod actions
peaces* operations.
Several commenters argued that the
demand for lime imposed by any of the
engineering alternatives that incorporate
lime neutraftzatkm would piece a severe
burden on the United States Kme
production industry. The comnenters
stated that implementation of
Engineering Alternative 1 (lime
neutralization of all waste streams)
would require the southeastern Imte
industry to triple its present capacity m
the first year of implementation of the
alternative to meet the additional
demand, hi addition to expressing their
uncertainty over whether this demand
could be met. the commenters also
expressed concern over potential
environmental impacts that the demand
would create, including increased
generation of carbon dioxide, increased
fuel consumption, and the need for
additional limestone strip mines.
In response to this comment EPA has
conducted additional analysis to
determine whether implementation of
Alternative 1 would impart significant
impacts on lime supply, demand, and
capacity within the relevant regions of
the country. A description of this
analysis and the results thereof may be
found in the docket1 These results
suggest several conclusions.
First, EPA agrees that adoption of
engineering alternative 1 by the entire
domestic industry would significantly
increase the demand for lime in the
regions of the country in which the
active phosphoric acid plants are
located, requiring an increase in lime
production. In the western states (Idaho
and Wyoming), this increase could
probably be met through greater
utilization of existing lime production
capacity. In the south, uniform adaption
of engineering alternative 1 would
create demand in excess of regional
supply, requiring shipments from other
parts of the country (e-g., Ohio.
Pennsylvania), installation of additional
lime capacity, and/or imports of lime
(probably from Mexico).
Second, the analysis of incremental
lime demand presented by the
commenters significantly overstates the
impacts of new regulatory requirements,
for several reasons. The estimates of
lime demand presented by the
commentea are substantially higher
than EPA'a estimates. Because the
• tCF IncspmtBd. T3BJ. Tcchoicil Background
DoouMat Data (*d fiMli'iu la Sopped of tht
ReguUtmy DtUniiMtiaa tor Sptcttl Wutti from
Ptuwphoric Add Production. Prepared For the Offic*
-------
27328 Federal Register / Vol 5ft No. 114 / Thursday. June 13> 1991 / Rules and Regulations
reasons for this difference have not been
adequately explained in the materials
submitted to the Agency, EPA continues
to believe that its lime consumption
estimates for engineering alternative 1
are valid. Moreover, in comparing
demand with supply, commenters were
quite selective in terms of which states
and lime plants were defined as being
located within the same region as the
phosphoric acid plants. EPA believes
that lime produced in Virginia,
Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri,
and Texas is also available (in a
logistical and economic sense) to the
potentially affected phosphoric acid
facilities, particularly those located in
Louisiana. Texas, and North Carolina.
Therefore, the gap berwaen potential
demand and existing supply is
substantially narrower than that
suggested by the commenters.
Third, the Agency acknowledges that
implementation of any alternative that
substantially increased the demand for
lime would result in increased energy
consumption and releases of carbon
dioxide, a "greenhouse" gas. to the
atmosphere. Because many lime and
limestone producers are operating at
levels substantially below their
capacity, however. EPA is not convinced
that opening of additional limestone
mines would necessarily be required to
any significant degree as a result of
implementation of the engineering
alternatives, though additional
production from existing mines would
clearly be needed.
Finally, and most importantly, the
comments focus on a worst-case
scenario under which every plant would
lime treat all of its special wastes.
Under a tailored subtitle C (C-Minus)
program, this is but one option among
many. EPA believes that most facility
operators, when provided with the
incentive to comply in a least-cost
manner, would develop alternatives to
lime treating all of their wastes, thus
greatly reducing the amount of lime
required and the importance of this
issue.
Commenters also stated that a
colloidal silica gel would be created
during the neutralization of process
wastewater and phosphogypsum. The
commenters argued that this gel is likely
to remain in suspension in both the
gypsum transport water and the cooling
pond process wastewater. which may
pose significant problems in the
operation of plant equipment when
these waters are returned to the
production process. In particular.
several commenters stated that the gel
would potentially "blind" (clog) the
phosphogypsum filter when the treated
gypsum transport water is returned to
the filter and reused as filter washwater,
resulting in decreased efficiency,
increased downtime, and lost
production. Commenters also indicated
that they were unaware of any
demonstrated technology to remove the
gel from the phosphogypsum filters.
EPA is not convinced that the
catastrophic operational effects
predicted by the commenters would
occur on a widespread and continuing
basis if lime treatment of the special
wastes were to be instituted,
particularly if FSA recovery were to be
practiced. Commenters have assumed
that the engineering alternatives
contemplated by EPA would involve
continual treatment of process
wastewater and phosphogypsum as they
are currently generated, when in fact the
alternatives were developed to address
management of new waste streams
having different chemical characteristics
resulting from treatment and/or product
recovery. Therefore, the appropriate
question is whether lime treatment of
process wastewater that has not
reached a high equilibrium
concentration of chemical contaminants
would result in significant gel formation.
not whether lime treatment of currently
generated "pond water" would create
such operational problems.
Nevertheless, EPA does have some
concerns about the efficacy of • lime
treatment strategy. For example, the
Agency recognizes that for a period of
time (perhaps one to two yean).
treatment of existing pond water would
occur. To the extent that gel formation
took place, operational difficulties might
be significant. Because, however.
implementation of today's decision does
not require that lime treatment be
implemented. EPA does not believe that
resolution of this issue (which would
require additional research) is necessary
prior to a determination of the
appropriate regulatory status of the
special wastes from phosphoric acid
production.
3. Feasibility of Separate
Management of Phosphogypsum and
Process Wastewater. Commenters
expressed concern over the technical
difficulty inherent in separately
managing phosphogypsum and process
wastewater so that no hydraulic
communication between the two
"circuits" is permitted. Because the
integrated management of these two
wastes is employed at all existing
facilities and is. according to the
commenters, essential to maintaining •
negative water balance (i.e., zero
discharge through NPDES outfalls), the
commenters believed that the separate
management of these two wastes is an
undemonstrated technology that cannot
be used to support a regulatory
determination. One commenter
performed a computer modeling studyTo
predict his facility's water balance
under Engineering Alternatives 1 and 7
and predicted that separate
management of process wastewater and
phosphogypsum at the facility would
require treatment and discharge of
excess process wastewater.
Commenters indicated that the potential
increase in discharge created by
segregated management would be
contrary to the objectives of the Clean
Water Act effluent guidelines as well as
NPDES requirements for the industry.
Furthermore, the commenters pointed
out that the Agency addressed neither
the feasibility nor the cost of
implementing separate management of
the wastes.
As discussed above, the Agency has
never suggested that it would require
complete hydraulic separation of the
areas dedicated to gypsum disposal and
process water cooling. In addition, the
computer simulation results submitted
by the commenter assume no changes or
adjustments in the operation of the
plant an assumption that is contrary to
standard industry practice. Plants
continually monitor water balance^
modify their water management
activities as needed to comply wit
discharge limits and operational
requirements. EPA has received no
convincing evidence that suggests that a
new water balance could not be
developed for affected plants, though
admittedly, new equipment and piping
might be necessary in some situations.
Accordingly. EPA believes that the
potential impacts on plant water
balance and associated regulatory
significance of the issue as suggested by
the commenters are substantially
overstated.
4. Land Required To Implement
Subtitle C Compliance Alternatives.
Some commenters contend that
adequate amounts of land are
unavailable to implement the subtitle C
compliance alternatives (Alternatives 1.
2. and 7); hence, the commenters stated
that implementation of these
alternatives under subtitle C is
infeasible. The commenters contend that
the implementation of tiiese alternatives
would require the construction of new
waste management and treatment units
and expansion of existing waste
management units on land that is in
addition to acreage already occupied at
the facilities. Specifically, the
commenters stated that in order I
implement Alternative t (lime
.»
itM^
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rules and Regulations 27329
neutralization of all waste streams),
additional land would be required for
(1) Extra filter capacity; (2) lime
receiving and slaking facilities; (3) a 50-
acre gypsum transport water pond; (4)
an additional SO acres of cooling ponds;
(S) a cooling water neutralization basin;
(6) a larger stack: and (7) cooling water
sludge ponds. Many of the facilities that
commented claimed that they did not
have enough land available to
accommodate all of these units, and
many of these facilities reported that
they could not purchase adjacent
property of sufficient size.
EPA continues to believe that the
availability and cost of land needed for
regulatory compliance are not critical
issues. As discussed in more detail
below, the Agency believes that the
commenters' estimates of the size of
new required waste management units
are significantly overstated. Also.
additional land required for many of the
items listed by the commenters (e.g..
extra filter capacity, lime receiving and
slaking facilities, neutralization basin) is
quite modest in extent, particularly
within the context of the vast scale of a
domestic phosphoric acid plant (all of
which are hundreds or thousands of
acres in size). Moreover, to the extent
that substantial new acreage is required
for additional waste management units,
land could be acquired that was not
adjacent to the facility, i.e.. the units
could be sited at some distance from the
plant. EPA believes that the incremental
costs of managing the phosphoric acid
wastes in this manner would be modest
because the wastes are already piped
(in slurry and liquid form) considerable
distances (hundreds of yards) at some
plants. Therefore, the Agency believes
that "extending the pipeline." even for
several miles, is not a significant issue,
from either a feasibility or cost
standpoint.
C. Costs of Engineering Alternatives
The Agency received comments on
several aspects of the estimated costs of
the engineering alternatives. Several of
these comments are summarized below;
the remainder are addressed in the
supporting comment response
background document
;. Operating Year. Commenters
argued that EPA significantly
understated the costs of the engineering
alternatives by basing its calculation of
annual incremental compliance costs
per ton of P»O» output on a 365-day
production year. The commenters
contend that it is not possible for
phosphoric acid facilities to operate 365
days in a year and that due to
necessary maintenance, facilities
operate, on average.'330 days per year.
Data submitted by individual facility
operators in EPA's 1989 National Survey
of Special Wastes from Mineral
Processing Facilities demonstrate that
most phosphoric acid plants operated
for more than 350 days in 1988.
Nonetheless, EPA recognizes that
individual production lines within a
given plant are subject to considerable
down time for maintenance and repairs.
Because the model plant used to
evaluate the engineering alternatives in
the Supplemental Analysis was based
on a single production line, the Agency
has revised its cost estimates to reflect
the commenter's suggestion that a 330
day operating year be employed.
2. Capital Cost for Neutralization
Sludge Ponds. Commenters argued that
EPA seriously understated the capital
cost of installing sludge disposal
impoundments necessary to manage the
calcium fluoride sludge that would be
generated by lime neutralization of the
cooling water component of process
wastewater. The reasons given by the
commenters are:
(1) EPA's capital cost was sufficient
for only one year of sludge storage;
(2) The capital cost does not include
the cost of acreage needed to provide
adequate residence time for settling of
solids in the treated cooling water and
(3) Lining of the impoundment was not
included and would be required.
EPA generally disagrees with this
comment. The Agency recognizes that it
did not provide complete information
concerning engineering design
assumptions in the Supplemental
Analysis; this omission occurred
because of extreme time constraints.
EPA believes that many of the
commenters' concerns arise from
incorrect (though, in many cases,
reasonable) inferences that they have.
made based upon the limited
information that was available to them.
First, the sludge settling/disposal
impoundments referred to by the
commenter were indeed designed to
accommodate a 15 year accumulation of
process wastewater treatment sludge.
For engineering alternative 1, the
impoundment was designed to contain
118.271,000 cubic feet of sludge
(generation rate of 7.8 million cubic feet
or 180 acre-feet per year). Using the
same cost engineering model as
employed for the RTC, EPA estimated
that this impoundment would cover 64
acres (80 acres total, allowing for site
preparation activities), and have a depth
of 42 feet (14 foot dug out depth, 28 foot
berm height).
Furthermore, as clearly stated in the
Supplemental Analysis, the Agency
believes that the volume-of the sludge
disposal impoundment (the vast
majority of which would be available in
the early yean of operation) coupled
with the large volume of the existing
cooling pond, would provide adequate
residence time for solids removal
(settling) from the treated process
wastewater stream. Commenters have
provided no evidence or a rationale
supporting their contention that EPA's
assumptions in this regard might be
invalid: EPA concludes, therefore, that
its approach as described in the
Supplemental Analysis was and is
reasonable. Therefore, the Agency
believes that the commenters'
suggestion that the actual area required
for treated process wastewater and
sludge management (1.272 acres versus
EPA's estimate of 80 acres) is
significantly in error.
Finally, EPA does acknowledge that
there is a distinct possibility that the
sludge settling impoundments required
under Alternative 1 would require
composite liners, at least for facilities
located in the State of Florida. Florida
ground-water protection standards
(which incorporate federal MCLs) allow
individual permit writers, at their
discretion, to require the installation of
liners under new units to ensure
adequate protection of the ground-water
resource. Because the concentrations of
lime-treated process wastewater
contaminants such as sulfate and
sodium are likely to be an order of
magnitude or more above MCLs (they
are not removed to any significant
extent by lime treatment 2), EPA has
concluded that liners would probably be
required as a permit condition for any
CaFi sludge disposal impoundment(s)
that would be built in Florida as part of
a regulatory compliance strategy.
Therefore, to the extent that such
impoundments would actually be
constructed in response to new
regulations, EPA has underestimated the
associated compliance costs in the
Supplemental Analysis.
3. Cost of Separate Management of
Phosphogypsum and Process
Wastewater. The industry commenters
stated that EPA failed to consider the
capital costs and operating and
maintenance costs involved with
separately managing the cooling water
and phosphogypsum slurry circuits. The
commenters further contend that
separate management of these waste
streams would necessitate a major
retrofit of current waste management
units at existing production facilities.
* Ai dtpicttd In tht Supplement*! Analym.
Exhibit 1. p. 12. and •• mottled by numerous
•dditional data tubmitted to the docket.
-------
2733E Federal RegUrtar / Vol. 56. No. 114 / Thmaday, June 13. 199t / Rnles and Htyriatfema
The comraenten estimated that the cost
necessary to separate the gypsum and
cooling water circuits (capital cost) at
EPA's model plant would be at least $10
million.
As discussed above, the Agency has
never stated that it would require
complete hydraulic separation of the
areas dedicated to gypsum disposal and
process water cooling. Accordingly, EPA
does not believe that a plant retrofit to
achieve separation of these areas would
be necessary or required.
D. Economic Impacts of Alternative
Waste Management Practices
In general, all of the industry
commenters considered implementation
of the various alternatives under subtitle
C to be economically intractable. Based
on their analysis of the economic
impacts they believe would be imposed
by the implementation of engineering
alternative 1, the commenters concluded
that: (1) Implementation of the
alternative would eliminate the
industry's export markets: (2) it is
possible that foreign producers could
penetrate the domestic market: and (3)
incremental compliance costs could not
be reasonably passed on to suppliers,
workers, or consumers. The commenters
believed that these conclusions would
apply equally to impacts posed by
engineering alternatives 2 and 7.
EPA recognizes that implementation
of engineering alternatives 1, 2. and 7
under a subtitle C framework would
impose cost impacts that might be
difficult for members of the domestic
industry to withstand. The reel issue,
however, is the magnitude and
distribution of the impacts that might be
imposed by tailored subtitle C
standards. Under the Subtitle C-Minus
scenario presented in both the RTC and
the Supplemental Analysis, facilities
could achieve compliance by adopting
strategies to either contain or reduce/
eliminate contaminants in their special
wastes. Presumably, they would do so in
a manner that minimized costs, given
their own operational strategies and
site-specific conditions. Therefore, the
cost estimates provided in the
Supplemental Analysis should be
viewed as upper-bound estimates; it ia
likely that actual costs and associated
impacts would be lower (at least on a
per ton ftOk basis) than those estimated
for the model plant* This fact co
with diminished relevance of the cos
impacts of full suUtffle C regulation.
suggests that many of the claims made
by commenters are overstated.
//. Other Wastes Addressed in the
Notice of Data Availability
EPA received no comments on the
additional information regarding gasifier
ash and process wastewater from coal
gasification. However, the Agency did
receive two comments addressing the
supplemental analysis of basic oxygen
furnace dust/sludge from carbon steel
production. The Agency has taken the
comments into account in developing
this final regulatory determination.
EPA's detailed responses to the
comments are available for inspection in
the docket
[FR Doc. 91-12563 Filed 6-12-91; 8:45 am]
• whik tkto it tra. t*timit*d co«ti under th*
Submit D-flw tcnuiio »r» tl*o voy high-
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-1 7
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 91
Wood Preserving Listings
56 FR 27332-27336
June 13, 1991
(RCRA Cluster I, HSWA/Non-HSWA Rule)
Notes: 1) This Revision Checklist addresses an administrative stay of three wood preserving
waste listings (F032, F034, and F035) made at 55 FR 50450 (December 6, 1990; Revision
Checklist 82). Certain drip pad management standards, the inclusion of past users of
chlorophenolic formulation in the listing description for certain F032 wastes, and the scope of
waste water with respect to wastes that do not come into contact with preservative are also being
stayed. EPA considers that both the F032 listing and the new Subpart W drip pad standards
(when applied to the management of F032 wastes) are based on HSWA authority. This
administrative stay defers EPA's implementation and enforcement of the HSWA-based
requirements. On the other hand, the listings of F034 and F035, and the Subpart W drip pad
standards that govern the management of these wastes, are considered to be based on pre-
HSWA authority. For unauthorized States, the effect of this stay will also be to defer the EPA's
implementation and enforcement of the F034 and F035 provisions. In authorized States, however,
the non-HSWA requirements will not be applicable until the State modifies its program and obtains
approval for the revisions from EPA. The F032 stay is an extension of a HSWA compliance date;
States cannot adopt extensions beyond the Federal HSWA compliance dates. For the F034 and
F035 listings, however, States could adopt reasonable compliance date extensions (e.g., stay
schedules) that extend beyond the Federal stay dates announced in this rule.
2) States may elect to adopt wood preserving waste regulations with more stringent effective
dates than those announced in this administrative stay. For this reason, Revision Checklist 91
optional.
is
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 261 IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
t,1 HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
revise waste codes
"F032", "F034", and
"F035" to include a
parenthetic note con-
cerning the admini-
strative stay; add
footnote concerning
administrative stay
261 .31 (a)
June 13, 1991 - Page 1 of 2
CL91.11 - 10/13/93
[Pnnlso: 10/13/93
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-1 7
SPA 11
RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 91: Wood Preserving Listings (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART W - DRIP PADS
t,2 DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
add a note stating
that the 264.572(a)(4)
requirements are
administratively stayed
until further admini-
strative action is taken
264.572(a)(4)
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART W - DRIP PADS
t DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
add a note stating
that the 265.443(a)(4)
requirements are
administratively stayed
until further admini-
strative action is taken
265.443(a)(4)
Note the Federal Register addressed by this checklist incorrectly refers to 261.31 rather than
261.31 (a) as the place where the list of hazardous wastes from non-specific sources can be
found. Revision Checklist 81 redesignates 261.31 as 261.31 (a) and adds 261.31 (b).
2 "264.572(a)(4)" will be redesignated as 264.573(a)(4) by 56 FR 30192 (July 1, 1991; Revision
Checklist 92). Because of this redesignation, the administrative stay for this paragraph was
incorrectly omitted in the July 1, 1991 CFR.
June 13, 1991 - Page 2 of 2
CL91.11 -
(Printed: 10/13/93
-------
Thursday
June 13, 1991
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 261, 264, and 265
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Final Rule
-------
27332 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 114 / Thursday. June 13. 1991 / Rulea and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261,264, and 265
lFHL-3«63-«]
Hazardous Wast* Management
Syatam: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Standards for
Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities; and Interim Status
Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
AQINCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Admmistrative stay.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is today announcing an
administrative stay of the hazardous
waste listings F032. F034. and F035 in
process areas at wood preserving plants.
The primary effect of the stay is to
conditionally extend the effective date
of the drip pad management standards
to February 6,1992. for the upgrade of
existing drip pads and to May 6,1992.
for the installation of new drip pads.
Certain management standards for drip
pads, the inclusion of past users of
chlorophenolic formulations in the
listing description for certain F032
wastes, and the scope of wastewaters
with respect to waters that do not come
into contact with preservative are also
being stayed.
DAT!*: Effective Date: June 5.1991. For
reporting deadlines, see section VI of
this preamble.
AOOMUSCS: The official record for this
administrative stay is identified as
Docket Number F-91-WPWS-FFFFF
and is located in the EPA RCRA Docket
room M2427. 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC 20460. The public must
make an appointment in order to review
docket materials by calling (202) 475-
9327. The docket is available for
inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. The public may copy material
from any regulatory docket at a cost of
$0.15 per page.
F0« FUWTHIR INFORMATION CONTACT
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-
9346. or at (202) 382-3000. For technical
information concerning this notice.
contact Edward L Freedman. Office of
Solid Waste (OS-333). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
(202) 245-3657.
sumiMiMTAiiv INFORMATION: The
contents of today's notice are listed fat
the following outtine-
I. Background
II. Appropriate Effective Date for Drip Pad
Standards
in. Substantive Standards for Drip Pidi
IV. Pentachlorophenol Crost-ContamiMtiaa
V. Scope of the Wastewater Listing
VI. Agency Action
VII. Effects On State Authorization
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
On December 6,1990. EPA
promulgated regulations listing as
hazardous various wastes generated
from wood preserving processes that
use chlorophenolic, creosote, and/or
inorganic (arsenical and chromium)
preservatives (55 FR 50450 (Dec ft. 1990),
adding hazardous wastes F032, F034,
and F035 to the lists of hazardous
wastes in 40 CFR 281.31). In addition,
and of particular relevance for the
present notice, the Agency promulgated
standards for a new type of waste
management unit, a drip pad (55 FR
50484-89, adding a new subpart W to
parts 264 and 265 of the regulations).
Drip pads receive drippage from treated
wood immediately after the wood is
removed from the treatment vessel Tfce
pads are eligible for 90-day generator
accumulation status under | 262.34
provided they are designed and
operated in compliance with the subpart
W standards (amended { 262.34(a)(2),»
FR 50463-84). The standards vary
somewhat for new and existing drip
pads;
Because the rule was promulgated
partially pursuant to the 1984
amendments and partially pursuant to
preexisting authorities, the requirements
take effect at different times in different
states. As a HSWA rule, the F032 listing,
of various residues from wood
preserving processes using, or that
previously used, chlorophenolic
formulations takes effect on June & 1991
in authorized and unauthorized States
(55 FR 59469-70 and RCRA section
3001(e)). Drip pads used in connection
with F032 wastes are likewise subject to-
the subpart W standards on June 6 fat all
States (Id at 50470). The F034 and P03S
listings and related management
standards do not take effect
immediately in authorized States sinca
they were not adopted pursuant to
HSWA (/
-------
5». Wo. 1M /
. Jang 13.
app^mteness-efwaairmg new drip
pad» *o be seated with an TnrnmaesAJfc
coating and to fesve liners and leak
detect!** system asweM. In their view,
this level «f control is either redundant
or unnecessary. ki addition. they
questioned the technical feasibi&ty of
findsjg an impermeable sealer for some
arsenical solutions.
IV. Pentachloropheool Cross-
Conlamination
A further issue that concerns the
wood preserving industry is the scope of
the F032 listing (for wastes tram
processes using pentachloropheooi as a
preservative). As promulgated, this
listing includes wastes generated by
creosote or CCA plants that previously
used chJorophenelic formulations.
Although the rules provide a procedure
whereby an individual facitity can
demonstrate that crou-ccntamioatioa is
no longer occurring (in which case the
wastes from the process would stiD be
hazardous but classified uader cither the
F034 or F03S waste codes), the industry
argues that these procedures are
potentially unnecessary and
impracticable. Furthermore, by including
potentially cross-contaminated wastes
within the scope of the F032 listing, more
facilities become subject to the June 6
deadline, since £heF032 listing takes
effect on that date in both authorized
and unauthorized States since it is a
HSWA rule. This increases the number
of wood presenting facilities potentially
unable to comply with the drip pad
standards on that date.
V. Sccoe«f the WastswatarUstfcgs
The wood preserving industry further
questioned the scope of the listing of
wood preserving wastewaters. Among
other points, they contend that certain
wastewaters are not hazardous because
the wastewaters do not come in contact
WltTl "pPOCCSV
maintain farther that processes can be
reconfigured to avoid corrtamrnation of
other water, such as rainwater. Because
the listing applies to all wastewaters,
however, these efforti would be without
point because afl the wastewaters
wouio remain imukiddud fmress and
until deKsred).
VI. Agaocy Adtiaa
A. EPA has detnramiod to wsw «n
administrative stay ef the applicability
of the FMZ. W34 and FDA biting* to &•
process ana motiving dcippage of tmesa
wastes, i.e.. (bearta potentially «evered
by tbesubpeit W4i*p pad stanfrfds.
As explained below, this) stay ti
available only for wood preserving
facilities meting certain coadMom
:ntended to limit the extension t» *ws«
facnnfes making »ona nde £rTmt4 to
comply wnli the rule. For existing ttrip
pads, the stay wffl remain m effect until'
Febreery 8.19iL and for new drip pads,
the stay wfQ remain m effect until May
B. 198E.
The Agency hn selected these dates
for the following reasons. The Agency
believes that two month* of time beyond
the Jme 8.1991. effective date is
necessary for wood preserving plants to
determine and report their definite
intentions as to compliance with the
rule. The Agency believes that up to
three additional months will be required
for all facilities intending to come into
compliance to fully investigate and
obtain the necessary funding required to
retrofit existing pads and to construct
new pads. The retrofitting of existing
drip pads win1 require less time than the
construction of new drip pads. Thus, the
Agency has allowed op to three
additional months for the retrofitting of
existing drip pads and up to six
additional months for me cuitsUiilhm
of new drip pad*. These estimates are
consistent with information supplied by
the wood preserving industry. Based on
these estimates, the Agency feels Siat
final compliance dates of February o.
1992. and May «, 1991 are reasonable
compliance dates for plants with
existing drip pads and newly
constructed drip pads, respectively.
The effect of the administrative stay is
that activities (hat would otherwise
constitute disposal of F032, F03*. or F033
wastes into the process area, or onto
existing drip pads m process areas, are
not covered by the respective wood
preservative waste listings during dm
duration of the stay. The stay is limited
to the process area, huwevei. Titos, on
listings are not stayed for P032, P004. or
P83S wastes, inchrarng soil
contaminated with these wastes, that
are removed from this area. (During the
term of the edministi afire stay, such
removal would be considered geueiatluu
of «a PJ32, FOB*, or BBSS waste. 53 PR
31147-49 (Avgust 17.198fU
As noted eoove, the Agency Intends
(and AWCT expressly agrees) that mis
limited stay should apply orrry to those
facffittat (hat intend to comply with 4m
subpart W standards and (hat are
wfRing to nrnke bona fide efforts to do
so during the stay peiiud. It obviously
makes no sense to extend dm ram's
compliance date for facilities simply
desiring to continue operations tnar SJTV
envteonaentairy unsound fsoeh mi
operating wKhoot a drip pad or with
defective p*ds) until they are lorcai to
ens*. Consequently, the Agency is
making 4he •slay sjppBewWe orty to thow
facilities that comply wift the
conditions desurbed below. Faitnre to
comply with these conditions means
that the listings remain in effect in
which case process area drippage can
only occur lawfully for facilities with
compliant drip pads, or for facilities in
compliance with requirements lor land
disposal of hazardous waste (or other
units meeting applicable technical
standards). It should be noted that all
portions of the rule that are not stayed
remain in effect. For example, the stay
does not affect the March 6.1991. 3010
notification deadline for generators and
TSDs handling F034 and F005 in
unauthorized states or F032 in all states.
Thus, those generators and TSDs that
were managing the foreraeotioned
wastes, that had not previously notified
the Agency of hazardous waste activity.
and that did not submit a 3010
notification to the Agency by the
deadline ace ra violation of that
requirement.
Fast by AasnntB. TOSi. ali wood
preserving facxhtist affected by the stay
(i.e. IBDM otherwise sutyact to the June
6 compliance daat) mat notify either
the Agency's applicable Regional Office
or an aushuuussi state of "**•* intention
t* feMow «ns of fosr coarses of action:
(1) To upgrade aa existing drip pad by
February a IflSB; (2) to install a new drip
pad by May «, t9ft f3) fee facibty
•sraadymcsiastaUed a drip pad in
compliance with sobpart W: or H) the
facility will oane operation by August 7.
A isniity notifying that it intends to
cease opera DOB mast CMMC operation by
A»»*Bt7 ar its drippage in the process
area •scomcs subjact to att applicable
subtide C reguiatioos. The drip pads
already nutated m complianos wtth
subpart W an not subject to regstation
until February 8,19M. and owners and
operators of sachpads need not submit
any furtfavr nottficJBOon to the Agency
other then the Augwt 8 notks. Facilities
notifying that mcy intend to comply by
Pvbnary* 190Z ar May 8, M§2, must
further state that they will ase best
efforts to nrinimise drippage that occurs
during tne duntfien of the stay.
Second, on November 8,1991.
facilities intending to comply with drip
pad standards most submit a second
notffrcanon providing evidence that they
are making good faith efforts to comply
and have a reasonable expectation of
doing so. Tt> maVe this showing. 4n?
mnlrkation nmst IrrcKide m estimate of
the cost of canmrnmce. and evidence of
financing to pay mis expense. Evidence
couM lake rhs form of an agreement
with * bank or other tending institution.
or an escrow account dedicated to
paying for hntaflathn of drip pads.
-------
27334 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 114 / Thursday. June 13, 1991 / Rule* and Regulations
Person* unable to make this
demonstration would have to cease
operation by November 7,1991. (The
scheme is somewhat similar to the
statutory loss of interim status
provisions which required certain
facilities to certify that the facility was
in compliance with financial
responsibility and groundwater
monitoring requirements by a particular
date or to cease operation (RCRA
section 3005(e)(2))). EPA repeats that the
rule remains in effect for persons who
do not comply with these conditions.
EPA or the state, as appropriate, may in
its discretion, allow a facility to operate
beyond the November 6,1991. deadline:
provided, that (1) The respondent
demonstrates that it cannot meet the
November 6,1991, deadline because of
circumstances entirely beyond its
control, despite its best efforts to comply
(e.g.. its impossibility of performance is
due to corrective action being
undertaken at the wood preserving
facility pursuant to a federal or state
order or permit), and (2) such
authorization to operate is set forth in
an enforceable compliance order.
B. EPA has also decided to issue a
stay of the requirement that new drip
pads be sealed, coated, or covered with
an impermeable material
(§ 264.572(a)(4). § 265.443(a)(4)). The
Agency is taking this step because we
are now convinced that this requirement
is unnecessary for pads constructed
with a liner and leak detection system
provided the pad if maintained in good
condition with actions taken to remedy
any cracks that may develop. The liner
would provide secondary containment,
thus fulfilling the Agency's object in
developing management standards for
drip pads (55 FR at 50453). We
consequently are staying this
requirement Thus, on May a. 1992 (i.e..
the date when new pads must comply
with the regulatory standards), new
pads will not be required to be sealed,
coated, or covered with an impermeable
material. EPA also intends to initiate
ruleraaking to determine whether to
make this a permanent regulatory
change.
EPA intends, however, that this
requirement remain in place for existing
pads, once those pads are required to
comply with the regulatory standard*,
because few (if any) existing pads are
known to have liner and leak detection
systems that comply with the subpart W
standards. Thus, on February 6.1992.
existing pads must be sealed, coated, or
covered with an impermeable surface.
Because existing pads need not have
liner and leak detection systems
(II 264.571.265.441) the requirement of
an impermeable surface is necessary to
provide secondary containment (The
Agency has determined that
commercially available sealants exist
that would be appropriate for use at the
pH of preservative solutions used by the
wood preserving industry.)
C. The Agency is also staying the
portion of the rule that included wastes
from plants generating F034 or F035
wastes that previously used
chlorophenolic formulations as within
the scope of the F032 listing. Upon
reflection, the Agency realizes that
structuring the rule in this way is not
serving any useful environmental
purpose. Wastes from creosote or
inorganic arsenical wood preserving
processes that previously used
chlorophenolics are already classified
as hazardous under the F034 or F035
listings. The regulatory standards for
F032. F034, and F035 wastes are
identical so that the F032 listing does
not carry with it a stricter regulatory
regime (55 FR at 50467). The only
immediate regulatory consequence of
the F032 listing for these plants is to
make more facilities subject to the June
6 compliance date. As explained above
in the discussion on compliance dates
for drip pads, this consequence has
negative features because many
facilities that can comply with the drip
pad standards with some additional
time appear unable to do so by June 6
for legitimate reasons. Since the F032
listing does not result in different
substantive regulation for the wastes
other than the timing of the effective
date, EPA has decided to stay the scope
of the F032 listing so that it does not
cover wastes from creosote or inorganic
arsenical plants that previously used
chlorophenolic preservatives as long as
any wastes from that plant are regulated
as F034 or F035 wastes. EPA also
intends to initiate rulemaking to
determine whether to permanently
amend the F032 listing.
The Agency notes, however, that the
issue of chlorophenolic cross-
contamination will be relevant when
EPA establishes treatment standards for
the F032, F034 and F035 wastes under
the land disposal restrictions program.
The fact that a waste may be classified
as F034/F035 rather than F032 does not
prevent the Agency from promulgating
treatment standards for the
chlorophenolic formulation, and the
various dioxins and furans that may be
present in these wastes as a result of
equipment cross-contamination. Thus,
the Agency anticipates including
standards for these constituents in all of
the treatment standards for the listed
wood preserving wastes.
ci9 uiai
'*
nCTW
0. Finally, EPA has decided to stay
the listing of wastewaters so that the
listing applies only to wastewaters that
have come in contact with process
contaminants, i.e., wood preservif
solutions, spent preservatives, anc
like. It is these process contaminants
that make the wastewater hazardous.
and the Agency did not intend for the
listing to apply to uncontaminated
wastewaters (see 56 FR 21955. May 13.
1991). Thus, if wastewaters are kept
uncontaminated. they will not be (and
should not) be covered by the listing.
EPA intends to initiate rulemaking to
determine whether to make this a
permanent regulatory change.
Any wood preserver claiming that
wastewater has not come in contact
with process contaminants would have
the burden of proving that this is the
case. This is because the details of plant
operation, and in particular wastewater
management, are within the special
knowledge of the wood preserving
facility. See 50 FR at 643 (January 4.
1985) and cases there cited. The best
(and perhaps only) way of showing no
contamination would be to segregate
uncontaminated waters (for example.
non-contact cooling water) from normal
process wastes and process areas. Such
segregation also serves a useful waste
minimization function by reducing the
total volume of contaminated
wastewater. Thus, the Agency vu
today's action as creating an incc
for waste minimization. Conversely.
however, the Agency notes that if
initially uncontaminated wastewater is
mixed with contaminated wastewater
(as in a centralized wastewater
treatment system) or with process
contaminants (such as rainwater falling
on a process area drip pad), then the
entire volume of wastewater is
hazardous because of the mixture rule.
E. EPA is issuing this administrative
stay pursuant to 5 U.S.C 705 which
provides that an agency may postpone
the effective date of action taken by it
when justice so requires, pending
judicial review.1 The Agency believes
that this standard is satisfied here
because it appears to be legitimately
infeasible for a significant number of
wood preserving facilities to comply
with the drip pad standards by June 6.
In addition, the sealant requirement
for new drip pads appears unnecessary
and could add to the time needed to
comply with drip pad standards.
Inclusion of potentially cross-
contaminated wastes within the F032
listing does not serve any direct
' AWH BM (Dad • petition forravlcw
rSrul*
-------
Federal Register / Vel. 58. So. 1M / Tfc»g»day. jane 13. M9t /. Kolas an* Keydfrtfota 27938
regulatory jHPpase (given the uniform
revelatory standards ter FW2. F084, and
F035 wastes), and cauiei o«we facilities
to be subject to the June 6 effective date
with which they may be unable to
comply. Inclusion of uncontaminated
wastewaters within the scope of the
listing is not necessary to further any
legitimate environmental objective, and
so should legitimately be stayed.
At the same time, the administrative
stay is structured so as to prevent
environmental abuses from uncontrolled
drrppage during the pendency of the
stay, and is further structured to be
available only to facilities making bona
fide efforts to comply. A significant
number of wood preservers thus could
be harmed irreparably should the drip
pad standards take effect on June 6. Trie
conditions on the administrative stay.
plus structuring the duration of the stay
to allow time for clean-up of drippage
contamination in existing process areas.
also assures that the stay will be in the
public interest. The Agency
consequently find* that issuing this stay
is in the interests of instice.*
VII. Effects on State Authorisatian
The effects of the administrative stay
depend tacgery an whether the fadtity is
managing a wood preserving waste
identified by a HSWA-based listing (i.e..
the F032 wastes), as opposed to the
newly listed wastes (F034 and F035) for
which the fating derernrtnarions were
based on pre-HSWA authority.
As explained earlier. EPA considers
that both the F032 listing and the new
subpart W drip pad standards (whea
applied to the management of F032
wastes) are based on HSWA authority.
As EPA explained in the December 8.
1990 notice (see 55 FR 50469), the
HSWA-based F032 listing and related
subpart W facility standards take effect
simultaneously in all States, regardless
of their authorization status. With
respect to these HSWA-based
requirements, the effect of the
administrative stay is to defer in all
States EPA's implementation end
enforcement of these requirements
1 Although iht Agency does not regard today's
action ai a ml*, wem it to b« viawad a» a rula 4h*
Agency believe* that there ii good caul* for issuing
it without prior notice and opportunity for COMMM
and for making it immediately effective. Thia ia
bom* out by the pending compliance date and
inf*a»ibility of compliance for a lubitantial number
of facilities, and meani of conditioning the (lay to
aaiur* continued protection of human health and
th* environment. In addition. EPA haa sought and
obtained comment on thu action not only from th*
wood preserving industry but from member* of th*
environmental community and the wast* treatment
industry as well. There also waa opportunity to
comment on all of th*** issues during th*
rulemaking itself, so that further comment may be
unnecessary.
beyowi fane*. W81, ia Moordutee with
the a&HBMkrstte* ate? eebeMe.
According to the schedule for State
prognnn revisions cunteiiieu rn 40 Crit
271.21(e), the December 0,1990 Wood
Preservation Rule is subject to • My t.
1992 deadline (July 1,1993 if a statutory
change is required) for States to modify
their hazardous waste programs and
thereafter seek approval from EPA for
the program revision. Since the
administrative stay would not extend
any effective dates beyond May 6,1992.
EPA considers it very unlikely that any
State wnl have teceived approval fium
EPA to implement the December 6,1990
regulation ander RCRA authority with
earlier or more stringent effective dates
than those set out in this stay.
Nevertheless, States may Btodify their
hazardous waste programs to adopt the
Wood Preservative Rote in the interim.
While EPA encourages States to follow
the deferred affective dates announced
ia tilts stay. States may elect to
implement the role with effective dates
earlier than those imposed under this
stay, as a matter of State law.
In tne case of facilities managing FOM
and F035 wastes, the effect of the stay
depends on whether the facility is
located in aa authorized or unauahacned
State. The FOM and P035 fisting
determinations were promulgated
pursuant to pre-HSWA authority, and
EPA considers the sobpart W drip pad
standards that govern the mamgesneat
of F034 and F035 wood preserving
wastes to also be baaed on pre-HSWA
authority. According to the December 8.
1990 Rule notice, these wastes listings
and facility standards would have been
effective on June 6.1991 only in those
States that are not authorized for any
part of RCRA. EPA implements the
RCRA program in unauthorized Staiee,
and the affect of this slay will be to
defer EPA'a Jmpleiaentatioa aad
enforcement of the Wood preserving
Rule's F034 and F035 provisions m
accordance with the administrative stay
schedule.
In authorized States, the pre-HSWA
basis for the F034 and F035 listings {and
related subpart W drip pad standards)
means that these requirements cannot
be implemented as RCRA requirements
until the State has adopted the
necessary program modifications and
obtained approval for the necessary
program modifications and obtained
approval for the revisions from EPA.
The modification schedule in 40 CFR
271.20(e) requires that States modify
their programs by fuly 1.1992 (July 1.
1993 if a statutory change is required) to
adopt this regulation and thereafter seek
approval of the revisions from EPA,
Since the stay does not extend any
effective dates beyond May «, M92. it is
unlikely tsjet States will become
authorized far the FB34 and FW5 listMgs
and facility standards before the
deferred effective dates in the stay aa ve
already passed. However, facilities in
both authorized states and unauthorized
states should understand (hat slates
may adopt and implement wood
preserving regulations w a matter cf
state law, prior to obtaining EPA
approval. While EPA strongly
encourages States to fallow the deferred
effective dates announced in this stay.
States may elect to adopt wood
preserving w«ste regulations with more
stringent (e.g.. eertierj effective dates
than those atmonnced in this
administrative stay.
VTTL Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
i nje in mi nt i in this ruse have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.SJC. 3501 et seq.
The OMB approval umber is 2050-915.
The public reporting burden for the
wood nceaerving rule (as pwbiuaed in
the Federal Jtegister on December«,
1990), rnclueiva of the reporting
requirements in this administrative stay.
is estimated to result in a total of 271
hours per facility per year. The burden
prior to Ms edHBflntrarrve stay was
estimated to average 2T2 hours per
facility per year.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of infacnation. including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief. Information Policy Branch. PM-
223. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M SL SW.. Washington. DC
20460: and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management sad Budget Washington.
DC 20503 marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA."
Dated: Jun« 5. WBt
F. Wtfliy Habkht
Acting Mautiatfator.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 261
Hazards materials. Waste treatment
and disposal. Recycling.
40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous materials. Packaging and
containers. Reporting requirements.
Security measures. Surety bonds, Waste
treatment and disposal.
-------
27336 Federal RegUter / VoL 56. No. 114 / Thursday. June 13, 1991 / Rale* and Regulation*
40 CFR Part 265
Air pollution control. Hazardous
materials. Packaging and containers.
Reporting requirements. Security
measures. Surety bonds, Waste
treatment and disposal. Water supply.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I is amended
as set forth below.
PART MI—IDENTIFICATION AKfr
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6005. 6812(a). 6021.
6922. and 6938.
2. Section 261.31 \* amended by
revising the FYJ32. F034. and P03S listings
to read as follows:
{ »1.31 Hazardous waste* from
sourctt.
Industry and
EPA
rtazardous
waste No.
Hazardous waste
Hazard
cod*
F0321
F034>
F03S>
i (rain wood preserving processes gsnersted « plants m«t fT)
(except pottntttNy crosa-comarnrtated wastM that have had the F032
where the generator does not resume or initiate use of
Wastawaters. process residuals. preservative driopege. and spent to
currently UM or have previously used chtorophenoHc formu
wane code deleted in accordance with 1261 35 o» th
cntoroonenoHc formulations). This listing does not include K001 bottom sediment sludge from m* treatment of wsstewater from wood
preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentachloropnenol (NOTE: The Ming of wastewaters that have not come into contact
wim process contaminants is stayed administratively. The Hating (or plants that have previously used crttorophenolic formulations a
administralivery stayed whenever these wastes are covered by the F034 or F035 listings. These stays win reman in affect until further
administrative action is taken.).
Westewatars. process residuals, preservative drippege. and spent formulations from wood preserving process generated at plant* that use
creoaote formutatione. Trie dating does not include KOOl bottom sediment sludge from me teaftnent of wastewater from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or pentacNoropnenol. (NOTE The krtng of weitewatari mat have not come into contact with process
contaminants is stayed admmtrattvefy. The stay wsl remain in effect unM further adnin»>raUve action * taken.).
Waetewatars. proceaa residuals, preservative drippage. and spent formulations from wood preserving process generated at plants that use
inorganic preservatives containing arsenic or chromium. This Hating does not include K001 bottom sadknent sludge from me veetment of
The F032. F034. and F305 Mings are
tre adrrnetraOvely stayed w»m respect to the process area receMng drtppege of theea
6, 1991 of their Mem to upgrade or install drip pads, and by November S, 1981 prov
ro
i wood preaanting processes that UM creoaote and/or pemachiorophenui (Nort The Hating ol waatewatars that have
not come into contact wim process contanwwrta is stayed admlnisliad»efy. The may w* remain in effect until further adminatrattve acton
«taken.).
ngto
provide evidence to EPA mat they nave
!5S9"S" *"a'!?n9j0 P^r for drip pad upgradea or metaHatton, M provided in me aJtrwW>ative~stty.FTh«'stty of me iSeflngY «• remejn m effect"uWsTFebruary "s.
1992 for eaating dhp peda and until May e. 1992 for new drip pads.
PART 264-STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
3. The authority citation for part 204
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6805. 6012(a). 6824. and
6925.
4. Section 264.572 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read ••
follows:
f 2*4372
(a) * • '
(4) Be impermeable, e.g.. concrete
pads must be sealed, coated, or covered
with an impermeable material such that
the entire surface when drippage occurs
or may run across is capable of
containing such drippage and mixtures
of drippage and precipitation, material*.
or other wastes while being routed to an
associated collection system.
Now: The requirement that new drip pads
be impermeable, e.g.. that new drip pads be
sealed, coated, or covered with an
impermeable material is administratively
stayed. The stay twill remain in affect until
further administrative action is taken.
PART MS-INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
5. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912(a). 6924.
6825. and 6836.
6. Section 265.443 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
|2fJM4a OvtJgn and operating1
(•)* ' '
(4) Be impermeable, e.g.. concrete
pads must be sealed, coated, or covered
with an impermeable material such that
the entire surface where drippage occurs
or may run across is capable of
containing such drippage and mixtures
of drippage and precipitation, materials.
or other wastes while being routed to an
associated collection system.
Mote: The requirement that new drip pads
be impermeable, e.g.. that new drip pads be
sealed, coated, or covered with an
impermeable material ia administratively
stayed. The stay will remain in effect until
further administrative action it taken.
• • • • •
[FR Doc. 91-13954 Filed 6-12-91: 6:45 am)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
ATTACHMENT B
Updates to the
State Authorization Manual (SAM)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Tables G-1 and G-2
The following pages (numbered 4 through 29)
should replace pages 4 through 27 of
SAM Appendix G
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER
Through June 30, 1991
StATSi'
Rule
Code
Revision
Checklist
Number
Federal Requirement
Promulga-
HSWA or FR tion or
Reference HSWA Date
Non-HSWA Requirements prior to Non-HSWA Cluster I (January 26.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
t6
t7
t8
1983 - June 30, 1984: Due Date - one year
the final rule^O
Biennial Report (See Revision Checklist
30)
Permit Rules; Settlement Agreement
Interim Status Standards; Applicability (See
Revision Checklist 10 in Non-HSWA
Cluster I)
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Listing
(F024)
National Uniform Manifest (See Revision
Checklists 17 D & 32 in HSWA Cluster I)
Permit Rules; Settlement Agreement
Warfarin and Zinc Phosphide Listing
Lime Stabilized Pickle Liquor Sludge
after the promulgation date of
48 FR 3977 1/28/83
48 FR 39611 9/1/83
48 FR 52718 11/22/83
49 FR 5308 2/10/84
49 FR 10490 3/20/84
49 FR 17716 4/24/84
49 FR 19922 5/10/84
49 FR 23284 6/5/84
Non-HSWA Cluster I (July 1. 1984 - June 30 1985; Due Date - July 1,
Al
9
10
11
12
13
t9
10
11
T12
13
1986^)
State Availability of Information
Household Waste
Interim Status Standards; Applicability
Corrections to Test Methods Manual
Satellite Accumulation
Definition of Solid Waste
HSWA §3006(0 11/8/84
49 FR 44978 11/13/84
49 FR 46094 11/21/84
49 FR 47390 12/4/84
49 FR 49568 12/20/84
50 FR 614 1/4/85
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.lPrint»d:1)/12'92l
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
SPAJfc
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
13.1
15
13.2
24
26
MW
27
28N
29
15
(13)
24
t26
28
29
Non-HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
[Definition of Solid Waste; Correction 50 FR 14216
(Included on Revision Checklist 13 in Non-
HSWA Cluster I)]
4/11/85
Interim Status Standards for Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
50 FR 16044 4/23/85
Non-HSWA Cluster II (July 1. 1985 - June 30. 1986: Due Date - July 1.
1987^)
[Definition of Solid Waste; Correction
(Included on Revision Checklist 13 in Non-
HSWA Cluster I)]
Financial Responsibility; Settlement
Agreement (See Revision Checklist 24
(Amended) in Non-HSWA Cluster VI)
Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor (K062)
50 FR 33541
8/20/85
51 FR 16422 5/2/86
51 FR 19320 5/28/86
Non-HSWA Cluster III (July 1. 1986 - June 30. 1987: Due Date - July 1.
1988^)
Radioactive Mixed Waste (See SPA 2)
Liability Coverage; Corporate Guarantee
(See Revision Checklist 43 in Non-HSWA
Cluster IV)
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems (Certain
sections superseded by 53 FR 34079, see
Revision Checklist 52 in Non-HSWA
Cluster V; also see Revision Checklist 28
in HSWA Cluster I)
Correction to Listing of Commercial
Chemical Products and Appendix VIII
Constituents (Completely superseded by
53 FR 13382; use Revision Checklist 46 in
Non-HSWA Cluster IV to replace this
checklist)
51 FR 24504
51 FR 25350
7/3/86
7/11/86
51 FR 25422 7/14/86
51 FR 28296
8/6/86
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.(Print«d:11/12«2|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
SPA 11
TABLE Q-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
28N.1
26.1
40
41
26.2
38.1
(28)
(26)
35
36
37
38
35
36
37
38
40
41
(26)
(38)
Non-HSWA Cluster III (cont'd)
[Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems; Correction
(Included on Revision Checklist 28 in Non-
HSWA Cluster III)]
[Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor; Correction
(Included on Revision Checklist 26 in Non-
HSWA Cluster II)]
Revised Manual SW-846; Amended
Incorporation by Reference
Closure/Post-Closure Care for Interim
Status Surface Impoundments
Definition of Solid Waste; Technical
Corrections
Amendments to Part B Information
Requirements for Land Disposal Facilities
51 FR 29430 8/15/86
51 FR 33612 9/22/86
52 FR 8072 3/16/87
52 FR 8704 3/19/87
52 FR 21306 6/5/87
52 FR 23447 6/22/87
Non-HSWA Cluster IV (July 1. 1987 - June 30. 1988: Due Date - July 1.
1989?)
List (Phase 1) of Hazardous Constituents
for Ground-water Monitoring
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste
(Spent Pickle Liquor from Steel Finishing
Operations (See footnote 1, Revision
Checklist 26 in Non-HSWA Cluster II)
[Development of Corrective Action
Programs After Permitting Hazardous
Waste Land Disposal Facilities; Corrections
(Included on Revision Checklist 38 in Non-
HSWA Cluster III)]
52 FR 25942 7/9/87
52 FR 26012 7/10/87
52 FR 28697 8/3/87
52 FR 33936 9/9/87
Continued . . .
DLIST11 • 6/30/92.[Print.d 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
StATS Revision Promulga-
Rule Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Code Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
43
45
24.1
46
49
51
45
(24)
46
t49
51
52 FR 44314
53 FR 7740
11/18/87
52 FR 46946 12/10/87
3/10/88
Non-HSWA Cluster IV (cont'd)
Liability Requirements for Hazardous
Waste Facilities; Corporate Guarantee
(See Revision Checklist 27 in Non-HSWA
Cluster III)
Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units
(See Revision Checklist 59 in Non-HSWA
V for technical corrections)
[Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities;
Closure/Post-Closure and Financial
Responsibility Requirements (Included on
Revision Checklist 24 in Non-HSWA
Cluster II)]
Technical Correction; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste (Entirely
supersedes Revision Checklist 29 in Non-
HSWA Cluster III)
Non-HSWA Cluster V (July 1. 1988 - June 30. 1989: Due Date - July 1.
53 FR 27290 7/19/88
53 FR 33938 9/1/88
53 FR 13382 4/22/88
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Treatability Studies Sample
Exemption
Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities; Liability
Coverage (Withheld; EPA is responding to
the settlement of litigation surrounding this
rule)
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.|Pnnt.d 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
S1ATS Revision Promulga-
Rule Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Code Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
52N
53
54
55
54.1
56
57
58
59
52
53
t54
55
(54)
t56
t57
t58
59
60
60
Non-HSWA Cluster V (cont'd)
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems (Supersedes
certain portions of Revision Checklist 28 in
Non-HSWA Cluster III; also see Revision
Checklist 52 in HSWA Cluster II)
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; and Designation, Reportable
Quantities, and Notification
Permit Modifications for Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities
Statistical Methods for Evaluating Ground-
Water Monitoring Data from Hazardous
Waste Facilities
[Permit Modifications for Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities (Included on
Revision Checklist 54 in Non-HSWA
Cluster V)]
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Removal of Iron Dextran from the
List of Hazardous Wastes
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Removal of Strontium Sulfide from
the List of Hazardous Wastes
Standards for Generators of Hazardous
Waste; Manifest Renewal
Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units;
Standards Applicable to Owners and
Operators (Technical correction to Revision
Checklist 45 in Non-HSWA Cluster IV)
Amendment to Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits
53 FR 34079 9/2/88
53 FR 35412 9/13/88
53 FR 37912
53 FR 39720
53 FR 43881
53 FR 45089
54 FR 615
9/28/88
10/11/88
53 FR 41649 10/24/88
53 FR 43878 10/31/88
10/31/88
11/8/88
1/9/89
54 FR 4286
1/30/89
8
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.|Print«
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
StATS Revision
Rule Checklist HSWA or FR
Code Number Federal Requirement Reference
SPA,,
Promulga-
tion or
HSWA Date
61
64
65
67
70*
t61
65
67
70
(70)
(70)
Non-HSWA Cluster V (cont'd)
Changes to Interim Status Facilities for 54 FR 9596 3/7/89
Hazardous Waste Management Permits;
Modifications of Hazardous Waste
Management Permits; Procedures for Post-
Closure Permitting
Non-HSWA Cluster VI (July 1. 1989 •• June 30. 1990: Due Date - July 1,
1991-)
Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
Mining Waste Exclusion I
Testing and Monitoring Activities
Changes to Part 124 Not Accounted for by
Present Checklists
Environmental Permit Regulations; RCRA
Hazardous Waste; SDWA Underground
Injection Control; CWA National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System; CWA
Section 404 Dredge or Fill Programs; and
CAA Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(See Revision Checklist 70 in Non-HSWA
Cluster VI)
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Permit Program; Requirements for
Authorization of State Programs;
Procedures for Decisionmaking;
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Facilities; Interim
Status Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Storage,
Treatment, and Disposal Facilities;
Correction (See Revision Checklist 70 in
Non-HSWA Cluster VI)
54 FR 33376 8/14/89
54 FR 36592
54 FR 40260
9/1/89
9/29/89
48 FR 14146 4/1/83
48 FR30113
6/30/83
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.iPrm1«d:11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
SPA 11
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
24A
(70)
(70)
(70)
24?
(Amended)
71
72
73
76
78N
71
t72
73
t76
78*
Non-HSWA Cluster VI (cont'd)
Underground Injection Control Program;
Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection
Restrictions; Amendments to Technical
Requirements for Class I Hazardous
Waste Injection Wells; and Additional
Monitoring Requirements Applicable to All
Class I Wells (See Revision Checklist 70
in Non-HSWA Cluster VI)
Safe Drinking Water Act; National Drinking
Water Regulations; Underground Injection
Control Regulations; Indian Lands (See
Revision Checklist 70 in Non-HSWA
Cluster VI)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Regulations (See Revision
Checklist 70 in Non-HSWA Cluster VI)
Financial Responsibility; Settlement
Agreement; Correction (See Revision
Checklist 64 and footnote 4 of this table)
Mining Waste Exclusion II
Modifications of F019 Listing
Testing and Monitoring Activities;
Technical Corrections
Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes;
Technical Amendment
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes (See Revision
Checklist 78 in HSWA Cluster II)
53 FR 28118 7/26/88
53 FR 37396 9/26/88
54 FR 246
55 FR 25976
55 FR 2322
55 FR 5340
55 FR 8948
55 FR 18726
55 FR 22520
1/4/89
6/26/90
1/23/90
2/14/90
3/9/90
5/4/90
6/1/90
10
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.|Print«d.UM292)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
SPA
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
SR1
SR2
BB
CP
HSWA Cluster I (November 8. 1984 - June 30. 1987: Due Date - July 1.
HSWA
§30050(1)4(6)
HSWA
§3005(j)(2)-(9)
HSWA
§3004(q)(2)(A)
§3004(r)(2)&(3)
HSWA
§3006(h)
§3008(d)
§3014
Existing and newly regulated
surface impoundments
t Variance under §3005Q)(2)-{9)
and (13)
f Exceptions to the Burning and Blending of
Hazardous Waste
t Hazardous and Used Oil Fuel Criminal
Penalties
HSWA Date of Enactment Provisions (See
Revision Checklists 17 A - S in HSWA
Cluster I)
Numerous
11/8/84
NOT DELEGABLE^
14 14
16
16
Direct Action Against Insurers
Dioxin Waste Listing and Management
Standards
Fuel Labeling (See Revision Checklist 17
K in HSWA Cluster I)
Paint Filter Test (See Revision Checklist
25 in HSWA Cluster I)
Prohibition of Liquids in Landfills (See
Revision Checklist 17 F in HSWA Cluster
I)
HSWA§3004(t) 11/8/84
50 FR
19781/14/85
HSWA §3004 2/7/85
(0(1)
50 FR 18370 4/30/85
HSWA
§3004(c)
5/8/85
11
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.tPnnt.d 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision
Checklist
Number
Federal Requirement
HSWA or FR
Reference
SPA 11
Promulga-
tion or
HSWA Date
SI
17A
17B
17C
17D
17E
I7F
17G
17H
171
17J
•I7K
17L
17M
1i7N
170
17P
HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
Expansions During Interim Status - Waste
Piles (See Revision Checklist 17 P in
HSWA Cluster I)
Expansions During Interim Status -
Landfills and Surface Impoundments (See
Revision Checklist 17 P in HSWA
Cluster I)
Sharing of Information With the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
17 HSWA Codification Rule (See Revision
Checklist 44 in HSWA Cluster II)
17 A - Small Quantity Generators
(Superseded by 51 FR 10146, see
Revision Checklist 23 in HSWA
Cluster I)
t 17 B - Delisting
t 17 C - Household Waste
17 D - Waste Minimization (See Revision
Checklist 32 in HSWA Cluster I)
17 E - Location Standards for Salt
Domes, Salt Beds, Underground
Mines and Caves
17 F - Liquids in Landfills (See Revision
Checklist 25 in HSWA Cluster I)
17 G - Dust Suppression
17 H - Double Liners
17 I - Ground-Water Monitoring
17 J - Cement Kilns
17 K - Fuel Labeling (Superseded by 51
FR 49164, see Revision Checklist
19 in HSWA Cluster I)
17 L - Corrective Action
17 M - Pre-construction Ban
17 N - Permit Life
17 O - Omnibus Provision
17 P - Interim Status
HSWA
§3015(a)
HSWA
§3015(b)
HSWA
§3019(b)
50 FR 28702
5/8/85
5/8/85
7/15/85
7/15/85
12
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.|Print»d:11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA^A.
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
StATS Revision Promulga-
Rule Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Code Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
17Q
17R
17S
18
19
20
20.1
21
18
19
20
(20)
21
HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
17 Q - Research and Development
Permits
17 R - Hazardous Waste Exports
(Superseded by 51 FR 28644, see
Revision Checklist 31 in HSWA
Cluster I)
17 S - Exposure Information
Listing of TDI, IDA, DNT
50 FR 42936
Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel 50 FR 49164
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
Listing of Spent Solvents
[Listing of Spent Solvents; Correction
(Included on Revision Checklist 20)]51 FR
27021/21/86
Listing of EDB Waste
10/23/85
11/29/85
50 FR 53315 12/31/85
51 FR 5327
2/13/86
22
23
25
28H
22
23
25
28
Listing of Four Spent Solvents
51 FR 6537
Generators of 100 to 1000 kg Hazardous 51 FR 10146
Waste (See Revision Checklists 42 and 47
in HSWA Cluster II)
30
30
Codification Rule; Technical Correction
(Paint Filter Test)
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems (Certain
sections superseded by 53 FR 34079, see
Revision Checklist 52 in HSWA Cluster II;
also see Revision Checklist 28 in Non-
HSWA Cluster III)
Biennial Report; Correction
51 FR 19176
51 FR 25422
2/25/86
3/24/86
5/28/86
7/14/86
51 FR 28556
8/8/86
13
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.(Print«d:11/1292)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
SPA 11
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
31
28H.1
32
33
34
19.1
34.1
17B.1
39
31
(28)
32
33
34
(19)
(34)
(17 B)
39
51
51
FR 28664
FR 29430
51 FR 35190
51
51
FR 37725
FR 40572
54 FR 27114
8/8/86
8/15/86
10/1/86
10/24/86
11/7/86
HSWA Cluster I (cont'd)
Exports of Hazardous Waste (See
Revision Checklist 48 in HSWA Cluster II)
[Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Tank Systems; Corrections (See
Revision Checklist 28 in HSWA Cluster I)]
Standards for Generators; Waste
Minimization Certifications
Listing of EBDC
Land Disposal Restrictions (Certain
sections superseded by 52 FR 25760 and
53 FR 31138, see Revision Checklists 39
& 50 in HSWA Cluster II, and SPAs 4
& 6)
[Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil Fuel
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces;
Technical Corrections (Included on
Revision Checklist 19 in HSWA Cluster I)]
[Land Disposal Restrictions; Corrections
(Included on Revision Checklist 34 in
HSWA Cluster I)]
[Hazardous Waste Management System:
Requirements of Rulemaking Petitions
(Included on Revision Checklist 17 B in
HSWA Cluster I)]
HSWA Cluster II (July 1. 1987 - June 30. 1990: Due Date - July 1. 1991-)
52 FR 11819 4/13/87
52 FR 21010 6/4/87
6/27/89
California List Waste Restrictions (See
Revision Checklist 34 and SPA 4; certain
sections superseded by 53 FR 31138, see
Revision Checklist 50, in HSWA Cluster II,
and SPA 6)
52 FR 25760 7/8/87
14
Continued . . .
OLIST11 - 6/3(V92.[Prinl»d.11/1292)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
StATS Revision Promulga-
Rule Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Code Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
42
39.1
44A
44B
44C
44D
44E
44F
44G
47
48
50
42
(39)
44
47
48
50
HSWA Cluster II (cont'd)
Exception Reporting for Small Quantity
Generators of Hazardous Waste (See
Checklist 23 in HSWA Cluster I)
Test Methods for Hazardous Waste
covered by the Land Disposal Restrictions
(Included on Revision Checklist 39 in
HSWA Cluster II)
HSWA Codification Rule 2 (See Revision
Checklist 17 in HSWA Cluster I)
44 A - Permit Application Requirements
Regarding Corrective Action
44 B - Corrective Action Beyond Facility
Boundary
44 C - Corrective Action for Injection
Wells
44 D - Permit Modification
44 E - Permit as a Shield Provision
44 F - Permit Conditions to Protect
Human Health and the
Environment
44 G - Post-Closure Permits
Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Technical Correction (Corrects
Revision Checklist 23 in HSWA Cluster I)
Farmer Exemptions; Technical Corrections
(Corrects Revision Checklist 31 in HSWA
Cluster I)
Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third
Scheduled Wastes (See Revision Checklist
62 in HSWA Cluster II)
52 FR 35894
52 FR 41295
9/23/87
10/27/87
52 FR 45788 12/1/87
53 FR 27162 7/19/88
53 FR 27164 7/19/88
53 FR 31138 8/17/88
15
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.[Print*d 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
SPA 11
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
S2H
52
50.1
62
63
66
68
69
66.1
74
75
77
78H
(50)
62
63
66
68
69
(66)
74
75
77
78*'
HSWA Cluster II (cont'd)
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems (Supersedes
certain portions of Revision Checklist 28 in
HSWA Cluster I; also see Revision
Checklist 52 in Non-HSWA Cluster V)
[Land Disposal Restrictions (Included on
Revision Checklist 50 in HSWA Cluster II)]
Land Disposal Restriction Amendments to
First Third Scheduled Wastes (amends
portions of Revision Checklist 50 in HSWA
Cluster II)
Land Disposal Restrictions for Second
Third Scheduled Wastes
Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction to
the First Third Scheduled Wastes
Reportable Quantity Adjustment Methyl
Bromide Production Wastes
Reportable Quantity Adjustment
[Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction
(Included on Revision Checklist 66 in
HSWA Cluster II)]
Toxicity Characteristic Revisions
Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Production Wastes
HSWA Codification Rule; Double Liners;
Correction
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes (See Revision
Checklist 78 in Non-HSWA Cluster VI)
16
53 FR 34079
9/2/88
54 FR 8264
54 FR 18836
54 FR 26594
54 FR 36967
54 FR 41402
54 FR 50968
55 FR 23935
55 FR 11798
55 FR 18496
2/27/89
5/2/89
6/23/89
9/6/89
10/6/89
12/11/89
6/13/90
3/29/90
5/2/90
55 FR 19262 5/9/90
55 FR 22520 6/1/90
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.[Prmt»d 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
SPA
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
79
74.1
83
80.1
84
79
(74)
80
81
82
81.1
t80
81
82
(81)
83
(80)
t84
HSWA Cluster II (cont'd)
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities-Organic
Air Emission Standards For Process
Vents and Equipment Leaks (See Revision
Checklist 87 in RCRA Cluster I)
[Toxicity Characteristics Revisions;
Correction (Included on Revision Checklist
74 in HSWA Cluster II)]
55 FR 25454
6/21/90
55 FR 26986 6/29/90
RCRA Cluster I (July 1. 1990 - June 30. 1991: Due Date - July 1 1992^)
Toxicity Characteristic; Hydrocarbon
Recovery Operations (HSWA)
Petroleum Refinery Primary and Secondary
Oil/Water/Solids Separation Sludge Listings
(F037 and F038) (See Revision Checklist
81) (HSWA)
Wood Preserving Listings (HSWA/Nori-
HSWA)
[Petroleum Refinery Primary and
Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation
Sludge Listings; Correction (Included on
Revision Checklist 81, RCRA Cluster I)]
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes; Technical
Amendment (HSWA)
[Toxicity Characteristic; Hydrocarbon
Recovery Operations (Included on Revision
Checklist 80 in RCRA Cluster I)]
Toxicity Characteristic; Chlorofluoro-
carbon Refrigerants (HSWA)
55 FR 40834
55 FR 46354
55 FR 50450
55 FR 51707
10/5/90
1 1/2/90
12/6/90
12/17/90
56 FR 3864
56 FR 3978
56 FR 5910
01/31/91
02/01/91
02/13/91
17
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.(Printed 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
StATS
Rule
Code
SPA 11
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision Promulga-
Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
85
86
80.2
87
89
90
91
85
862'
(80)
87
t88
t89
90
t91
RCRA Cluster I (cont'd)
Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces (HSWA/Non-
HSWA)
Removal of Strontium Sulfide From the
List of Hazardous Waste; Technical
Amendment (Non-HSWA)
(Toxicity Characteristic; Hydrocarbon
Recovery Operations (See Revision
Checklist 80 in RCRA Cluster I))
Organic Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks;
Technical Amendment (See Revision
Checklist 79 in HSWA Cluster II) (HSWA)
Administrative Stay for K069 Listing (Non-
HSWA)
Revision to F037 and F038 Listings (See
Revision Checklist 81 in RCRA Cluster I)
(HSWA)
Mining Exclusion III (Non-HSWA)
Administrative Stay for F032, F034, and
F035 Listings (HSWA/Non-HSWA)
56 FR 7134
56 FR 7567
56 FR 19951
56 FR 21955
56 FR 27300
56 FR 27332
02/21/91
02/25/91
56 FR 13406 04/02/91
56 FR 19290 04/26/91
05/01/91
05/13/91
06/13/91
06/13/91
t Optional.
1 StATS is the State Authorization Tracking System which tracks States' progress in becoming
authorized for each checklist. This column was added to help the Regions and States relate data
entered in that system with the information included in this table. The "rule code" is the symbol used
in StATS to represent a particular rule or non-checklist item, e.g., State Availability of Information or
Fladioactive Mixed Waste.
2States have an additional year if statutory changes are required.
18
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.(Print»d:11/12*2]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
TABLE G-1. LIST OF REVISION CHECKLISTS BY CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
StATS Revision Promulga-
Rule Checklist HSWA or FR tion or
Code Number Federal Requirement Reference HSWA Date
3A parenthesized number implies that this is not the main rule for the indicated checklist.
However, the rule is included on the indicated checklist. Rules with parenthesized numbers are
typically technical corrections or amendments to a major final rule. These corrections are usually
close enough in time to the initial final rule that the correction was included on the checklist for the
initial rule, rather than developing a new checklist for the correction.
4While Revision Checklists 27 and 43 are optional, States which have adopted or choose to
adopt the changes addressed by Revision Checklist 27 must adopt Revision Checklist 43's changes.
5The May 2, 1986 amendments to 40 CFR 264.113 and 265.113, addressed by Revision
Checklist 24, must be adopted before or simultaneous with adopting the provisions addressed by
Revision Checklist 64. Also see Footnote 6.
6Note that, unlike other checklists which address more than one final rule, Revision Checklist 70
is not represented by each of its rules in StATS. Instead, it is represented only once as Revision
Checklist 70, rather than five separate rules. The rationale for this representation is that this checklist
is very different from the others in the program, because it represents an accumulation of small
changes to Part 124, relating to the RCRA program, spanning the six-year period from 1983 to 1989.
7Only those sections, i.e., 40 CFR 264.113 and 265.113, of Revision Checklist 24 (Amended)
recharacterized as more stringent by the June 26, 1990 correction are included in Non-HSWA Cluster
VI. All other Revision Checklist 24 provisions continue to be included in Non-HSWA Cluster II.
States which have already adopted the 264.113 and 265.113 amendments as part of their
authorization for Revision Checklist 24 in Non-HSWA Cluster II, are not affected by this correction and
do not have to submit an amended Revision Checklist 24.
3Revision Checklist 78 is in HSWA Cluster II, with the exception of the clarifying amendment to
§268.33(c) which is in Non-HSWA Cluster VI. This clarification is not immediately effective in
authorized States since the requirements are not imposed pursuant to HSWA. Thus, these
requirements are applicable only in those States that do not have interim or final authorization. In
authorized States, the requirements will not be applicable until the State revises its program to adopt
equivalent requirements under State law.
9Direct Action against insurers in RCRA §3004(t) is not delegable to the States. EPA realizes
that six States are currently "authorized" for this provision. Several States have included this
provision in their pending HSWA I revision applications. The Regions should review these provisions
and clarify with their States that, by virtue of the statute, the Federal cause of action ensured by
RCRA §3004(t) remains in effect in authorized States. This provision is not delegable because
authorized provisions of State law must operate in lieu of the Federal counterpart and, in this
situation, State law providing for a direct cause of action against insurers may augment the Federal
Action, but not supersede it.
19 DLIST11 - 6/30/92.|Pfint»d:11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Revision
Checklist
Number
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER
Through June 30, 1991
Federal Requirement
State Availability of Information (See
Appendix N)
Cluster
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Radioactive Mixed Waste (See SPA 2 Non-HSWA Cluster
and Appendix N)
NOT DELE- Direct Action Against Insurers
GABLED
Surface Impoundment Requirements:
a. Existing and newly regulated
surface impoundments
t b. Variance under §3005(j)(2)-(9)
and (13)
Sharing of Information With the
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
t Exceptions to the Burning and
Blending of Hazardous Waste
HSWA Cluster
HSWA Cluster
HSWA Cluster
HSWA Cluster
t Hazardous and Used Oil Fuel Criminal HSWA Cluster
Penalties
Biennial Report
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Permit Rules - Settlement Agreement Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Interim Status Standards - Applicability Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
Listing (F024)
National Uniform Manifest
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
20
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.lPrinl*d:11/12/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA,
Revision
Checklist
Number
t6
t8
t9
10
11
t12
13
14
15
16
17
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Federal Requirement
Cluster
Permit Rules: Settlement Agreement Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Warfarin & Zinc Phosphide Listing
Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Lime Stabilized Pickle Liquor Sludge Non-HSWA Requirements Prior to
Non-HSWA Cluster I
Household Waste Non-HSWA Cluster I
Interim Status Standards - Applicability Non-HSWA Cluster I
Corrections to Test Methods Manual Non-HSWA Cluster I
Satellite Accumulation Non-HSWA Cluster I
Definition of Solid Waste Non-HSWA Cluster I
Dioxin Waste Listing and Management HSWA Cluster I
Standards
Interim Status Standards for
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities
Paint Filter Test
HSWA Codification Rule
17 A - Small Quantity Generators
t 17 B - Delisting
t 17 C - Household Waste
17 D - Waste Minimization
17 E - Location Standards for Salt
Domes, Salt Beds, Underground
Mines and Caves
17 F - Liquids in Landfills
17 G - Dust Suppression
17 H - Double Liners
17 I - Ground-Water Monitoring
17 J - Cement Kilns
17 K - Fuel Labeling
17 L - Corrective Action
Non-HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
21
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.|Print»d:11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision
Checklist
Number
18
19
20
21
22
23
24^
25
|26
28
29
30
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA 11
Federal Requirement
17 M - Pre-construction Ban
17 N - Permit Life
17 O - Omnibus Provision
17 P - Interim Status
17 Q - Research and Development
Permits
17 R - Hazardous Waste Exports
17 S - Exposure Information
Listing of TDI, IDA, DNT
Burning of Waste Fuel and Used
Oil Fuel in Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces
Listing of Spent Solvents
Listing of EDB Waste
Listing of Four Spent Solvents
Generators of 100 to 1000 kg
Hazardous Waste
Financial Responsibility: Settlement
Agreement
Codification Rule, Technical
Correction (Paint Filter Test)
Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor
(K062)
Liability Coverage - Corporate
Guarantee
Standards for Hazardous Waste
Storage and Treatment Tank
Systems
Correction to Listing of Commercial
Chemical Products and Appendix
VIII Constituents
Biennial Report; Correction
Cluster
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster II and Non-HSWA
Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster III
Non-HSWA Cluster III and HSWA
Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster III
HSWA Cluster
22
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.[Print«d:11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-1?
Revision
Checklist
Number
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA 1L
Federal Requirement
Cluster
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Exports of Hazardous Waste
Standards for Generators - Waste
Minimization Certifications
Listing of EBDC
Land Disposal Restrictions
Revised Manual SW-846; Amended
Incorporation by Reference
Closure/Post-closure Care for
Interim Status Surface
Impoundments
Definition of Solid Waste; Technical
Corrections
Amendments to Part B Information
Requirements for Land Disposal
Facilities
California List Waste Restrictions
List (Phase 1) of Hazardous
Constituents for Ground-Water
Monitoring
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
Exception Reporting for Small
Quantity Generators of Hazardous
Waste
Liability Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Facilities;
Corporate Guarantee
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
HSWA Cluster I
Non-HSWA Cluster III
Non-HSWA Cluster III
Non-HSWA Cluster III
Non-HSWA Cluster III
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
23
Continued^r.
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.[Pnnt»d:l 1/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision
Checklist
Number
44
45
46
47
48
f49
50
51
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA 11
Federal Requirement
HSWA Codification Rule 2
44 A - Permit Application
Requirements Regarding
Corrective Action
44 B - Corrective Action Beyond
Facility Boundary
44 C - Corrective Action for
Injection Wells
44 D - Permit Modification
44 E - Permit as a Shield
Provision
44 F - Permit Conditions to Protect
Human Health and the
Environment
44 G - Post-Closure Permits
Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous
Units
Technical Correction; Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Technical
Correction
Farmer Exemptions; Technical
Corrections
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Treatability
Studies Sample Exemption
Land Disposal Restrictions for First
Third Scheduled Wastes
Standards Applicable to Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities; Liability Coverage
(withheld; EPA is responding to the
settlement of litigation surrounding
this rule)
24
Cluster
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
Non-HSWA Cluster IV
HSWA Cluster II
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster V
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.|Print«d:11/12/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision
Checklist
Number
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA .11
Federal Requirement
Cluster
52
53
t54
55
|56
T57
t58
59
60
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Standards for Hazardous
Waste Storage and Treatment Tank
Systems
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; and Designation,
Reportable Quantities, and
Notification
Permit Modifications for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
Statistical Methods for Evaluating
Ground-Water Monitoring Data from
Hazardous Waste Facilities
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; RemovaJ of Iron
Dextran from the List of Hazardous
Wastes
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Removal of
Strontium Sulfide from the List of
Hazardous Wastes
Standards for Generators of
Hazardous Waste; Manifest
Renewal
Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous
Units; Standards Applicable to
Owners and Operators
Amendment to Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Incinerator
Permits
Non-HSWA Cluster V and HSWA
Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
Non-HSWA Cluster V
25
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.[Prnt«d:11/12/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision
Checklist
Number
t61
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA 11
62
63
T64?
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
t72
73
74
Federal Requirement
Changes to Interim Status Facilities
for Hazardous Waste Management
Permits; Modifications of Hazardous
Waste Management Permits;
Procedures for Post-Closure
Permitting
Land Disposal Restriction
Amendments to First Third
Scheduled Wastes
Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes
Delay of Closure Period for
Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities
Mining Waste Exclusion I
Land Disposal Restrictions;
Correction to First Third Scheduled
Wastes
Testing and Monitoring Activities
Reportable Quantity Adjustment
Methyl Bromide Production Wastes
Reportable Quantity Adjustment
Changes to Part 124 Not
Accounted for by Present Checklists
Mining Waste Exclusion II
Modification of F019 Listing
Testing and Monitoring Activities;
Technical Corrections
Toxicity Characteristics Revision
Cluster
Non-HSWA Cluster V
HSWA Cluster II
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster II
HSWA Cluster II
Non-HSWA VI
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster II
26
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.[Pnnt.dl1/1Zf92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision
Checklist
Number
75
t76
77
78*
79
t80
81
82
83
T84
85
86*
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Federal Requirement
Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Production Wastes
Criteria for Listing Toxic
Wastes; Technical Amendment
HSWA Codification Rule, Double
Liners; Correction
Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes
Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities--
Organic Air Emission Standards For
Process Vents and Equipment
Leaks
Toxicity Characteristic; Hydrocarbon
Recovery Operations
Petroleum Refinery Primary and
Secondary Oil/Water/Solids
Separation Sludge Listings (F037
and F038)
Wood Preserving Listings
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes; Technical
Amendment
Toxicity Characteristic; Chlorofluoro-
carbon Refrigerants
Burning of Hazardous Waste in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
Removal of Strontium Sulfide From
the List of Hazardous Waste;
Technical Amendment
Cluster
HSWA Cluster
Non-HSWA Cluster VI
HSWA Cluster
Non-HSWA Cluster VI and
HWSA CLuster II
HSWA Cluster II
RCRA I, HSWA
RCRA I, HSWA
RCRA I, HSWA/Non-HSWA
RCRA I, HSWA
RCRA I, HSWA
RCRA I, HSWA/Non-HSWA
RCRA I, Non-HSWA
27
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.(Print«d 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision
Checklist
Number
87
|88
t89
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
SPA 11
Federal Requirement
Organic Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment
Leaks; Technical Amendment
Administrative Stay for K069 Listing
Revision to F037 and F038 Listings
Cluster
RCRA I, HSWA
RCRA I, Non-HSWA
RCRA I, HSWA
90
91
Mining Exclusion III
RCRA I, Non-HSWA
Administrative Stay for F032, F034, RCRA I, HSWA/Non-HSWA
and F035 Listings
t Optional.
1 Direct Action against insurers in RCRA §3004(t) is not delegable to the States. EPA realizes
that six States are currently "authorized" for this provision. Several States have included this
provision in their pending HSWA I revision applications. The Regions should review these provisions
and clarify with their States that, by virtue of the statute, the Federal cause of action ensured by
RCRA §3004(t) remains in effect in authorized States. This provision is not delegable because
authorized provisions of State law must operate in lieu of the Federal counterpart and, in this
situation, State law providing for a direct cause of action against insurers may augment the Federal
Action, but not supersede it.
2Only those sections, i.e., 40 CFR 264.113 and 265.113, of Revision Checklist 24 (Amended)
recharacterized as more stringent by the June 26, 1990 correction are included in Non-HSWA Cluster
VI. All other Revision Checklist 24 provisions continue to be included in Non-HSWA Cluster II.
States which have already adopted the 264.113 and 265.113 amendments as part of their
authorization for Revision Checklist 24 in Non-HSWA Cluster II, are not affected by this correction and
do not have to submit an amended Revision Checklist 24.
3While Revision Checklists 27 and 43 are optional, states which have adopted or choose to
adopt the changes addressed by Revision Checklist 27, must adopt Revision Checklist 43's changes.
4The May 2, 1986 amendments to 40 CFR 264.113 and 265.113, addressed by Revision
Checklist 24, must be adopted before or simultaneous with adopting the provisions addressed by
Revision Checklist 64. Also see Footnote 1.
28
Continued . . .
DLIST11 - 6/30/92.[Print*d:11/12'92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPAJi
TABLE G-2. NUMERICAL LISTING OF REVISION CHECKLISTS
AND CORRESPONDING CLUSTER (cont'd)
Through June 30, 1991
Revision
Checklist
Number Federal Requirement Cluster
5Revision Checklist 78 is in HSWA Cluster II, with the exception of the clarifying amendment to
§268.33(c) which is in Non-HSWA Cluster VI. This clarification is not immediately effective in
authorized States since the requirements are not imposed pursuant to HSWA. Thus, these
requirements are applicable only in those States that do not have interim or final authorization. In
authorized States, the requirements will not be applicable until the State revises its program to adopt
equivalent requirements under State law.
6The rule addressed by this checklist is a technical amendment to the final rule (53 FR 43881;
October 31, 1988; Revision Checklist 57)) that removed strontium sulfide from 40 CFR 261.33, the list
of commercial chemical products which are hazardous wastes when discarded or intended to be
discarded. States which intend to remove strontium sulfide from their hazardous wastes lists, but
have not yet adopted the changes made by Revision Checklist 57 are strongly encouraged to adopt
the changes addressed by Revision Checklists 57 and 86 at the same time. Those States that have
already adopted the Revision Checklist 57 provisions should adopt the Revision Checklist 86
amendments as soon as possible. States should note that Revision Checklist 86 is a conditionally
optional checklist. States choosing not to adopt the removal of strontium sulfide (i.e. Revision
Checklist 57) should not adopt the Revision Checklist 86 provisions. However, States which choose
to remove strontium sulfide must adopt the provisions addressed by Revision checklist 86 to be sure
that the material has been properly removed from the State's lists and appendices.
29 DLIST11 - 6/30/92.[Print«i:11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement
The following pages (numbered 9 through 52)
should replace pages 9 through 49 of
SAM Appendix E
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
MODEL REVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT FOR FINAL
AUTHORIZATION FOR CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL
RCRA PROGRAM FROM JANUARY 1983 THROUGH
JUNE 1991
I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as and in accordance with
Section 3006(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (42 USC 6901 et seq.). and 40 CFR
271 that in my opinion the laws of the State [Commonwealth] of provide
adequate authority to carry out the revised program set forth in the revised "Program
Description" submitted by the [State Aqencvl. The specific authorities provided are
contained in statutes or regulations lawfully adopted at the time this Statement is signed
and which are in effect now [shall be fully effective by ], as specified
below. These authorities and this certification supplement [or supercede (and indicate how
supercede)] the previously certified authorities described in my [or my predecessors]
certification(s) of (date or dates).
Please add an explanation of how the Revision Attorney General's Statement you are
submitting relates to any prior Attorney General's Statements you have submitted.
I. IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING
A. State statutes and regulations contain lists of hazardous waste which
encompass all wastes controlled under the following Federal regulations as indicated in the
designated Revision Checklists:
(1) Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, 40 CFR 261.31 and Part 261 Appendices
VII and VIII as amended February 10, 1984 [49 FR 5308], Revision
Checklist 4.
1 (2) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Warfarin and zinc phosphide
listing, 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f), as amended May 10, 1984 [49 FR 19923],
Revision Checklist 7.
(3) TDI, DNT and TDA wastes, 40 CFR 261.32, 261.33(f), and Part 261
Appendices III, VII and VIII as amended October 23, 1985 [50 FR 42936],
Revision Checklist 18.
(4) Spent solvents, 40 CFR 261.31, as amended December 31, 1985 [50 FR
53319] and January 21, 1986 [51 FR 2702], Revision Checklist 20.
(5) EDB wastes, 40 CFR 261.32 and Part 261 Appendices II, III and VIII, as
amended February 13, 1986 [51 FR 5330], Revision Checklist 21.
1The phrase "OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement" is used to indicate
provisions that either are less stringent or reduce the scope of the program. Any State
which adopts an "optional" requirement must ensure that it is at least as stringent as the
Federal requirement.
DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Printed.3119193]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
(6) Four spent solvents, 40 CFR 261.31, 261.33(f), and Part 261 Appendices III,
VII and VIII as amended February 25, 1986 [51 FR 6541], Revision Checklist
i 22'
(7) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.) Listing of spent pickle liquor
from steel finishing operations, 40 CFR 261.32, as amended May 28, 1986
[51 FR 19320] and September 22, 1986 [51 FR 33612], Revision Checklist
26.
(8) Listing of commercial chemical products and Appendix VIII constituents, 40
CFR 261.33 and Part 261 Appendix VIII, as amended August 6, 1986 [51 FR
28296], Revision Checklist 29; as amended July 10, 1987 [52 FR 26012],
Revision Checklist 41; and as amended April 22, 1988 [53 FR 13382],
Revision Checklist 46.
(9) EBDC wastes, 40 CFR 261.32 and Part 261 Appendices III and VII, as
amended on October 24, 1986 [51 FR 37725], Revision Checklist 33.
(10) Listing of spent potliners from aluminum reduction (K088), 40 CFR 261.32
and Part 261 Appendix VII, as amended September 13, 1988 [53 FR 35412],
Revision Checklist 53.
(11) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement] Generic delisting of iron
dextran (CAS No. 9004-66-4), 40 CFR 261.33(f) and Part 261 Appendix VIII,
as amended October 31, 1988 [53 FR 43878], Revision Checklist 56.
(12) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Generic delisting of strontium
sulfide (CAS No. 1314-96-1), 40 CFR 261.33(e) and Part 261 Appendix VIII,
as amended October 31, 1988 [53 FR 43881] and February 25, 1991 [56 FR
7567], Revision Checklists 57 and 86.
(13) Listing of two wastes (K131 and K132) generated during the production of
methyl bromide, 40 CFR 261.32 and 261 Appendices III and VII, as
amended October 6, 1989 [54 FR 41402], Revision Checklist 68.
(14) Listing of one generic category (F025) of waste generated during the
manufacture of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons by free radical catalyzed
processes and amending F024, 40 CFR 261.31 and 261 Appendix VII;
adding one toxicant to 261 Appendix VIII; as amended December 11, 1989
[54 FR 50968], Revision Checklist 69.
(15) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Amendments to the F019
hazardous waste listing to exclude wastewater treatment sludges from
zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing, when such phosphating is
an exclusive conversion coating process, 40 CFR 261.31, as amended
February 14, 1990 [55 FR 5340], Revision Checklist 72.
(16) Listing of four wastes (K107-K110) generated during the production of 1,1-
dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxylic acid hydrazides, 40 CFR 261.31
and Part 261 Appendices III and VII, as amended May 2, 1990 [55 FR
18496], Revision Checklist 75.
10 DAGREV11 -6/30/92 (Printed: 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
(17) Listing of one waste (F039), 40 CFR 261.31 and Part 261 Appendix VII, as
amended June 1, 1990 [55 FR 22520] and January 31, 1991 [56 FR 3864],
Revision Checklists 78 and 83.
(18) Listing of two wastes (F037 and F038) generated in the separation of
oil/water/solids from petroleum refinery process wastewaters and oily cooling
wastewaters, 40 CFR 261.31 and Part 261 Appendix VII, as amended
November 2, 1990 [55 FR 46354] and December 17, 1990 [55 FR 51707],
Revision Checklist 81.
(19) Listing of three wastes (F032, F034 and F035) from wood preserving
operations that use chlorophenolic, creosote and/or inorganic (arsenical and
chromium) preservatives, 40 CFR 261.31, and 261 Appendices III, VII and
VIII, as amended December 6, 1990 [55 FR 50450], Revision Checklist 82.
(20) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Administrative stay removing,
from the K069 listing, slurries generated from air pollution control devices that
are intended to capture acid gases and are not dedicated chiefly to control
particulate air emissions, 40 CFR 261.32, as amended May 1, 1991 [56 FR
19951], Revision Checklist 88.
(21) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Redefinition of F037 and F038
listings to exclude 1) sludges from non-contact once-through cooling waters
from both listings and 2) floats generated in aggressive biological treatment
units from the F038 listing, 40 CFR 261.31 as amended May 13, 1991 [56
FR 21955], Revision Checklist 89.
(22) [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Administrative stay of F032,
F034 and F035 listings regarding 1) wastewaters that have not come into
contact with process contaminants and 2) plants that have previously used
chlorophenolic formulations, 40 CFR 261.31 as amended June 13, 1991 [56
FR 27332], Revision Checklist 91.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations define hazardous waste so as to control the
generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste produced by
small quantity generators of between 100 and 1000 kilograms/month as indicated in
Revision Checklist 23 (which supercedes prior amendments by Revision Checklist 17 A)
and Revision Checklist 47 (providing technical corrections to Checklist 23). State statutes
and regulations also require small quantity generators to certify good faith efforts to
minimize waste generation and to select the best available and affordable treatment,
storage or disposal alternatives, 40 CFR Part 262 as amended October 1, 1986 [51 FR
35190], Revision Checklist 32 (see Item IX below).
11 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Print* 3/i9/93|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (d); 40 CFR Parts 260-263 and 270 as amended March
24, 1986 (51 FR 10146), October 1, 1986 (51 FR 35190), and July 19, 1988 (53 FR
27162). i
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. [This requirement applies only if States have a delisting mechanism. This
requirement is NOT OPTIONAL for such States.] State statutes and regulations provide
authority to delist hazardous waste as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 B.
(1) State statutes and regulations require that before deciding to delist a waste,
the State must consider whether any listing factor (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed would cause
the waste to be hazardous.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (f)(1); 40 CFR 260.22 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702) and June 27, 1989 (54 FR 27114).
(2) State statutes and regulations require that there be no new temporary
delistings without prior notice and comment. All temporary delistings received
before November 18, 1984 without the opportunity for public comment and
full consideration of such comment, shall lapse if not made final by
November 8, 1986.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (f)(2); 40 CFR 260.20(d) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
define hazardous waste so as to exclude waste pickle liquor sludge generated by lime
stabilization, but only to the extent that such waste is excluded by 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2), as
indicated in Revision Checklist 8.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.3(c) as amended June 5, 1984 (49 FR
23284).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
define hazardous waste so as to not exclude household waste other than those household
wastes excluded in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1), as indicated in Revision Checklists 9 and 17 C.
12 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 lPr,nt«d 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1) as amended November 13, 1984 (49
FR 44980) and July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations incorporate the most recent edition and updates to
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" (SW-846) as
indicated in Revision Checklists 11 and 35.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3001; 40 CFR 260.11, 260.21 and 270.6(a) as amended
December-4, 1984 (49 FR 47390) and March 16, 1987 (52 FR 8072).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
G. State statutes and regulations define solid wastes to include the hazardous
components of radioactive mixed wastes, July 3, 1986 [51 FR 24504]. See State Program
Advisory (SPA) #2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1004(27) and 3001 (b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
H. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
exempt (with certain limitations) waste samples used in small scale treatability studies from
Subtitle C regulation as indicated in Revision Checklist 49.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 260.10 and 261.4(e)&(f) as amended July 19,
1988 (53 FR 27290).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
I. State statutes and regulations exclude from the mining waste exemption the six
wastes listed at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(i) through 261.4(b)(7)(vi), as indicated in Revision
Checklist 53.
13 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Printed: 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b); 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) as amended September 13, 1988
(53 FR 35412).
i
Citation of' Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
J. State statutes and regulations that:
(1) provide final criteria to define Bevill-excluded mineral processing wastes,
finalize the Bevill status of nine mineral processing waste streams, and list
those mineral processing wastes subject to conditional retention as indicated
in Revision Checklist 65.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001 (b); 40 CFR 261.3 and 261.4 as amended September 1,
1989 (54 FR 36592).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) remove five conditionally retained mineral processing wastes from the
exemption from hazardous waste regulation under the Bevill exclusion, and
amend the definitions of "beneficiation" and "designated facility" as indicated
in Revision Checklists 71 and 90.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001(b)(3)(A)(ii); 40 CFR 260.10 and 261.4(b)(7) as amended
January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322) and June 13, 1991 (56 FR 27300).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
K. State statutes and regulations incorporate 47 new testing methods as approved
methods for use in meeting the regulatory requirements under Subtitle C of RCRA as
indicated in Revision Checklists 67 and 73.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 260.11 and Part 261
Appendix III as amended September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40260) and March 9, 1990 (55 FR
8948).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
1 4 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Printed: 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
L. State statutes and regulations revise the existing toxicity characteristic by
replacing the Extraction Procedure (EP) leach test with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure. (TCLP) for identifying wastes that are defined as hazardous and subject to
regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA as indicated in Revision Checklist 74. State statutes
and regulations also provide for the addition of 25 organic chemicals and their regulatory
levels to the list of toxic constituents of concern as indicated in Revision Checklist 74.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR
Parts 261, 264, 265 and 268 as amended March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), and June 29,
1990 (55 FR 26986).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
M. State statutes and regulations contain the language to result in consistent
interpretation of the criteria for listing wastes as hazardous under RCRA as indicated in
Revision Checklist 76.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001(a); 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) as amended May 4, 1990 (55 FR
18726).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
N. State statutes and regulations add eight new testing methods to the section of
regulations that incorporates these methods by reference as indicated in Revision Checklist
79.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 260.11 (a) as amended
June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
O. fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
extend until January 25, 1993, the compliance date for the Toxicity Characteristic
requirements for produced ground water from free phase hydrocarbon recovery operations
at certain petroleum industry sites (refineries, marketing terminals, and bulk plants) as
indicated in Revision Checklist 80. The extension for infiltration galleries at such operations
ends on October 2, 1991.
1 5 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Punted: 3/19/93|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§553 and 705; RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(b)(ll) as
amended October 5, 1990 (55 FR 40834), February 1, 1991 (56 FR 3978) and April 2,
1991 (56 £R 13406).
i
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
P. State statutes and regulations include definitions of oil/water/solids and
aggressive biological treatment units and a statement concerning the point of generation for
F037 and F038 sludges as indicated on Revision Checklist 81.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.31 (b), as amended November 2, 1990 (55
FR 46354) and December 17, 1990 (55 FR 51707).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
Q. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
exclude from being a solid waste spent wood preserving solutions that have been used and
are reclaimed and reused for their original intended purpose as indicated in Revision
Checklist 82.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(a)(9) as amended December 6, 1990 (55
FR 50450).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
R. State statutes and regulations allow deletion of certain hazardous waste codes
following equipment cleaning and replacement, provided that the requirements of 261.35
are met, as indicated in Revision Checklist 82.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.35 as amended December 6, 1990 (55 FR
50450).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
S. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
which exclude from being hazardous used chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants from totally
enclosed transfer equipment (including mobile air conditioning systems, mobile refrigeration,
and commercial and industrial air conditioning and refrigeration systems) that use
chlorofluorocarbons as the heat transfer fluid in the refrigeration cycle, provided the
refrigerant is reclaimed for further use as indicated in Revision Checklist 84.
16 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Pnnt.d 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(b)(12) as amended February 13, 1991 (56
FR 5910).,
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
T. fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
exclude from being a solid waste coke and coal tar from the iron and steel industry that
contains or is produced from decanter tank tar sludge, EPA hazardous waste K087, when
used as a fuel as indicated in Revision Checklist 85. The process producing the coke and
coal tar from such decanter tank tar sludge in a coke oven is also excluded from
regulation.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(a)(10) as amended February 21, 1991
(56 FR 7134).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
U. State statutes and regulations do not exclude residues, derived from the burning
or processing of hazardous waste in a boiler or industrial furnace, from the definition of a
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4),(7)or(8) unless the device and the owner or
operator meet the requirements of 40 CFR 266.112 as indicated in Revision Checklist 85.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4), 261.4(b)(7), 261.4(b)(8) and. 266.112
as amended February 21, 1991 (56 FR 7134).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
II. DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
A. State statutes and regulations define hazardous waste and impose management
standards so as to control all the hazardous waste controlled under 40 CFR Parts 261,
264, 265 and 266 as indicated in Revision Checklists 13 and 37.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 and 3004; 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 265, and 266 as
amended January 4, 1985 (50 FR 614), April 11, 1985 (50 FR 14216), August 20, 1985
(50 FR 33541) and June 5, 1987 (52 FR 21306).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
17 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Printed: 3/19/931
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
B. State statutes and regulations include as solid waste secondary material fed to a
halogen acid furnace that exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste or are listed as a
hazardous* waste in 40 CFR 261, Subparts C and D as indicated in Revision Checklist 85.
i
Federal Authority: RCRA §3001; 40 CFR Parts 261.2(d)(2) as amended February 21, 1991
(56 FR 7134).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
III. MANAGEMENT OF DIOXIN WASTES
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
dioxin wastes as indicated in Revision Checklist 14:
(1) Dioxin wastes are listed and otherwise identified as hazardous wastes so as
to encompass all such wastes controlled under 40 CFR 261.5(e), 261.7(b),
261.30(d), 261.31, 261.33(f), and Part 261 Appendix X.
(2) Special management and permitting standards for facilities managing dioxin
wastes and prohibitions applicable to permitted and interim status facilities, as
provided in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 and 3004; 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265 and 270 as
amended January 14, 1985 (50 FR 1978).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
IV. SATELLITE ACCUMULATION
A. fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow generators to accumulate at the site of generation, without a permit or interim status,
as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste
provided that the generator complies with the requirements specified in §262.34(c) as
indicated in Revision Checklist 12.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002, 3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 262.34(c) as amended
December 20, 1984 (49 FR 49571).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
18 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Printed 3/19-93|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
V. APPLICABILITY OF INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
interim status standards as indicated in Revision Checklists 3 and 10:
(1) Interim status standards apply to facilities identified in 40 CFR 265.1(b).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR Part 265 as amended November 22, 1983 (48
FR 52718) and November 21, 1984 (49 FR 46095).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
VI. PAINT FILTER TEST
A. State statutes and regulations require the use of a paint filter test to determine
the absence or presence of free liquids in either a containerized or bulk waste as indicated
in Revision Checklists 16, 17 F and 25.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 265, and 270 as
amended April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370), July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and May 28, 1986
(51 FR 19176).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
VII. NATIONAL UNIFORM MANIFEST SYSTEM AND RECORDKEEPING
A. State statutes and regulations require generators to use the national uniform
manifest as indicated in Revision Checklists 5 and 32.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002 and 3003; 40 CFR Parts 260 and 262 as
amended March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10490) and October 1, 1986 (51 FR 35190).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations require that generators, of between 100 and 1000
kg/mo of hazardous waste, file an exception report in those instances where the generator
does not receive confirmation of delivery of his hazardous waste to the designated facility
as indicated in Revision Checklist 42.
1 9 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 iPnntod 3;i9/93|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 (d) and 3002(a)(5); 40 CFR Parts 262.42 and 262.44 as
amended September 23, 1987 (52 FR 35894).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations require that the following be recorded, as it
becomes available, and maintained in the operating record, until facility closure, as
indicated in Revision Checklist 45: monitoring, testing or analytical data, corrective action
where required by Subpart F and §§264.226, 264.253, 264.254, 264.276, 264.278, 264.280,
264.303, 264.309, 264.347, and 264.602.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.73(b) as amended December
10, 1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
include a burden disclosure statement with each uniform manifest form and renew the use
of this form as indicated in Revision Checklist 58.
Federal; Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002, and 3003; 40 CFR 262.20 and Part 262
Appendix as amended November 8, 1988 (53 FR 45089).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. State statutes and regulations require that generators who ship hazardous waste
to a designated facility in an authorized state which has not yet obtained authorization to
regulate that particular waste as a hazardous waste assure that the designated facility
agrees to sign and return the manifest to the generator, and that any out-of-state
transporter signs and forwards the manifest to the designated facility, as indicated in
Revision Checklist 71.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3002 and 3003; 40 CFR 262.23(e) as amended on
January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
20 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Printed 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
VIII. BIENNIAL REPORT
A. . State statutes and regulations contain the following reporting requirements as
indicated in Revision Checklists 1 and 30.
(1) The biennial report contains the information indicated in 40 CFR 262.41 (a),
264.75 and 265.75.
(2) Facilities must submit groundwater monitoring data annually to the State
Director as indicated in 40 CFR 265.94.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3002 and 3004; 40 CFR Parts 262, 264 and 265 as amended
January 28, 1983 (48 FR 3977) and August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28566).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
IX. WASTE MINIMIZATION
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
waste minimization as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 D, 30 and 32 (see Item I B
above).
(1) Generators must submit report and manifest certifications regarding efforts
taken to minimize the amounts and toxicity of wastes.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3002(a)(6), (b); 40 CFR 262.41, 264.75 and 265.75 as
amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28556) and October 1,
1986 (51 FR 35190).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) RCRA permits for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste on
the premises where the waste was generated must contain a certification by
the permittee regarding efforts taken to minimize the amount and toxicity of
the generated wastes.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(h); 40 CFR 264.70, 264.73 and 270.30Q)(2) as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
21 DAGREV11 -6/30/92 [Print** 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
X. LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS
A. .State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding
liquids in landfills as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 F and 25.
(1) Effective May 8, 1985, there is a ban on the placement of bulk or
non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or hazardous waste containing free
liquids in any landfill pursuant to 40 CFR 264.314 and 265.314 as amended
July 15, 1985 and May 28, 1986.
(2) Effective November 8, 1985, there is a ban on the placement of
non-hazardous liquids in landfills unless the owner or operator satisfies the
criteria set forth in 40 CFR 264.314(e) and 265.314(f), as amended July 15,
1985 and May 28, 1986.
(3) For bulk or non-containerized liquid wastes or wastes containing free liquids
they may be placed in a landfill prior to May 8, 1985, only if the
requirements of 40 CFR 264.314(a) and 265.314(a) are met.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(c); 40 CFR 264.314, 265.314 and 270.21 (h) as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19176).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XI. GROUND-WATER MONITORING
A. State statutes and regulations provide that the §3004 groundwater monitoring
requirements applicable to surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units and
landfills shall apply whether or not such units are located above the seasonal high water
table, have two liners and a leachate collection system or have liners that are periodically
inspected, as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 I.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(p); 40 CFR 264.222, 264.252, 264.253, and 264.302 as
amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).2
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
may allow variances from the ground-water monitoring requirements as provided in
2Note that Revision Checklist 17 I reserved the cited sections of 40 CFR Part 264.
Prior to Revision Checklist 17 I, these sections of code addressed exemptions from the
Subpart F groundwater monitoring requirements.
22 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 Printed 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
§3004(p). However, those variances must be restricted as provided in RCRA §3004(p) as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 I.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(p); 40 CFR 264.90(b) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations provide that with regard to ground-water
monitoring, all land based hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
analyze for a specified core list (Part 264, Appendix IX) of chemicals plus those chemicals
specified by the Regional Administrator on a site-specific basis as indicated in Revision
Checklist 40.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3001, 3004, and 3005; 40 CFR 264.98, 264.99,
Part 264 Appendix IX, and 270.14 as amended July 9, 1987 (52 FR 25942).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations specify statistical methods, sampling procedures,
and performance standards that can be used in groundwater monitoring procedures to
detect groundwater contamination at permitted hazardous waste facilities as indicated in
Revision Checklist 55.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.91, 264.92,
264.97, 264.98 and 264.99 as amended October 11, 1988 (53 FR 39720).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XII. BURNING AND BLENDING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
A. State statutes and regulations provide the following requirements:
(1) The burning of fuel containing hazardous waste in a cement kiln is prohibited
as specified in 40 CFR 266.31 and Revision Checklist 17 J.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(q); 40 CFR 266.31 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
23 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Pr«t«J: 3/19/93|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
(2) Fuels containing hazardous waste and all persons who produce, distribute
and market fuel containing hazardous wastes must be regulated as indicated
; in Revision Checklists 17 J, 17 K, and 19.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(q)-(s); 40 CFR 261.31 and 266.34 as amended July 15,
1985 (50 FR 28702), November 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), and November 19, 1986 (51 FR
41900).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide exceptions to the burning and blending of hazardous waste as specified in
§§3004(q)(2)(A) and 3004(r)(2) & (3).
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(q)2(A) and 3004(r)(2) & (3).,
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XIII. CORRECTIVE ACTION
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following corrective action
requirements as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 L:
(1) Corrective action is required for releases of hazardous waste or constituents
from any solid waste management unit at a facility seeking a permit,
regardless of when the waste was placed in the unit, in all permits issued
after November 8, 1984.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 264.90, 264.101 and 270.60 as amended July
15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) Corrective action is required beyond a facility's boundary, in accordance with
RCRA §3004(v). (States now may impose these requirements through a
permit or a corrective action order. Once EPA promulgates the regulations
required by RCRA §3004(v), States will need authority to impose corrective
action in a permit following the RCRA §3004(v) regulations.)
24 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Prints 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v)(1).
Citation of, Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) Corrective action is required beyond a facility's boundary in accordance with
RCRA §3004(v) for all landfills, surface impoundments and waste pile units
(including any new units, replacements of existing units or lateral expansions
of existing units) which receive hazardous waste after July 26, 1982.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v)(2).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) There is evidence of financial responsibility for corrective action on- and
off-site.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004(a)(6); (u); 40 CFR 264.90 and 264.101 as amended July
15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations provide for additional information and engineering
feasibility plan requirements regarding groundwater contamination detected at the time of
Part B permit application as indicated in Revision Checklist 38.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 270.14 as amended June 22, 1987
(52 FR 23447) and September 9, 1987 (52 FR 33936).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations require owners and operators of facilities seeking
permits to provide descriptive information on the solid waste management units themselves
and all available information pertaining to any releases from the units as indicated in
Revision Checklist 44 A.
25 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Print.* 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 270.14 as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
i
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations require that owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (including permit-by-rule facilities subject to
264.101) institute corrective action beyond the facility boundary to protect human health
and the environment, unless the owner/operator is denied access to adjacent lands despite
the owner/operator's best efforts, as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 B.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(v); 40 CFR 264.100(e) and 264.101 (c), as amended
December 1, 1987 (52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. State statutes and regulations contain the following corrective action
requirements for injection wells as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 C.
(1) Hazardous waste injection wells now operating under RCRA interim status
may retain interim status after issuance of a DIG permit. Until a RCRA
permit or a RCRA "rider" to a U 1C permit, which addresses Section 3004(u)
corrective action, is issued, the well must comply with applicable interim
status requirements imposed by §265.430, Parts 144.146 and 147, and any
UIC permit requirements.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 144.1(h) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) As part of the UIC permit process, available information regarding operating
history and condition of the injection well must be submitted as well as any
available information on known releases from the well or injection zone.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 144.31 (g) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
26 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Prmt.d 3,19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
(3) DIG facility owners/operators must submit certain information related to
corrective action with their DIG applications.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 270.60(b)(3) as amended December 1, 1987
(52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations require that miscellaneous units comply with
regulations (Subpart F) regarding releases from solid waste management units when
necessary to comply with §§264.601 through 264.603 as indicated in Revision Checklist 45.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(u); 40 CFR 264.90(d) as amended December 10, 1987
(52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XIV. HAZARDOUS WASTE EXPORTS
A. State statutes and regulations require generators and transporters of hazardous
waste destined for export outside the United States to comply with standards equivalent to
those as indicated in Revision Checklists 17 R, 31, and 48 (with the latter providing
technical corrections to Checklist 31).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3017; 40 CFR 262.50 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702), August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664), and July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27164).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XV. STANDARDS FOR FACILiTIES3
A. State statutes and regulations prohibit the land disposal of hazardous waste
prohibited under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 E. Land
disposal includes, but is not limited to, placement in landfills, surface impoundments, waste
piles, deep injection wells, land treatment facilities, salt dome and bed formations and
underground mines or caves. Deep injection well means a well used for the underground
injection of hazardous wastes other than a well to which §3020 of RCRA applies.
3This section contains all changes to the Federal RCRA program concerning facility
standards except for those specifically related to groundwater monitoring. This latter group
of facility standard changes are addressed by Section XI.
27 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Printed: 3/19/93|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(b)-(q); 40 CFR 264.18 and 265.18 as amended July 15,
1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. Effective on November 8, 1984, State statutes and regulations prohibit the
placement of any non-containerized or bulk liquid hazardous waste in any salt dome or salt
bed formation any underground mine or cave except as provided in §264.18(c) and
§265.18{c) as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 E. Furthermore, State statutes and
regulations prohibit the placement of any other hazardous waste in such formations until a
permit is issued.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(b); 40 CFR 264.18 and 265.18 as amended July 15, 1985
(50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations prohibit the use of waste oil or other materials
contaminated with hazardous wastes (except ignitible wastes) as a dust suppressant as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 G.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(1); 40 CFR 266.23 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations require the permittee to take steps to minimize
releases to the environment in accordance with 40 CFR Part 270.30(d) as indicated in
Revision Checklist 2.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c); 40 CFR Part 270 as amended September 1, 1983 (48
FR 39622).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. State statutes and regulations require that closure and post-closure requirements
and special requirements for containers apply to interim status landfills as indicated in
Revision Checklist 15.
28 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 printed- 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004; 40 CFR 265.310 and 265.315 as amended April 23, 1985
(50 FR 16044).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations require compliance with closure/post-closure and
financial responsibility requirements applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities, as indicated in Revision Checklists 24, 36, and
45.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 265, and 270 as
amended May 2, 1986 (51 FR 16422), March 19, 1987 (52 FR 8704) and December 10,
1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
G. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow qualified companies that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste to use a
corporate guarantee to satisfy liability assurance requirements as indicated in Revision
Checklists 27 and 43.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002, 3004, and 3005; 40 CFR 264.147, 264.151, and
265.147 as amended July 11, 1986 (51 FR 25350) and November 18, 1987 (52 FR
44314).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
H. State statutes and regulations require companies that generate, treat or store
hazardous waste in tanks to comply with tank standards equivalent to those indicated in
Revision Checklists 28 and 52.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3001 - 3007, 3010, 3014, 3017 - 3019 and 7004;
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, and 270 as amended July 14, 1986 (51 FR
25422), August 15, 1986 (51 FR 29430) and September 2, 1988 (53 FR 34079).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
I. State statutes and regulations require environmental performance standards;
monitoring, testing, analytical data, inspection, response and reporting procedures; and
post-closure care for miscellaneous units as indicated in Revision Checklist 45.
29 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Print*- 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.600, 264.601, 264.602, and
264.603 ap amended December 10, 1987 (52 FR 46946).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
J. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow owners and operators of landfills, surface impoundments, or land treatment units,
under limited circumstances, to remain open after the final receipt of hazardous wastes in
order to receive non-hazardous wastes in that unit as indicated in Revision Checklist 64.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 264.13,
264.112, 264.113, 264.142, 265.13, 265.112, 265.113, 265.142 and Appendix I to 270.42
as amended August 14, 1989 (54 FR 33376).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
K. State statutes and regulations require new and existing hazardous waste
treatment, storage or disposal facilities to control organic air emissions from process vents
and equipment leaks as indicated in Revision Checklists 79 and 87.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3001-3007, 3010, 3014 and 7004; 40 CFR Parts
261, 264, 265 and 270 as amended June 21, 1990 (55 FR 25454) and April 26, 1991 (56
FR 19290).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
L. State statutes and regulations contain design, operating, inspection and closure
requirements for drip pads and associated tanks, sumps and other devices used to assist
in the collection of treated wood drippage as indicated in Revision Checklist 82.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a) and 3001(b)&(e)(1); 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2), 264.190,
264.570, 264.571, 264.572, 264.573, 264.574, 264.575, 265.190, 265.440, 265.441,
265.442, 265.443, 265.444, and 265.445 as amended December 6, 1990 (55 FR 50450).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
M. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
contain an administrative stay for the requirement that new drip pads be impermeable as
indicated in Revision Checklist 91.
30 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Printed: 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 705; RCRA §§2002(a) and 3001(b)&(e)(1); 40 CFR
264.572(a)(4), and 265.443(a)(4) as amended June 13, 1991 (56 FR 27332).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XVI. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS
A. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow a facility (1) to construct an approved TSCA facility for burning PCBs without first
obtaining a RCRA permit and (2) to subsequently apply for a RCRA permit in accordance
with Revision Checklist 17 M.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(a); 40 CFR 270.10(f)(3) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations require review of land disposal permits every five
years and modification of such permits as necessary to assure compliance with the
requirements in Parts 124, 260 through 266, and 270, as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 N.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 270.41 (a)(6) and 270.50(d) as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations require permits to contain any conditions
necessary to protect human health and the environment in addition to any conditions
required by regulations as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 O.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 270.32(b) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
31 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 |Print«d 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
D. State statutes and regulations require that:
(1), For land disposal facilities granted interim status prior to 11/8/84, interim
status terminates 11/8/85; unless a Part B application and certification of
compliance with applicable groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements are submitted by 11/8/85, as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.73(c) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) For land disposal facilities in existence on the effective date of statutory or
regulatory changes under this Act that render the facility subject to- the
requirement to have a permit and which is granted interim status, interim
status terminates 12 months after the date the facility first becomes subject
to such permit requirement unless a Part B application and certification of
compliance with applicable groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements are submitted by that date as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.73(d) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(3) Interim status terminates for incinerator facilities on 11/8/89 unless the
owner/operator submits a Part B application by 11/8/86 as indicated in
Revision Checklist 17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(2)(C); 40 CFR 270.73(e) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(4) Interim status terminates for any facility other than a land disposal or an
incineration facility on 11/8/92 unless the owner/operator submits a Part B
application by 11/8/88 as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P.
32 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Printed: 3/19»3|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(2)(C); 40 CFR 270.73(f) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow facilities to qualify for interim status if they (1) are in existence on the effective date
of statutory or regulatory changes that render the facility subject to the requirement to have
a permit and (2) comply with §270.70(a) as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(e); 40 CFR 270.70(a) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations provide that facilities may not qualify for interim
status under the State's analogue to Section 3005(e) if they were previously denied a
Section 3005(c) permit or if authority to operate the facility has been terminated as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 P.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c)(3); 40 CFR 270.70(c) as amended July 15, 1985 (50
FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
G. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow the issuance of a one-year research, development, and demonstration permit
(renewable each year, but not for a period longer than three years) for any hazardous
waste treatment facility which proposes an innovative and experimental hazardous waste
treatment technology or process not yet regulated as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 Q.
If adopted, however, the State must require the facility to meet RCRA's financial
responsibility and public participation requirements and retain authority to terminate
experimental activity if necessary to protect health or the environment.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(g); 40 CFR 270.65 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
33 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Printed: 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
H. State statutes and regulations require landfills, surface impoundments, land
treatment units, and waste piles that received waste after July 26, 1982 and which qualify
for interim,status to comply with the groundwater monitoring, unsaturated zone monitoring,
and corrective action requirements applicable to new units at the time of permitting as
indicated in Revision Checklist 17 L.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(i); 40 CFR 264.90(a) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FIR
28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
I. State statutes and regulations require:
(1) Surface impoundments in existence on November 8, 1984 [or subsequently
becoming subject to RCRA pursuant to §3005(j)(6)(A) or (B)] to comply with
the double liner, leachate collection, and groundwater monitoring requirements
applicable to new units by November 8, 1988 [or the date specified in
§3005(j)(6)(A) or (B)] or to stop treating, receiving, or storing hazardous
waste, unless the surface impoundment qualifies for a special exemption
under §3005(j).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(j)(1)&(6)(A).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
(2) fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
may allow variances from the above requirements as provided in RCRA
§3005(j)(2-9) and (13). However, the availability of such variances must be
restricted as provided in RCRA §3005(j).
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005Q)(2-9).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
J. fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Facility owners or operators are
given the opportunity to cure deficient Part A applications in accordance with 40 CFR
270.70(b) before failing to qualify for interim status as indicated in Revision Checklist 6.
34 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Prmi«d- 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005; 40 CFR Part 270 as amended April 24, 1984 (49 FR
17716).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
K. State statutes and regulations allow the permit granting agency to initiate
modifications to a permit without first receiving a request from the permittee, in cases
where statutory changes, new or amended regulatory standards or judicial decisions affect
the basis of the permit as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 D.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c); 40 CFR 270.41 (a)(3) as amended December 1, 1987
(52 FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
L. State statutes and regulations require that permittees must comply with new
requirements imposed by the land disposal restrictions promulgated under Part 268 even
when there are contrary permit conditions, as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 E.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006(g); 40 CFR 270.4(a) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
M. State statutes and regulations require information from permit applicants
concerning permit conditions necessary to protect human health and the environment as
indicated in Revision Checklist 44 F.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(c); 40 CFR 270.10 as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
N. State statutes and regulations require post-closure permits for all landfills,
surface impoundments, waste piles and land treatment units receiving hazardous waste
after July 26, 1982 as indicated in Revision Checklist 44 G.
35 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Printed: a/19/93|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(i); 40 CFR 270.1 (c) as amended December 1, 1987 (52
FR 45788).
i
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
0. State statutes and regulations require that all owners and operators of units that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in miscellaneous units must comply with the
general application requirements (including Part A permit requirements), the Part B general
application requirements of §270.14, and specific Part B information requirements for
miscellaneous units as indicated in Revision Checklists 45 and 59.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3004 and 3005; 40 CFR 264.600, 270.14 and 270.23 as
amended December 10, 1987 (52 FR 46946) and January 9, 1989 (54 FR 615).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
P. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide owners and operators more flexibility to change specified permit conditions, to
expand public notification and participation opportunities, and allow for expedited approval if
no public concern exists for a proposed permit modification. Owner/operator permit
modifications are categorized into three classes with administrative procedures for approving
modifications established in each class. These changes are as indicated in Revision
Checklist 54.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR Parts 124, 264, 265,
and 270 as amended September 28, 1988 (53 FR 37912) and October 24, 1988 (53 FR
41649).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
Q. State statutes and regulations make it clear that existing incinerator facilities
must either conduct a trial burn or submit other information as specified in 270.19(a) or (c)
before a permit can be issued for that facility as indicated in Revision Checklist 60.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3005(b); 40 CFR Part 270 as amended January 30, 1989 [54
FR 4286).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
36 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Printed' 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
R. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
allow greater flexibility to interim status facilities to make changes during interim status
following director approval as indicated in Revision Checklist 61.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 270.72 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
S. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations lift
the reconstruction limit for changes: 1) to certain interim status units necessary to comply
with Federal, State, or local requirements, 2) necessary to allow continued handling of
newly listed or identified hazardous waste, 3) made in accordance with an approved
closure plan, and 4) made pursuant to a corrective action order as indicated in Revision
Checklist 61.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 270.72 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
T. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
that clarify that a permit can be denied for the active life of a facility while a decision on
post closure permitting is pending as indicated in Revision Checklist 61.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005, and 3006; 40 CFR 124.1, 124.15,
124.19, 270.1, 270.10 and 270.29 as amended March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
U. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
that classify as Class 1 certain permit modifications requested by owners/operators
necessary to enable permitted facilities to comply with the land disposal restrictions as
indicated in Revision Checklist 61. Specifically these modifications include 1) adding
restricted wastes treated to meet applicable 40 CFR Part 268 treatment standards or
adding residues from treating "soft hammer" wastes, 2) adding certain wastewater treatment
residues and incinerator ash, 3) adding new wastes for treatment in tanks or containers
under certain limited conditions, and 4) adding new treatment processes, necessary to treat
restricted wastes to meet treatment standards, that take place in tanks or containers.
37 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 {Printed: 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a), 3004, 3005 and 3006; 40 CFR 270.42 as amended
March 7, 1989 (54 FR 9596).
t
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
V. State statutes and regulations incorporate updates to 40 CFR Part 124 as
indicated in Revision Checklist 70.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§6901 and 6902; 40 CFR 124.3, 124.5, 124.6, 124.10 and
124.12 as amended April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14146), June 30, 1983 (48 FR 30113), July 26,
1988 (53 FR 28118), September 26, 1988 (53 FR 37396) and January 4, 1989 (54 FR
246).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
W. State statutes and regulations contain Special Part B information requirements
for drip pads as indicated in Revision Checklist 82.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§2002(a) and 3001(b)&(e)(l); 40 CFR 270.22 as amended
December 6, 1990 (55 FR 50450).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
X. State statutes and regulations include permitting requirements for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste as indicated in Revision Checklist 85.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3001 through 3007; 40 CFR 270.22, 270.42(g),
270.42 Appendix I, 270.66, 270.72(a)(6)&(b)(7) and 270.73(f)&(g) as amended February 21,
1991 (56 FR 7134).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XVII. MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
i
A. State statutes and regulations require that new units, expansions, and
replacements of interim status waste piles meet the requirements for a single liner and
leachate collection system in regulations applicable to permitted waste piles as indicated in
the Revision Checklist 17 H.
38 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 |Pnnt«i 3/1*931
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3015(a); 40 CFR 265.254 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of1 Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulation require:
(1) New units, expansions, and replacement units at interim status landfills and
surface impoundments and landfills and surface impoundments for which Part
B of the permit application is received by the proper authority after November
8, 1984, meet the requirements for double liners and leachate collection
systems applicable to new permitted landfills and surface impoundments in
40 CFR 264.221 and 264.301 and 265.221 and 265.301 as indicated in
Revision Checklists 17 H and 77.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002(a), 3004, 3005 and 3015(b); 40 CFR 264.221,
265.221, 264.301 and 265.301 as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702) and May 9, 1990
(55 FR 19262).
(2) fOPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Facilities which comply in
good faith need not retrofit at permit issuance unless the liner is leaking as
provided in §§265.221 (e) and 265.301(6) as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 H.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3015(b); 40 CFR 264.221, 265.221 and 265.301 as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
(3) fOPTIQNAL: This is a reduced requirement.] Variances from the above
requirements are optional. However, the availability of such variances is
restricted as provided in §§264.221 (d) and (e), 264.301 (d) and (e),
265.221 (c) and (d), and 265.301 (c) and (d) as indicated in Revision Checklist
17 H.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3015(b); 40 CFR 264.221, 265.221 and 265.301 as amended
July 15, 1985 (50 FR 28702).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XVIII. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS
A. State laws and regulations require permit applicants for landfills or surface
impoundments to submit exposure information as indicated in Revision Checklist 17 S.
39 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Pr,m«d 3/19/931
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3019(a); 40 CFR 270.10(j) as amended July 15, 1985 (50 FR
28702).
Citation of'Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State laws and regulations allow the State to make assessment information
available to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. [See CERCLA
Federal Authority: RCRA §3019(b).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XIX. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
A. State statutes and regulations provide that:
(1) All records shall be available to the public unless they are exempt from the
disclosure requirements of the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. 552;
(2) All nonexempt records will be available to the public upon request regardless
of whether any justification or need for such records has been shown by the
requestor;
(3) The same types of records would be available to the public from the State
as would be available from EPA. [In making this certification, the Attorney
General should be aware of the types of documents EPA generally releases
under the FOIA, subject to claims of business confidentiality: permit
applications; biennial reports from facilities; closure plans; notification of a
facility closure; contingency plan incident reports; delisting petitions; financial
responsibility instruments; ground-water monitoring data (note that exemption
5 U.S.C.552(b)(9) of the FOIA applies to such wells as oil and gas, rather
than to ground-water wells); transporter spill reports; international shipment
reports; manifest exception, discrepancy and unmanifested waste reports;
facility EPA identification numbers; withdrawal requests; enforcement orders;
and, inspection reports]; and,
(4) Information is provided to the public in substantially the same manner as
EPA as indicated in 40 CFR Part 2 and the Revision Checklist in Appendix
N of the State Authorization Manual. fOPTIONAL: Where the State agrees
to implement selected provisions through the use of a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) the Attorney General must certify that: "The State has the
authority to enter into and carry out the MOA provisions and there are no
State statutes (e.g., State Administrative Procedures Acts) which require
40 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 |Pnnt«d 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
notice and comment or promulgation of regulations for the MOA procedures
to be binding.]
\
(5)'' [OPTIONAL: The State statutes and regulations protect Confidential
Business Information (CBI) to the same degree as indicated in 40 CFR 2
and the Revision Checklist in Appendix N of the State Authorization Manual.
Note, that States do not have to protect CBI, to satisfy 3006(f). However, if
a State does extend protection to CBI then it cannot restrict the release of
information that EPA would require to be disclosed.]
Federal Authority: RCRA §3006(f); 40 CFR §271.17(c).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XX. BURNING OF WASTE FUEL AND USED OIL FUEL IN BOILERS AND
INDUSTRIAL FURNACES
A. State statutes and regulations contain the following requirements regarding the
burning of waste fuel and used oil fuel for energy recovery in boilers and industrial
furnaces as indicated in Revision Checklist 19:
(1) Waste fuels and used oil fuels are identified as solid wastes so as to
encompass all such wastes controlled under 40 CFR 261.3, 261.5 and 261.6.
(2) Special management standards for generators, transporters, marketers and
burners of hazardous waste and used oil burned for energy, as set forth in
40 CFR 264.340, 265.340, 266.30-35 and 266.40-44.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001, 3004 and 3014(a); 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265 and 266
as amended November 29, 1985 (50 FR 49164), November 19, 1986 (51 FR 41900) and
April 13, 1987 (52 FR 11819).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide the authority to obtain criminal penalties for violations of the waste fuel and used
oil fuel requirements, as set forth in 40 CFR 266.40-44.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3006(h), 3008(d) and 3014; 40 CFR 271.16.
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations include control standards for emissions of toxic
organic compounds, toxic metals, hydrogen chloride, chlorine gas and particulate matter
41 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 |P™t«J: 3/19/931
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
from boilers and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste, and require owners and
operators of such facilities to comply with the general facility standards applicable to
hazardous! waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, as indicated in Revision
Checklist 85. Hazardous waste storage units at regulated burners are subject to 40
CFR 264 requirements.
Federal Authority: RCRA §§1006, 2002, 3001 through 3007, 3010 and 7004; 40 CFR
260.10, 260.11, 264.112, 264.340, 265.112, 265.113, 265.340, 266 Subpart H, and Part
266 Appendices I-VIII as amended February 21, 1991 (56 FR 7134).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XXI. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
A. State statutes and regulations provide for the restrictions of the land disposal of
certain spent solvents and dioxin-containing hazardous wastes as indicated in Revision
Checklists 34, 39, and 50.
Federal Authority: §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 268
and 270 as amended on November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572), June 4, 1987 (52 FR 21010),
July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), and August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
B. State statutes and regulations for restricting the disposal of certain California list
wastes, including liquid hazardous waste containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) above
specified concentrations, and hazardous waste containing halogenated organic compounds
(HOCs) above specified concentrations as indicated in Revision Checklists 39, 50, and 66.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 262, 264, 265, 268 and 270
as amended on July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760), October 27, 1987 (52 FR 41295)', August 17,
1988 (53 FR 31138), and September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
C. State statutes and regulations for specific treatment standards and effective
dates for certain wastes from the "First Third" of the schedule of restricted wastes listed in
40 CFR 268.10 as well as land disposal restrictions for those First Third wastes for which
a treatment standard is not established as indicated in Revision Checklists 50, 62 and 66.
42 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Print* 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004 (d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 266, and 268 as
amended on August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138), February 27, 1989 (54 FR 8264), May 2,
1989 (54 PR 18836), September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967) and June 13, 1990 (55 FR
23935). '
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
D. State statutes and regulations for certain treatment standards and prohibition
effective dates for certain Second Third wastes and for imposing the "soft hammer"
provisions4 of 40 CFR 268.8 on Second Third wastes for which the Agency is not
establishing treatment standards as indicated in Revision Checklist 63.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Part 268 as amended June 23,
1989 (54 FR 26594).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
E. State statutes and standards for treatment standards and effective dates for
certain First Third "soft hammer" wastes* as well as for certain wastes originally contained
in the Third Third of the Schedule as indicated in Revision Checklist 63.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR Parts 264, 265 and 268 as
amended June 23, 1989 (54 FR 26594).
Citation of Laws and Regulations; Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
F. State statutes and regulations provide specific treatment standards and effective
dates for the "Third Third" wastes, "soft hammer" First and Second Third wastes4, five
newly listed wastes, four wastes that fall into the F002 and F005 (spent solvent) waste
codes, F025, mixed radioactive/hazardous wastes, characteristic wastes, and multi-source
leachate, as well as establish revised treatment standards for petroleum refining hazardous
wastes (K048-K052) as indicated in Revision Checklists 78 and 83.
"Soft hammer" wastes are those wastes for which EPA did not promulgate treatment
standards by their respective effective dates. These wastes could continue to be
disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment until May 8, 1990 if certain
demonstrations were made and the technology requirements of RCRA §3004(o)
were met. Other types of land disposal (e.g., underground injection) were not
similarly restricted. On May 6, 1990, wastes for which EPA had not established
treatment standards became prohibited from all types of land disposal. This latter
requirement is referred to as the "hard hammer" provision and ended the soft
hammer provisions which were in effect prior to May 6, 1990.
43 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Ponied: 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Federal Authority: RCRA §§3001 and 3004 (d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 261, 262, 264, 265,
268, and 270 as amended June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520) and January 31, 1991 (56 FR
3864).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
G. [OPTIONAL: This is a reduced requirement.] State statutes and regulations
provide for alternate treatment standards for lab packs meeting certain criteria as indicated
in Revision Checklists 78 and 83.
Federal Authority: RCRA §3004(d)-(k) and (m); 40 CFR 264.316(f), 265.316(f), 268.7(a)(7),
268.7(a)(8), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and Part 268 Appendices IV and V, as amended
June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520) and January 31, 1991, (56 FR 3864).
Citation of Laws and Regulations: Date of Enactment and Adoption
Remarks of the Attorney General
XXII. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)
[If the State uses the MOA to satisfy Federal procedural requirements, the Attorney
General must certify the following:
(1) The State has the authority to enter into the agreement,
(2) The State has the authority to carry out the agreement, and
(3) No applicable State statute (including the State Administrative Procedure Act)
requires that the procedure be promulgated as a rule in order to be binding.]
44 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Print*-3/19/93)
-------
Seal of Office
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Signature
Name (Type or Print)
Title
Date
45 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 |Print«t 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
I. Index to the checklist entries found in the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
Revision checklist number/name Subsections pertaining to checklist
1. Biennial Report VIII A
2. Permit Rule: Settlement
Agreement XV D
3. Interim Status Standards V A
4. Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons .... I A(1)
5. National Uniform Manifests VII A
6. Permit Rule - Deficient Part A
Applications XVI J
7. Listing Warfarin & Zinc Phosphide .... I A(2)
8. Lime Stabilized Pickle Liquor Sludge ...ID
9. Exclusion of Household Waste IE
10. Interim Status Standards -
Applicability V A
11. Corrections to Test Methods Manual ...IF
12. Satellite Accumulation Standards IV A
13. Definition of Solid Wastes II A
14. Dioxin Listing and Management
Standards Ill A
15. Interim Status Standards for
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities XV E
16. Paint Filter Test VI
17 A. Small Quantity Generators
(Superceded: See Checklist 23) IB
17 B. Delisting I C(1)&(2)
17 C. Household Waste IE
17 D. Waste Minimization IX A(1)&(2)
17 E. Location Standards for Salt
Domes, Salt Beds, Underground
Mines, and Caves XV A & B
17 F. Liquids in Landfills VI A; X A
17 G. Dust Suppression XV C
17 H. Double Liners XVII A; XVII B(1),(2)&(3)
17 I. Ground-water Monitoring XI A & B
17 J. Cement Kilns XII A(1)&(2)
17 K. Fuel Labeling XII A(2)
Continued...
46 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 [Pnnt«d 3/19/931
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
I. Index to the checklist entries found in the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
Revision checklist number/name Subsections pertaining to checklist
17 L. Corrective Action XIII A(1),(2),(3)&(4); XVI H
17 M. Pre-construction Ban XVI A
17 N. Permit Life XVI B
17 O. Omnibus Provision XVI C
17 P. Interim Status XVI D(1),(2),(3)&(4); XVI E & F
17 Q. Research & Development Permits .... XVI G
17 R. Hazardous Waste Exports XIV A
17 S. Exposure Information XVIII A
18. Listing of TDI, IDA, DNT I A(3)
19. Burning of Waste Fuel and Used Oil ... XX A
20. Spent Solvents Listing I A(4)
21. EDB Waste Listing I A(5)
22. Four Spent Solvents Listing I A(6)
23. Small Quantity Generators IB
24. Financial Responsibility:
Settlement Agreement XV F
25. Paint Filter Test - Correction VI; X A
26. Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor I A(7)
27. Corporate Guarantee - Liability
Coverage XV G
28. Hazardous Waste Storage and Tank
Systems XV H
29. Correction - Commercial Chemical
Products and Appendix VIII I A(8)
30. Biennial Reports; Correction VIII A; IX A
31. Exports of Hazardous Wastes XIV A
32. Standards for Generators - Waste
Minimization Certifications I B; VII A; IX A(1)&(2)
33. Listing of EBDC I A(9)
34. Land Disposal Restrictions XXI A
35. Revised Manual SW-846; Amended
Incorporation by Reference IF
36. Closure/Post-Closure Care for
Interim Status Surface Impoundments . . XV F
37. Definition of Solid Wastes;
Technical Corrections II A
Continued...
47 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Print*) 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
I. Index to the checklist entries found in the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
Revision checklist number/name Subsections pertaining to checklist
38. Amendments, Part B - Information
Requirements for Disposal Facilities . . . XIII B
39. California List Waste Restrictions XXI B
40. List (Phase I) of Hazardous
Constituents for Ground-water
Monitoring XI C
41. Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste I A(8)
42. Exception Reporting for Small
Quantity Generators VII B
43. Liability Requirements; Corporate
Guarantee XV G
44 A. Permit Application Requirements
Regarding Corrective Action XIII C
44 B. Corrective Action Beyond Facility
Boundary XIII D
44 C. Corrective Action for Injection Wells . . . XIII E(1),(2)&(3)
44 D. Permit Modification XVI K
44 E. Permit as Shield Provision XVI L
44 F. Permit Conditions to Protect Human
Health and the Environment XVI M
44 G. Post-closure Permits XVI N
45. Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous
Units VII C; XIII F; XV F; XV I; XVI O
46. Technical Correction - Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste I A(8)
47. Small Quantity Generators;
Technical Correction IB
48. Farmer Exemption; Technical
Correction XIV A
49. Treatability Studies Sample
Exemption I H
50. Land Disposal Restrictions
for First Third Scheduled Wastes XXI A, B & C
51. Liability Coverage for Owners/
Operators of Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities Withheld, no entry as yet
Continued...
48 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 printed 3/19/93)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
I. Index to the checklist entries found in the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
Revision checklist number/name Subsections pertaining to checklist
52. Standards for Hazardous Waste
Storage and Treatment Tank
Systems XV H
53. Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; and Designation,
Reportable Quantities and
Notification I A(10), I I
54. Permit Modifications for Waste
Management Facilities XVI P
55. Statistical Methods for Evaluating
Ground-Water Monitoring Data from
Hazardous Waste Facilities XI D
56. Removal of Iron Dextran from the
Lists of Hazardous Wastes I A(11)
57. Removal of Strontium Sulfide from
the Lists of Hazardous Wastes I A(12)
f58. Standards for Generators of
Hazardous Waste; Manifest
Renewal VII D
59. Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous
Units; Standards Applicable to
Owners and Operators XVI O
60. Amendment to Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits . . XVI Q
61. Changes to Interim Status Facilities
for Hazardous Waste Management
Permits; XVI R & S
Modifications of Hazardous Waste
Management Permits; XVI U
Procedures for Post-Closure
Permitting XVI T
62. Land Disposal Restrictions
Amendments to First Third
Scheduled Wastes XXI C
63. Land Disposal Restrictions for
Second Third Scheduled Wastes XXI D & E
64. Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities XV J
65. Mining Waste Exclusion I I J(1)
Continued...
49 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 |Pr,nt«d 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
I. Index to the checklist entries found in the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
Revision checklist number/name Subsections pertaining to checklist
66. Land Disposal Restrictions; Correction
to First Third Scheduled Wastes XXI C
67. Testing and Monitoring Activities IK
68. Reportable Quantity Adjustment Methyl
Bromide Production Waste I A(13)
69. Reportable Quantity Adjustment I A(14)
70. Changes to Part 124 Not Accounted
for by Present Checklists XVI V
71. Mining Waste Exclusion II I J(2); VII E
72. Modification of F019 Listing I A(15)
73. Testing and Monitoring Activities;
Technical Corrections IK
74. Toxicity Characteristic Revisions I L
75. Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Production Wastes I A(16)
76. Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes;
Technical Amendment I M
77. HSWA Codification Rule, Double Liners;
Correction XVII B{1)
78. Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes I A(17); XXI F & G
79. Organic Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks . . I N; XV K
80. Toxicity Characteristic; Hydrocarbon
Recovery Operations I O
81. Petroleum Refinery Primary and
Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation
Sludge Listings (F037 and F038) I A(18); I P
82. Wood Preserving Listings I A(19); I Q & R, XV L, XVI W
83. Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes; Technical
Amendments I A(17); XXI F & G
84 Toxicity Characteristic;
Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants IS
85. Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces I T & U; II B; XVI X; XX C
86. Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the
List of Hazardous Waste; Technical
Amendment . I A(12)
Continued...
50 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 lPrmi«j 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
I. Index to the checklist entries found in the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement (cont'd)
Revision checklist number/name Subsections pertaining to checklist
87. Organic Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks;
Technical Amendment XV K
88. Administrative Stay for K069 Listing ... I A(20)
89. Revision to F037 and F038 Listings ... I A(21)
90. Mining Exclusion III I J(2)
91. Administrative Stay for F032, F034
and F035 Listings I A(22); XV M
51 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Print*: 3/19/93]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
II. Index to the non-checklist entries found in the
Model Revision Attorney General's Statement
Description Pertinent subsections
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, making assessment information
available to XVIII B
Availability of Information XIX A(1)-(5)
Burning and blending of hazardous waste,
RCRA §§3004(q)(2)(A) & 3004(r)(2) & (3)
exceptions XII B
Criminal penalties for waste fuel and
used oil fuel requirement violations XX B
Radioactive mixed wastes, hazardous
components of I G
Surface Impoundments:
1. existing units subject to Sub-
title C on November 8, 1984,
must comply with new unit
requirements by November 8, 1988
or stop hazardous waste activity;
newly regulated surface
impoundments must comply
within 4 years after listing or
characteristic is promulgated
(after November 8, 1984) XVI 1(1)
2. disposal of waste prohibited from
land disposal under RCRA §3004(d),
(e) or (g) Not Needed1'
3. variance under RCRA §3005(j)(2-9)
and (13) XVI l(2)
Third party direct action against financial
responsibility insurer or granter Not Delegable
I/ These requirements are taken care of when State adopts an analog to 40 CFR
268.4, per the Land Disposal Restriction checklists.
52 DAGREV11 - 6/30/92 (Printed: 3/1093)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Checklist Linkage Table
The following pages (numbered 3 through 7)
should replace pages 3 through 6 of
SAM Appendix H
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
Revision Checklist Linkage Table
as of June 30, 1991
Revision Linked
Checklist Number Checklists Topic or Explanation
1 17 D, 30 Biennial Report
2 — Permit - Settlement Agreement1
3 10 Interim Status - Applicability
4 — Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Listing
5 17 0,32,58 National Uniform Manifest Requirements
6 — Permit - Settlement Agreement1
7 — Warfarin & Zinc Phosphate Listing
8 13 Lime Stabilized Pickle Liquor Sludge
9 17 C Household Waste Exclusion
10 3 Interim Status - Applicability
11 35,67,73 Corrections to Test Methods Manual
12 — Satellite Accumulation
13 8,37 Definition of Solid Waste
14 — Dioxin Waste Listing and Management
Standards
15 — Landfill Interim Status
16 25 Paint Filter Test
17 A2 23,42,47 Small Quantity Generators
17 B — Delisting
17 C 9 Household Waste Exclusion
17 D 1,5,30,32,58 Biennial Report/National Uniform Manifest
17 E — Salt Domes, Salt Beds, Underground
Mines and Caves Standards
17 F — Liquids in Landfills
17 G — Dust Suppression
17 H 77 Double Liners
171 — Ground-Water Monitoring
17 J — Cement Kilns
17 K3 19 Fuel Labeling
17 L — Corrective Action
17 M — Pre-construction Ban
17 N — Permit Life
17 O — Omnibus Provision
Continued...
3 DLINK11 - 8/28/91 [Print*: 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision Checklist Linkage Table (cont'd) SPA 11
Revision
Checklist Number
17 P
17 Q
17 R4
17 S
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28e
Linked
Checklists
...
31,48
85
22
20
17 A.42,47
64
16
43
52
46
Topic or Explanation
Interim Status
Research and Development Permits
Hazardous Waste Exports
Exposure Information
TDI, TDA, & DNT Listing
Waste Fuel/Used Oil Fuel
Spent Solvents Listing
EDB Waste Listing
Four Spent Solvents Listing
Small Quantity Generators
Financial Responsibility - Settlement
Agreement
Paint Filter Test
Spent Pickle Liquor Listing
Corporate Guarantee
Hazardous Waste Tank Systems
Listings - 261 .33(e)&(f) and Associated
Appendices
30 1,17 D Biennial Report
31 17 R,48 Exports of Hazardous Waste
32 5,17 D.58 National Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest
33 — EDBC Listing
34 39,50,62,63,66,78,83 Land Disposal Restrictions
35 11,67,73 Corrections - Test Methods Manual
36 — Surface Impoundments: Closure/Post
Closure Care
37 13 Definition of Solid Waste
38 — Part B Information Requirements
Amendment
39 34,50,62,63,66,78,83 Land Disposal Restrictions
40 -- List of Hazardous Constituents for
Ground-Water Monitoring
41 --- Container/Liner Residues
42 17 A.23,47 Small Quantity Generators
Continued...
DLINK11 - 8/28/91 [Print*: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision Checklist Linkage Table (cont'd) SPA 11
Revision Linked
Checklist Number Checklists Topic or Explanation
43 27 Corporate Guarantee
44 A — Permits/Corrective Action
44 B — Corrective Action Beyond Facility
Boundary
44 C — Corrective Action for Injection Wells
44 D 54 Permit Modification
44 E •— Permit as a Shield Provision
44 F — Permit Conditions/Health-Environment
44 G — Post-Closure Permits, Scope of
Requirement
45 59 Miscellaneous Units
46 29 Listings 261.33(e),(f) and Associated
Appendices
47 17 A.23,42 Small Quantity Generators
48 17 R,31 Hazardous Waste Exports
49 — Sample Exemption
50 34,39,62,63,66,78,83 Land Disposal Restrictions
51 — Liability Coverage
52 28 Hazardous Waste Tank Systems
53 — Smelting Waste Listing
54 44 D Permit Modification
55 — Ground-Water Monitoring Statistical
Methods
56 .-- Iron Dextran Listing Removal
57 86 Strontium Sulfide Listing Removal
58 5,17 D,32 National Uniform Manifest
59 45 Miscellaneous Units
60 — Incinerator Permits
61 — Changes to Interim Status Facilities
Reconstruction Limits
54 Modifications to Hazardous Waste
Management Permits (270.42
Appendix)
Procedures for Post-closure Permitting
62 34,39,50,63,66,78,83 Land Disposal Restrictions
63 34,39,50,62,66,78,83 Land Disposal Restrictions
Continued...
DLINK11 - 8/28/91 (Printed: 11/12/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision Checklist Linkage Table (cont'd) SPA 11
Revision Linked
Checklist Number Checklists Topic or Explanation
64 24 Delay of Closure Period for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
65 71,90 Mining Waste Exclusion I
66 34,39,50,62,63,78,83 Land Disposal Restrictions
67 11,35,73 Testing and Monitoring Activities
68 — Methyl Bromide Production Wastes
69 — Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
Production Wastes
70 — Updates to Part 124
71 65,90 Mining Waste Exclusion II
72 — Modification of F019 Listing
73 11,35,67 Analytical Test Methods
74 80,84 Revision of Toxicity Characteristics
75 — 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine Production Wastes
Listing
76 — Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes
77 17 H Corrections - Double Liners
78 34,39,50,62,66,83 Land Disposal Restrictions
79 87 Organic Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks
80 74,84 Toxicity Characteristic; Hydrocarbon
Recovery Operations
81 89 Petroleum Refinery Primary and
Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation
Sludge Listings (F037 and F038)
82 91 Wood Preserving Listings
83 34,39,50,62,63,66,78 Land Disposal Restrictions
84 74,80 Toxicity Characteristic
85 19 Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers
and Industrial Furnaces
86 57 Strontium Sulfide Listing Removal
87 79 Organic Air Emission Standards for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks
88 Administrative Stay for K069 Listing
89 81 Revision to F037 and F038 Listing
90 65,71 Mining Waste III
Continued...
6 DLINK11 - 8/28/91[Pnnt«J: 11/12/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Revision Checklist Linkage Table (cont'd) SPA 11
Revision
Checklist Number
91
Linked
Checklists
82
Topic or Explanation
Administrative Stay for Wood Preserving
Wastes
* These are checklists affecting the lists of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261, Subpart D.
1 While Revision Checklists 2 and 6 address similar topics, they affect different sections of
code.
2 Superseded by Revision Checklist 23.
3 Superseded by Revision Checklist 19.
4 Superseded by Revision Checklist 31.
5 Contains sections superseded by Revision Checklist 52.
6 Superseded by Revision Checklist 46.
DLINK11 - 8/28/91 |Print»d: 11/12/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
Consolidated Land Disposal Restrictions Checklist
The attached checklist is updated through June 30 1991
and includes the technical amendments made to the Third Third rule
by 56 FR 3864 (January 31, 1991; Revision Checklist 83).
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST
•-. for the
Land Disposal Restrictions as of June 30, 1991
1) This checklist consolidates the changes to Federal code addressed by the following Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) checklists: Revision Checklist 34 [51 FR 40572 (November 7, 1986), 52 FR 21010
(June 4, 1987)]; Revision Checklist 39 [52 FR 25760 (July 8, 1987), 52 FR 41295 (October 27,
1987)]; Revision Checklist 50 [53 FR 31138 (August 17, 1988); 54 FR 8264 (February 27, 1989)];
Revision Checklist 62 [54 FR 18836 (May 2, 1989)]; Revision Checklist 63 [54 FR 26594 (June 23,
1989)]; Revision Checklist 66 [54 FR 36967 (September 6, 1989), 55 FR 23935 (June 13, 1990)];
Revision Checklist 78 [55 FR 22520 (June 1, 1990)]; and Revision Checklist 83 [56 FR 3864 (January
31, 1991)]. The "LDR Checklist Reference" column indicates which of these checklists have affected
each listed citation. Subsequent to promulgation of the first LDR rule (i.e., the rule addressed by
Revision Checklist 34), checklists other than the LDR checklists have also affected certain sections of
code addressed by the LDR checklists. The effects of these subsequent checklists are indicated in
footnotes. Of special note are 270.42(o)&(p) and 270.72(e). In both cases, subsequent checklists
eiither removed or redesignated these sections of code. The section numbering found in the
associated LDR final rule for these paragraphs is used, rather than the new numbering found in the
subsequent checklists.
An exception to the footnoting procedure is the effect which the Toxicity Characteristics Rule had on
the TCLP procedure. Because the new TCLP procedure is integral to the Third Third Rule
requirements (see Note 6 below), this change made by Revision Checklist 74, a non-LDR checklist, is
(noted in the LDR checklist reference column. An explanatory footnote is also included.
2) The following Part 268 sections are not delegable to States because of the national concerns
which must be examined when decisions are made relative to them: 268.5 (case-by-case effective
date extensions); 268.42(b) (application for alternate treatment method); and 268.44 (variance from a
treatment standard). "No migration" petitions under 268.6 will be handled by EPA, even though
States may be authorized to grant such petitions in the future. States have the authority to grant
such petitions under RCRA Section 3006 because such decisions do not require a national
perspective, as is the case for decisions under 268.5, 268.42(b) or 268.44. However, EPA has had
few opportunities to implement the land disposal restrictions and expects to gain valuable experience
and information from reviewing "no-migration" petitions.
3) In the past, the nondelegable sections/paragraphs of the LDR regulations have been omitted from
ttie LDR checklists because States could not assume the authority for them. However, this procedure
has led to confusion among the States on how to handle the sections/paragraphs in their code. For
this reason, the Agency has decided to include these nondelegable sections on the LDR checklists.
To differentiate these sections from the delegable portions of the LDR restrictions, asterisks precede
(a single row) and follow (a double row) each non-delegable section. If States have already filled out
a version of this Consolidated Land Disposal Restriction Checklist which does not include the
nondelegable sections, they need not fill out a revised version containing these sections. This change
in format was made only to improve clarity.
Page 1 of 71 DLDRH.H -2/7/92 print**
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
The Agency suggests that States incorporate the nondelegable portions of the LDR regulations into
their regulations because this incorporation aids the regulated community in knowing that the
extensions, exemptions and variances addressed by the nondelegable sections of code are available
to them. It is essential, however, that States leave the terms "Administrator", "Federal Register" and
"Agency" unchanged, i.e., States may not substitute analogous State terms for these Federal terms.
Similarly, States incorporating by reference must be careful to exclude these sections from blanket
substitutions of State terms for Federal terms. For a more complete discussion of issues surrounding
nondelegable sections, see Appendix J of the State Authorization Manual (SAM).
4) Note that while 268.40 is delegable to States, "Administrator" in the following phrase "Approved by
the Administrator under the procedures set for this in 268.42(b)" should not be replaced with an
analogous State term because it is referring to decisions under 268.42(b). Such decisions will be
made by the EPA Administrator.
5) States do not need to adopt requirements equivalent to 40 CFR 268.10, 268.11, 268.12 and
268.13 because these sections of code contain the schedule by which EPA must evaluate wastes for
land disposal restrictions. As such, these sections of code are not included in this consolidated
checklist.
6) Note that the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) referred to by the Third Third
Scheduled Waste Rule is the TCLP entered into the Federal code at 40 CFR 261 Appendix II by the
Toxicity Characteristic Rule (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990) and amended at 55 FR 26986 (June 29,
1990). (Both the Toxicity Characteristic Rule and the June amendment are addressed by Revision^
Checklist 74.) The TCLP procedure previously located at 40 CFR Part 268, Appendix I and
introduced by the Solvents and Dioxins Land Disposal Restrictions Rule (51 FR 40572; November 77"
1 986; Revision Checklist 34) is the outdated version of the TCLP. Thus, States adopting the Third
Third Scheduled Waste Rule must also adopt the new version of the TCLP. If a State has already
adopted the Revision Checklist 34 TCLP, this version must be replaced with the Revision Checklist 74
TCLP. See Footnote 41 of this checklist.
7) Guidance regarding the use of the new TCLP versus the EP Toxicity Test may be found at 55 FR
22660 (June 1 , 1 990). The code (40 CFR 268.41 (a)) addressing this issue contains a serious
technical error which is discussed in Footnote 36 found at the e.nd of this checklist.
8) Adopting the alternate treatment standards for lab packs is optional. However, if a State chooses
to adopt these alternate standards, all of the requirements related to these standards must be
adopted, including all of the provisions added by the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule (i.e., Revision
Checklist 78) at 264.31 6(f), 265.31 6(f), 268.7(a)(8), 268.7(a)(9), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and
Appendices IV and V to Part 268.
Page 2 of 71 DLDRH.H - 2/7/92 [Pnnt«j;
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
\
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUI^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 260 - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
insert
"and 268"
34
34
34
34
34
260.1 (a)
260.1 (b)(1)
260.1 (W(2)
260.1 (b)(3)
260.1 (b)(4)
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
Rsert
jnd 268"
insert
"and 268"
34
34
260.2(a)
260.2(b)
USE OF NUMBER AND GENDER
insert
"and 268"
34
260.3
SUBPART B - DEFINITIONS
DiEFINITIONS
insert
"and 268"
34
260.10
REFERENCES
1 ,2 Parts 260
throuah 270
39
260.11(a)
Page 3 of 71
DLDR11.11 -2/7/92 |Pnnt«d: 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA
(
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS.
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS
GENERAL
insert
"and 268"
t34
260.20(a)
PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
insert
"268."
insert
", 268"
34
34
261.1(a)
261.1(a)(1)
DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
add parenthetical
phrase regarding
characteristic waste,
no longer exhibiting
a characteristic, that
still may be subject
to 268 requirements
83
261.3(d)m
EXCLUSIONS
insert
"268,"
remove "267" and
insert "268"
34
34
261 .4(c)
261.4(d)(1)
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED BY
CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
insert
". 268."
insert
". 268."
insert
". 268."
3 insert
". 268."
34
34
34
34
261 .5(b)
261 .5(c)
261.5(e)
261.5(f)(2)
Page 4 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Pnnt*d: 11/13/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
insert
", 268."
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
261.5(a)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
insert
"OCO "
<:bo,
insert
"268."
34
34
261 .6(a)(3)
261.6(c)m
RESIDUES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN EMPTY CONTAINERS
insert
"268,"
insert
"268."
34
34
261.7(a)(1)(ii)
261.7(aK2)(ii)
SUBPART C - CHARACTERISTICS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERAL
insert "268,";
remove ", but is not
listed as a hazardous
waste in Subpart D";
change "the EPA"
to "every EPA";
insert "that is
applicable as"
before "set forth";
remove "in the
respective charac-
teristic" before "in
this Subpart"; insert
"used" after This
number must be";
before
"recordkeeping"
change "certain" to
"all applicable"
34,78.83
261 .20(b)
CHARACTERISTIC OF IGNITABILITY
romove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Suboart D."
78
261.2Kb)
Page 5 of 71
DLDR11.11 -2/7/92 [Pnm«j 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPAO1
1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUI\T
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
CHARACTERISTIC OF CORROSIVITY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Subpart D,"
78
261 .22(b)
CHARACTERISTIC OF REACTIVITY
remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Subpart D."
78
261 .23(b)
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC
4 remove ", but is
not listed as a
hazardous waste
in Subpart D."
78
261.24(b)
SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
GENERAL
insert
"268,"
34
261 .30(c)
HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
add the waste
"F039" in
alphanumeric
order to list
78.83
261.31(a)
DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES,
CONTAINER RESIDUES AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF
5 insert "or (f)"
after "(e)";
change "261 .7(b)(3)n
to "261.7(br
78
261.33(c)
APPENDIX VII, PART 261
BASIS FOR LISTING
HAZARDOUS WASTE
add "F039" to list
in alphanumeric order
78
Appendix VII
Page 6 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Pnm«d 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FE:DERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 262 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE DETERMINATION
in the first sentence,
replace "If" with
"For purposes
of compliance with
40 CFR Part 268, or
if"; remove "as a
hiizardous waste"
alter "listed";
replace "he must
determine" with
"the generator must
|then determine"
Reference to
exclusions/
restrictions
78.83
34
262.1 1(c)
262.1 1(d)
SUBPART C - PRE-TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
ACCUMULATION TIME
replace "and with
§265.16" with
", with §265.16,
and with 40 CFR
2<58.7(a)(4V
replace "and"
between "section"
and "the require-
ments" with ";" and
add "the require-
ments of
40 CFR 268.7(a)(4)"
78
83
262.34(a)(4)
262.34(d)(4)
Page 7 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART G - FARMERS
6
FARMERS
pesticide disposal
bv farmers
t39
262.70
PART 263 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
SUBPART A - GENERAL
TRANSFER FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS
insert
". 268"
34
263.
12
PART 264 - STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART A - GENERAL
7
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
facilities to which
Part 264 applies
34
264.
KM
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
7,8 insert
"Part 268"
revise comment
following paragraph
(a)(2) as follows:
remove "or all" after
"supply part"; add
", except as other-
wise specified in
40 CFR 268.7(b)
and (c)." to the
second sentence
34
78
264.1 3(a)(1)
264.1 3(a)(2)
Page 8 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed 11'13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
insert
"268.7"
exempted surface
impoundment plan
specifications
sampling impound-
ment contents
analysis procedures
annual removal
of specific residues;
criteria:
do not meet treatment
standards of Part
268, Suboart D
where no treatment
standards have been
established
prohibited disposal
|0t: residues under
268.32 or
RCRA 3004(d)
prohibited disposal
of residues
under 268.33(f)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34
34,39
50
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.1 3(b)(6)
264.1 3(b)(7)
264.1 3(b)(7)(i)
264.1 3(b)(7)(ii)
264.1 3(b)(7)(iii)
264.1 3(b)(7)(iii)(A)
264.1 3(b)(7)(iii)(B)
264.1 3(b)(7)(iii)(B)m
264.1 3(bH7)(iii)(B)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUlT^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
OPERATING RECORD
add "268.4(a)"
and "268.7"
records for each
shipment placed in
units under a 268.5
extension, a 268.6
petition, or a 268.8
certification; 268.7(a)
Generator notice
oil-site treatment
facility requirements
on-site treatment
facility requirements
34
34.50
34,50
34,50
264.73(b)(3)
264.73(b)(10)
264.73(bH11)
264.73(b)(12)
Page 9 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnnt»d 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA,
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
1^
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
off-site land
disposal facility
reauirements
7 on-site land
disposal facility
reauirements
off-site storage
facility reauirements
on-site storage
facility reauirements
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34,50
34.50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
264.73(b)(13)
264.73(b)(14)
264.73(b)(15)
264.73(b)(16)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste
and impoundment satisfy
all applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR Part
268, and" after
"unless"
78
264.229
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste and
waste pile satisfy all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268,
and" after "unless"
78
264.256
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste and the
treatment zone meet all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268,
and" after "unless"
78
264.281
Page 10 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Print«d. 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
replace "in treated,
rendered, or mixed
before or immediately
after placement in a
landfill so that:" with
"and landfill meet all
applicable requirements
of Part 268, and:"
begin the first
sentence with "Except
for prohibited wastes
which remain subject
to treatment standards
jn Subpart D of
Fart 268."
78
78
264.312(3)
264.3 12(b)
DISPOSAL OF SMALL CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN OVERPACKED
DRUMS (LAB PACKS)
t,9
acid new paragraph
regarding disposal in
compliance with Part
268; requirement for
fiber drums to meet
DOT specifications
and 264.3 16(b)
requirements if
incinerate lab packs
78
264.3 16(f)
Page 11 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Prim«d: 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 265 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE. AND APPLICABILITY
facilities to which
Part 265 applies;
Part 268 standards
are material condi-
tions of the 265
standards
34,78
265.1(e)
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
insert
Tart 268"
revise comment
following subparagraph
(a)(2) as follows:
remove "or all" after
"supply part"; add
", except as otherwise
specified in 40 CFR
268.7(b) and (c)."
to the second
sentence
insert
"268.7"
exempt surface
impoundment plan
specifications
sampling impound-
ment contents
analysis
procedures
annual removal of
specific residues;
criteria:
34
78
34
34
34
34
34,39
50
265.1 3(a)m
265.1 3(aM2)
265.1 3(bK6)
265.1 3(b)(7)
265.1 3(bM7Mi)
265.1 3(b)m(ii)
265.1 3(b)(7Miii)
8
Page 12 of 71
DLDR11.11 -2/7/92 (Printed: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
do not meet treatment
standards of Part
268, Subpart D
where no treatment
standards have been
established
prohibited disposal
of residues under
2(58.32 or
RCRA 3004(d)
prohibited disposal
ol residues under
2(38.33(f)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
265.1 3(b)(7)(iii)(A)
265.1 3(b)(7)(iii)(B)
265.1 3(b)(7)(iii)(B)(1)
265.1 3(b)(7)(iii)(B)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART E - MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
OPERATING RECORD
.add "268.4(a)"
bud "268.7"
records for each
shipment placed in
units under a 268.5
extension, a 268.6
petition, or a 268.8
cesrtification; 268.7(a)
generation notice
olf-site treatment
facility requirements
on-site treatment
facility requirements
off-site land disposal
facility requirements
on-site land disposal
facility requirements
off-site storage
facility requirements
on-site storage
facility requirements
34
34.50
34.50
34.50
34.50
34.50
50
50
265.73(b)(3)
265.73(bK8)
265.73(bH9)
265.73(b)(10)
265.73(bH11)
265.73(bW12)
265.73(b)(13)
265.73(bK14)
Page 13 of 71
DLDR11.11 -2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART K - SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste
and impoundment satisfy
all applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR Part
268, and" after
"unless"
78
265.229
SUBPART L - WASTE PILES
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste and
pile satisfy all
applicable requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268,
and" after "unless"
78
265.256
SUBPART M - LAND TREATMENT
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
insert "the waste and
treatment zone meet
all applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR
Part 268, and" after
"unless"
78
265.281
Page 14 of 71
DLDR11.11 • 2/7/92 |Prinl«d: 1V13/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
^
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART N - LANDFILLS
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE
replace "is treated,
rendered, or mixed
before or immediately
after placement in a
landfill so that:" with
"and landfill meets all
applicable require-
ments of 40 CFR
Part 268. and:"
bog in the first
sentence with "Except
for prohibited wastes
which remain subject
to treatment standards
In Subpart D of
Part 268."
78
78
265.312(a)
265.31 2(b)
t,9
DISPOSAL OF SMALL CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN OVERPACKED
DRUMS (LAB PACKS)
acid new paragraph
regarding disposal in
compliance with Part
268; requirement for
fiber drums to meet
DOT specifications
and 265.31 6(b)
requirements if
incinerate lab packs
78
265.31 6(f)
Page 15 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Pnm»d 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-I MORE
ALENTI STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 266 - STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS WASTES AND
SPECIFIC TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
SUBPART C - RECYCLABLE MATERIALS USED IN A MANNER CONSTITUTING DISPOSAL
APPLICABILITY
add language to
reflect that products
for general public's
use are not subject
to regulation if they
meet treatment
requirements of 268
Subpart D or prohibi-
tion levels of 268.32
or 3004(d) where no
treatment standards;
delete the word
"constituent" from
the parenthetical
phrase following
"recyclable material";
add sentence exempting
from regulation
commercial fertilizers
produced for the
general public's use
that contain recyclable
materials; zinc-
containing fertilizers
using K061 not
subject to this
requirement
50.66
266.20(b)
rf-
Page 16 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnnwa 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
PART 268 - LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUBPART A - GENERAL
PURPOSE. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
purpose
applicability
conditions for con-
tinued land disposal:
7 persons with an
extension
7 persons with an
exemption
A-wastes that are
hazardous only
because they exhibit
a hazardous charac-
teristic, and which
are otherwise pro-
hibited from land
disposal, are not
prohibited from land
disposal if
the wastes:
disposed into
a nonhazardous or
hazardous injection
well as defined in
40 CFR 144.6(a)
do not exhibit
any prohibited
characteristic of
hazardous waste at
the point of injection
1 1 removed
12 removed
34
34
34.66
34
34
34,39,50
66,78
78
78
34,39,
50,66
39,48,
50.78
268.1 (a)
268.1 (b)
268.1 (c)
268.1 (c)(1)
268.1 (c)(2)
268.1(0)8)
268.1 (c)8)(i)
268.1 (c)(3)(ii)
268.1 (c)(4)
268.1 (c)(5)
•
Page 17 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Primed: 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPAJi
lr
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
preserve waiver
availability under
121(d)(4) of CERCLA
wastes which are not
subject to any
provisions of
Part 268:
wastes generated by
generators of less
than 100 kg of
hazardous waste or
less than 1 kg of
acute hazardous
waste, as defined
in 261.5
waste pesticides that
a farmer disposes
pursuant to 262.70
wastes identified or
listed as hazardous
after November 8,
1984 for which EPA
has not promulgated
land disposal
prohibitions or
treatment standards
I CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
66
66
66
66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.1 (d)
268.1(6)
268.1 (e)(1)
268.1 (e)(2)
268.1 (e)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
— STATE ANALCxS IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PART
introductory paragraph
reqardinq definitions
"halogenated
organic compounds"
or "HOCs"
13 "hazardous
constituent or
constituents"
13 "land disposal"
"nonwastewaters"
14 "polychlorinated
biphenyls" or
"PCBs"
"wastewaters"
78
39.78
34.78
34,39,
78
78.83
39.78
78
268.2
268.2(a)
268.2(b)
268.2(c)
268.2(d)
268.2(e)
268.2(f)
•
Page 18 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printed: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
(r
FEIDERAL REQUIREMENT
"F001, F002, F003
F004, F005 solvent-
water mixtures"
"K011, K013, K014
wastewaters"
"K103 and K104
wastewaters"
"inorganic solid
debris"; specific
inorganic or metal
materials:
metal slaas
classified slaa
glass
.concrete
[masonry and
refractory bricks
metal cans,
containers, drums
or tanks
metal nuts, bolts,
pipes, pumps, valves,
appliances, or
industrial equipment
scrap metal as
defined in
40 CFR 261.1(c)(6)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78,83
78,83
78
78,83
78.83
78,83
78,83
78,83
78,83
78.83
78,83
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.2(f)(1)
268.2(W2)
268.2(f)(3)
268.2(0)
268.2(Q)m
268.2(q)(2)
268.2(d)(3)
268.2(d)(4)
268.2(a)(5)
268.2(a)(6)
268.2(q)(7)
268.2(q)(8)
ANALCX3OUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
DILUTION PROHIBITED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TREATMENT
15 except as provided
in 268.3(b),
dilution not
substitute for
treatment; restriction
regarding circumven-
tion of effective dates
and avoidance of
prohibition of Subpart
C or RCRA 3004
34,39,
78
268.3(a)
Page 19 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Prim»d 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA.U.
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
permissible forms
of dilution related
to Sections 307 or
402 of the CWA
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.3(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
f TREATMENT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTION
when prohibited
wastes may be
treated in a surface
impoundment
treatment occurs in
impoundments
soft hammer wastes
in treatment surface
impoundments that
meet a list of
conditions:
sampling and testing
requirements for
wastes with and
without treatment
standards; super-
natant and sludge
samples tested
separately
annual removal of
specific residues;
residues subject to
valid certification;
flow-through standard
of removal for
supernatant
requirements for
subsequent manage-
ment of treatment
residues in another
impoundment; pro-
hibited unless
certification under
268.8 and standards
of 268.8(a) are met
34
34
34,39,
50
50
50
50
268.4(a)
268.4(a)(1)
268.4(a)(2)
268.4(a)(2M)
268.4(aV2Hii)
268.4(a)(2)(iii)
Page 20 of 71
DLDR11.11 -2/7/92 [Printed: 1V13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
recordkeeping
requirements must
b€i specified in the
facility's waste
analysis plan
design requirements/
exemptions
exempt under
2€i4.221(d) or (e) or
265.221 (c) or (d)
conditions under
which Administrator
grants waiver of
requirements;
meets §3005(i)(2)
.modification granted
pri basis of a demon-
stration of no migra-
tion into groundwater
or surface water at
any future time;
satisfies §3005(j)(11)
no miqration
SLibmittal of written
certification and waste
analysis plan
evaporation of hazard-
ous constituents not
considered treatment
for exemption purposes
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
34
34
34
34
34
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.4(a)(2)(iv)
268.4(a)(3)
268.4(a)(3)(i)
268.4(aM3)(iil
268.4(aW3)(ii)(A)
268.4(a)(3)(in(B)
268.4(aM3)(io(C)
268.4(a)(3Kiii)
268.4(a)(4)
268.4(b)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 21 of 71
DLDR11.11 -2/7/92 |Pnnt«d: 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
i
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
**************************************************************************************************
Guidance note: 268.5 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PROCEDURES FOR CASE-BY-CASE EXTENSIONS TO AN EFFECTIVE DATE
application to EPA
Administrator for an
extension to effective
date of any Part 268,
Subpart C restriction;
what the applicant
must demonstrate:
good-faith effort to
locate and contract
with treatment,
recovery, or disposal
facilities nationwide
to manage waste
according to
Subpart C
effective date
binding contractual
commitment to con-
struct or provide
alternate treatment,
recovery (e.g., re-
cycling), or disposal
capacity that meets
Subpart D treatment
standards; require-
ments when no treat-
ment standards
demonstration that
alternative capacity
cannot reasonably
be available
by effective date
due to circumstances
beyond applicant's
control; how this must
be demonstrated
34
34
34.39
34
268.5(a)
268.5(a)(1)
268.5(a)(2)
268.5(a)(3)
Page 22 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Print*): 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
L
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
capacity being con-
structed or provided
by applicant must be
sufficient to manage
entire quantity
of waste
detailed schedule for
obtaining required
permits or outline of
how and when alter-
nate capacity will be
available
arranged for adequate
capacity during exten-
sion and documented
in all site locations
where wastes will be
managed
.surface impoundment
Pbr landfill used must
meet 268.5(h)(2)
requirements
certification by
authorized represen-
tative signing an
application
Administrator may
request additional
information
extension applies
only to waste
generated at
individual facility
covered by
extension
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(a)(4)
268.5(a)(5)
268.5(a)(6)
268.5(aK7)
268.5(b)
268.5(c)
268.5(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"Kinv^
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 23 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Prints 11/13/921'
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
Administrator may
grant extension of up
to 1 year from
effective date;
extension for 1
additional year if
268.5(a) demon-
stration can still be
made; no extension
beyond 24 months
from 268, Subpart C
effective date; length
of extension deter-
mined by Admini-
strator and basis;
public notice and
comment; final
decision published in
Federal Reaister
notify Administrator of
change in
certified conditions
written progress re-
ports at intervals
designated by Admini-
strator; what progress
reports must include;
conditions for revoca-
tion of extension by
Administrator
during period establi-
shed by Administrator
for which extension is
in effect:
268.5(a) storage
restrictions do not
aoolv
conditions for dis-
posal in landfill or
surface impoundment
regardless of whether
unit is existing,
new, replacement or
lateral extension
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34
34.39
34.50.66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(e)
268.5(f)
268.5(0)
268.5(h)
268.5(h)(1)
268.5(h)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 24 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnnt»d: 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FIEDERAL REQUIREMENT
interim status landfill
requirements
permitted landfill
requirements
interim status surface
impoundment
requirements
permitted surface
impoundment
requirements
requirements for
landfills disposing
of specified PCB
waste
pending decision on
application, com-
pliance with all legal
disposal restrictions
once effective date
has been reached
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34,39
34
39
34
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.5(h)(2)(i)
268.5(h)(2)(ii)
268.5(h)(2)(iii)
268.5(h)(2)(iv)
268.5(hK2)M
268.5(0
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
******************]
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
********
MORE
STRINGENT
*************
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i***********
A*************************************************************************************************************************
Til ************************************************************************************************************************
Guidance note: 268.6 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
PETITIONS TO ALLOW LAND DISPOSAL OF A WASTE PROHIBITED
UNDER SUBPART C OF PART 268
submit petition to
Administrator;
demonstration of
no waste migration;
demonstration
components
identify specific
unit and waste
waste analysis
comprehensive
disposal unit
characterization
34
34
34
34
268.6(a)
268.6(a)(1)
268.6(a)(2)
268.6(a)(3)
Page 25 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Prints 11/11/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring plan
detecting migration
at the earliest time
sufficient information
to assure Adminis-
trator that owner/
operator is in com-
pliance with other
applicable Federal,
State and local laws
demonstration
criteria:
data must be accu-
rate and reproducible
Administrator approved
sampling, testing and
estimation techniques
model calibration;
models verified
with actual data
quality assurance/
control plan approved
bv Administrator
uncertainty
analysis
what each petition
must include:
monitoring plan inclu-
ding description of
monitoring program to
verify continued com-
pliance with variance;
information which
must be included
media monitored
type of monitoring
monitoring
station location
monitoring interval
specific hazardous
constituents to
be monitored
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
34
34
34
34
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(a)(4)
268.6(a)(5)
268.6(b)
268.6(b)(1)
268.6(b)(2)
268.6(b)(3)
268.6(b)(4)
268.6(b)(5)
268.6(O
268.6(0(1)
268.6(0(1 Hi)
268.6(0(1 )(ii)
268.6(0(1 )(iii)
268.6(0(1 )(iv)
268.6(0(1 )(v)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
16
Page 26 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnm«d 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
monitoring program
implementation
schedule
monitoring
station equipment
sampling and
analytical techniques
employed
data
recording/reporting
procedures
268.6(c)(1) monitoring
program must be in
place by Administrator
specified time period,
as part of approval
of the petition,
prior to prohibited
^waste receipt at unit
E68.6(c)(1) monitoring
data sent to Admini-
strator according to
monitoring plan must
be according to
approved format and
schedule
monitoring data as per
268.6(c)(1) monitoring
plan must be kept
in on-site
operating record
criteria the 268.6(c)(1)
monitoring program
must meet:
Administrator approval
for all sampling,
testing, and analytical
data; data accurate
and reproducible
Administrator approval
of all estimation and
monitorinq techniques
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(O(1)(vi)
268.6(0(1 )(vii)
268.6(0(1 Hviii)
268.6(0(1 )(ix)
268.6(0(2)
268.6(0(3)
268.6(0(4)
268.5(0(5)
268.6(O(5)(i)
268.6(O(5)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 27 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printed 11/13/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
QA/QC plan for all
aspects of monitoring
program provided to
and approved by
Administrator
petition submitted
to Administrator
reporting of changes
at unit and/or
surrounding environ-
ment that signifi-
cantly depart from
variances and affect
miaration potential
changes to unit
design, construction
or operation proposed
in writing and a
demonstration to
Administrator 30 days
prior to change;
Administrator makes
determination if
petition is invalidated
and determines
appropriate response;
Administrator approval
before changes
can be made
within 10 days of
discovering change,
written notification to
Administrator if
condition is not as
predicted or modeled
in petition;
Administrator decides
if change requires
further action
owner/operator
responsibilities
if hazardous
waste miqration:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
34,50
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(cH5)(iii)
268.6(d)
268.6(6)
268.6(e)m
268.6(e)(2)
268.6W
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
16,17
18
19
Page 28 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Pnnt«d 11/13/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
immediate suspension
of prohibited waste
receipt
within 10 days
written notification
to Administrator
Administrator decision
within 60 days as to
continued receipt of
prohibited waste;
Administrator deter-
mines if further
examination of any
migration warranted
20 signed
statement
20 Administrator may
request additional
^information
^vaste unit to which
petition applies
20 Administrator gives
public notice in
Federal Register;
final decision in
Federal Register
20 term of petition
20 requirements prior
to Administrator's
decision
20 petition granted by
Administrator does
not relieve
responsibilities
under RCRA
21 noneligibility of
certain liquid PCB
wastes for "no
migration" petitions
under 268.6
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50,66
50
50
34.50
34.50
34.50
34.50
34.50
34.50
34,50
39.50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.6(fl(1)
268.6(W2)
268.6(W3)
268.6(a)
268.6(h)
268.6W
268.6(i)
268.6(k)
268.6(1)
268.6(m)
268.6(n)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
STATE ANALOG
MORE
STRINGENT
IS:
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*********************************************************************************************************
Page 29 of 71
DLDR11.11 • 2/7/92 [Print*): 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG" IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE ANALYSIS AND RECORDKEEPING
generator determines
if listed waste is a
restricted waste;
268.32 exception; if
characteristic is
exhibited, test
extract using 268,
Appendix IX methods
or use knowledge of
waste to determine
if restricted from
land disposal
if generator is manag-
ing restricted waste
that does not meet
applicable treatment
standards, must
notify treatment or
storage facility of
appropriate treatment
standards
information
the notice
must include
if managing restricted
waste that can be
land disposed without
further treatment,
notice and certifi-
cation to treatment,
storage, or land
disposal facility
34,39
50,83
34,39,
50
34
34,39,
78.83
34
34,39,
50
268.7(a)
268.7(aH1)
268.7(a)(1)(i)
268.7(a)(1)(ii)
268.7(a)(1)(iii)
268.7(a)(1)(iv)
268.7(a)(2)
Page 30 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Pnnt»d: 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER.DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
information required
in notice to treatment,
storage or land
disposal facility
codification
sianature/statement
7 for waste subject to
exemption from
prohibition (such as a
case-by-case 268.5
extension, 268.6
exemption or Subpart
kC nationwide capacity
^variance) on land
disposal method
used for the waste,
notice to receiving
facility that waste
is not prohibited
from land disposal
22 information the notice
must include
for prohibited waste
managed in tanks or
containers under
262.34 and treated to
meet 268 Subpart D
standards, waste
analysis plan to be
developed, followed
and kept on-site
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34,39,
78.83
34
34,39
34,50,
66
50
50,78.83
50
50,66,
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(2)(i)
268.7(a)(2)(i)(A)
268.7(a)(2)(i)(B)
268.7(a)(2)(i)(C)
268.7(a)(2)(i)(D)
268.7(a)(2)(ii)
268.7(a)(3)
268.7(a)(3Wi)
268.7(aM3)(ii)
268.7(a)(3)(iii)
268.7(a)(3)(iv)
268.7(a)(3)(v)
268.7(a)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 31 of 71
DLDR11.11 • 2/7/92 [Pnnt»d: 11-13(921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
t
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
waste analysis plan
based on detailed
chemical and physical
analysis of represen-
tative sample; contain
information necessary
to treat waste in
accordance with 268
requirements
file plan with EPA
Regional Admini-
strator or authorized
State 30 days prior
to treatment;
delivery verified
compliance with
268.7(a)(2)
notification
requirements for
wastes shipped
off-site
removed
maintenance of data
supporting knowledge
of waste; retention of
waste analysis data
on-site in files
conditions under
which a generator,
managing a restricted
waste excluded from
the definition of
hazardous or solid
waste, must place a
one-time notice in
the facility's file
containing specified
information
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50.78
50,78
50.78
50.78
34.50
83
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(4Hi)
268.7(a)(4Hii)
268.7(a)(4)(iii)
268.7(aM4HM
268.7(a)(5)
268.7(a)(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATTANALOG IS:""
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
23
23
23
23
7,24
Page 32 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printed: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
4
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
25 five-year retention
period for notices,
certifications,
demonstrations,
etc., produced
relative to 268.7;
extensions during
enforcement actions;
requirements apply to
solid wastes even
when hazard
characteristic is
removed prior to
disposal or when
waste excluded from
definition of
hazardous or solid
waste in 261.2-261.6
or exempted from
Subtitle C regulation
subsequent to the
point of qeneration
t, notice for a generator
9,25 managing a lab pack
that contains wastes
identified in
Appendix IV if use
alternative treatment
standards under
2I38.42;
2l58.7(a)(5)&(6)
compliance;
certification
t, notice for a
9,25 generator managing
a lab pack that
contains organic
wastes specified in
Appendix V if use
alternate treatment
standard under
2(38.42;
2(38.7(a)(5)&(6)
compliance;
certification
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50,83
78,83
78,83
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(7)
268.7(a)(8)
268.7(a)(9)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 33 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (PrintsH/13«2|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
25 notification and
certification
requirements for
small quantity
generators with
tolling agreements
pursuant to
40 CFR 262.20(6)
treatment facility
testing at frequency
specified in waste
analysis plan
testing when
standards are
expressed as
concentrations in
waste extract
testing of 268.32 or
3004(d) prohibited
wastes not subject to
Subpart D treatment
standards
testing for wastes
with treatment
standards expressed
as concentrations
in waste
26 notice with each
shipment by treat-
ment facility to
land disposal facility
26 information the
notice must include
27 certification of each
shipment
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78,83
34,39,
50
50
50
50
34,50
34.50
34,39,
50.78.83
34.50
34,39,
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(a)(10)
268.7(b)
268.7(b)(1)
268.7(b)(2)
268.7(b)(3)
268.7(b)(4)
268.7(b)(4)(i)
268.7(b)(4)(ii)
268.7(b)(4)(iii)
268.7(b)(4)(iv)
268.7(b)(5)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 34 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnnt«J: 11/13/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
27 certification
requirements for
wastes with treat-
ment standards
expressed as concen-
trations in the waste
extract or in the
waste, or for wastes
prohibited under
2i38.32 or RCRA
Section 3004(d)
which do not have
268, Subpart D treat-
ment standards
27 certification require-
ments for wastes with
treatment standards
expressed as
technologies
certification
requirements for
wastes with treat-
ment standards ex-
pressed as concen-
trations in the waste
pursuant to 268.43
compliance with
generator notice
and certification
requirements if
waste sent offsite
28 no 268.7(b)(4) notifi-
cation for recyclable
materials used in a
manner constituting
disposal and subject
to 266.20(b); with
each shipment
2>88.7(b)(5)
certification and
268.7(b)(4) notice
to Regional Adminis-
trator; records of
recipients of waste-
derived products
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34,39,
50,78
34.50
78
50
50,66
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(b)(5Wi)
268.7(b)(5)(in
268.7(b)(5)(iii)
268.7(b)(6)
268.7(b)(7)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 35 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Pnnt«d 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
;
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
29 requirements for
land disposal facility
except where the
owner or operator
is disposing
recyclable wastes
pursuant to 266.20(b):
29 have copies of notice
and certifications
under 268.7(a) or (b)
and certifications in
268.8 if applicable
29 test of waste or
extract; applicable
treatment standards
to be met; frequency
of testina
30 removed
30 removed
I CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34,39
50.78
34,39
50
39,50
50,78
66,78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.7(c)
268.7(c)(1)
268.7(0(2)
268.7(c)(3)
268.7(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG 15:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
LANDFILL AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
disposal of 268.33(f)
prohibited wastes in
landfills or surface
impoundments in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2) if
requirements of
268.8 are met;
section not in effect
as of Mav 8. 1990
good faith generator
effort to contract
with treatment and
recovery facilities
providing greatest
environmental benefit
specific requirements
for generator if no
practically available
treatment for waste:
50,78
50
50,66
268. 8(a)
268.8(a)(1)
268.8(a)(2)
Page 36 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 iPnnt«d 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FE-DERAL REQUIREMENT
prior to initial ship-
ment, demonstration
to Regional Adminis-
trator containing
specified lists and
written discussion;
certification; waste
shipment
for initial shipment,
demonstration and
certification sent
to receiving
facilities; certification
only for subsequent
shipments; generator
recordkeeping and
five-year retention
specific requirements
for generator if there
(are practically
available treatments
for waste:
prior to initial ship-
ment, demonstration
to Regional Adminis-
trator containing
specified lists and
written discussion;
certification; waste
shipment
with initial shipment
copy of demonstra-
tion and certification
sent to receiving
facilities; certification
only for subsequent
shipments; generator
recordkeeping and
five-vear retention
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50,66
50,66
50.66
66
66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(a)(2)(i)
268.8(a)(2)(ii)
268.8(a)(3)
268.8(a)(3)(i)
268.8(a)(3)(ii)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 37 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 IPrint»d: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
t
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
31 where there is prac-
tically available treat-
ment for waste prior
to disposal, copy of
demonstration and
certification submitted
to receiving facility
with initial shipment;
certification only for
subsequent shipments;
generator record-
keeping and five-year
retention
additional information
for certification if
requested by Regional
Administrator; sub-
mittal of new demon-
stration and certi-
fication as provided
in 268.8(a) to the
receivinq facility
notification when any
change in conditions
forming basis of
certification occurs
invalidation when
Regional Administra-
tor finds practically
available treatment
method or a method
yielding greater
environmental benefit
than certified
when certification is
invalidated, generator
must cease shipment,
communicate with
facilities receiving
waste, and keep
records of
communication
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50.66
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(a)(4)
268.80))
268.8(b)(1)
268.8(b)(2)
268.8(bK3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
•STATE"AW05 IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 38 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13«2|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
receiving treatment,
recovery or storage
facilities keep copy
of generator's
demonstration and
certification
receiving treatment,
storage or recovery
facility certify
waste treated accord-
ing to generator's
demonstration
for initial shipment,
treatment, recovery
or storage facility
must send copy of
generator's
demonstration and
^certification^)
Jto facility receiving
waste or treatment
residues; certification
only for subsequent
shipments, if
certification conditions
remain unchanged
disposal facility must
assure certification
prior to disposal in
landfill or surface
impoundment unit and
units in accordance
with 268.5(h)(2) for
wastes prohibited
under 268.33(f)
wastes may be
disposed in landfill
or surface impound-
ment meeting
268.5(h)(2) require-
ments if certified
arid treated
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50,66
50.66
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.8(c)
268.8(c)m
268.8(0(2)
268.8(d)
268.8(6)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 39 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Print»d: 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA,
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SPECIAL RULES REGARDING WASTES THAT EXHIBIT A CHARACTERISTIC
determination of
applicable treatment
standards under Sub-
part D, Part 268
by initial generator
of a solid waste;
code designation
and exceptions
the treatment standard
for the waste code
listed in 40 CFR
Part 261, Subpart D
will operate for wastes
both listed under
Subpart D, Part 261
and exhibit a
characteristic under
Subpart C,
Part 261 ; conditions
under which treatment
standards for all
applicable listed and
characteristic waste
codes must be met
no prohibited waste
which exhibits a
characteristic under
40 CFR Part 261,
Subpart C may be
land disposed unless
waste complies with
Part 268, Subpart D
treatment standards
78.83
78
78
268.9(3)
268.9(b)
268.9(c)
Page 40 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printed. 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
»
FEiDERAL REQUIREMENT
wastes that exhibit
a characteristic are
subject to all 268.7
requirements, but no
notification once the
wastes are no longer
hazardous; if not
hazardous, notifi-
cation/certification
sent to EPA Regional
Administrator or
authorized State
information needed
with each notification
certification signed
by authorized
representative stating
language found in
268.7(tt(5Hi)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78,83
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.9(d)
268.9(d)m
268.9(d)mfO
268.9(d)m(ii)
268.9(dH1)(iii)
268.9(d)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART C - PROHIBITIONS ON LAND DISPOSAL
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SOLVENT WASTES
32
effective November 8,
1986, F001-F005
spent solvent wastes,
as specified in
261.31, are pro-
hibited from land
disposal unless
one or more
conditions aoolv:
generated by an
SQG of 100-
1000 ka/mo
34
34
268.30(3)
268.30(aN1)
Page 41 of 71
DLDR11.11 -2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (oont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
generated by a
CERCLA response
action/corrective
action except where
waste is contaminated
soil or debris
concentration-specific
exemption (solvent
waste with less than
1% total solvent
constituent)
solvent waste residue
from treating a
268.30(a)(1), (a)(2),
or (a)(3) waste or
residue from other
wastes meeting
specific requirements
effective November 8,
1988, the F001-F005
solvent exemptions of
268.30(a)(1)-(4) are
prohibited from land
disoosal
land disposal of
F001-F005 solvent
wastes that are con-
taminated soil and
debris (and their
treatment residues)
resulting from CERCLA
action or RCRA cor-
rective action
prohibited after
November 8, 1990;
permitted disposal in
landfill or surface
impoundment unit in
compliance with
268.5(h)(2) prior
to November 8. 1990
situations where
268.30(a), (b) and
(c) do not aoolv:
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34,50
34,50
39
34,50
50
34,50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.30(a)(2)
268.30(a)(3)
268.30(a)(4)
268.30(b)
268.30(c)
268.30(d)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
i
33
Page 42 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
t
FE;DERAL REQUIREMENT
wastes treated to
meet Subpart D of
Part 268
disposal at facility
with successful no-
miqration petition
wastes and units for
which case-by-case
extensions have been
granted
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34,50
34,50
34,50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.30(d)(1)
268.30(d)(2)
268.30(d)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
33
33
33
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
elfective November 8,
1988, the dioxin-
containing wastes,
F020-F023 and
F026-F028, are
prohibited from land
disposal unless a
specific condition
applies:
these wastes are
contaminated soil and
debris waste resulting
from response action
under CERCLA or
from a RCRA
corrective action
prohibit land
disposal of F020-
F023 and F026-F028
dioxin-containing
wastes of 268.31 (a)(1)
elfective November 8,
1990
between November 8,
1988, and November
8, 1990, wastes of
268.31 (a)(1) disposed
in landfill or surface
impoundment must
meet 268.5(h)(2)
and applicable 264
and 265 requirements
34.50
50
50
34.50
268.31(3)
268.31(a)(1)
268.3Kb)
268.31 (c)
Page 43 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13/M)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
:
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
7,34 situations where
268.31 (a) and (b)
do not apply
7,34 wastes treated to
meet Subpart D,
Part 268 standards
7,34 disposal at facility
with successful no-
miqration petition
7,34 extension to effective
date of a prohibition
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34.50
34.50
34.50
34.50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.3 1(d)
268.31 (d)(1)
268.31 (d)(2)
268.31 (d)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
prohibitions effective
July 8, 1987, except in
injection wells:
liquids having pH less
than or eaual to 2.0
liquids containing
PCBs greater than or
equal to 50 ppm
liquids containing
HOCs greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/I
and less than
10,000 ma/I
reserved
reserved
268.32(a) and (e)
requirements do
not apply until specific
calendar dates:
39
39
39
39
39
39
39.50
268.32(a)
268.32(a)(1)
268.32(a)(2)
268.32(a)(3)
268.32(b)
268.32(c)
268.32(d)
Page 44 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printed: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
t
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
July 8, 1989 for
contaminated soil or
debris not resulting
from a 104 or 106
CERCLA response or
a RCRA corrective
action; disposal
allowed between
July 8, 1987, and
July 8, 1989, in
landfill or surface
impoundment in
compliance with
2i38.5(hH2)
November 8, 1990
for contaminated soil
or debris resulting
from a CERCLA 104
or 106 response or
a RCRA corrective
action; disposal
between November 8,
1988, and November
8, 1990, permitted in
landfill or surface
impoundment in com-
pliance with
288.5(hH2)
land disposal
prohibitions effective
November 8, 1988:
liquids containing
HOCs greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/l
and not prohibited
under 268.32(aM3)
nonliquid wastes
containing HOCs
greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/kg
and not wastes
described in 268.32(d)
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
39.50
39
39,50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32(d)(1)
268.32(dH2)
268.32(e)
268.32(e)m
268.32(eK2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
•*
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
35
Page 45 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnnt»d 11/13/92|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA,
t
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between July 8, 1987,
and November 8,
1988, 268.32(e)(1) and
(e)(2) wastes may be
disposed of in a
landfill or surface
impoundment if
disposal complies
with 268.5(h)(2)
requirements of
268.32(a), (d) and (e)
do not apply under
certain conditions:
granted a 268.6
exemption
granted a 268.5
extension
in compliance with
Subpart D standards,
or, where standard
not specified, with
RCRA 3004(d) or
268.32 prohibitions
requirements of
268.32(a)(3), (d)
and (e) do not
apply when subject
to Part 268, Subpart
C prohibition
1 method 9095
required
applicability of
waste analysis/
recordkeeping
requirements of
268.7:
initial generator must
use261.22(a)(1)
procedures or
knowledge of pH;
pH less than or equal
to 2.0 restriction
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39,50
66
39,50
39
39
39
39,50
39
39
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32(f)
268.32(a)
268.32(a)(1)
268.32(a)(2)
268.32(a)(3)
268.32(h)
268.32(i)
268.32(i)
268.32(iW1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
-
Page 46 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnnt«d n/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
initial generator must
test for or have know-
ledge of HOC or PCS
concentration levels;
restriction above levels
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.32(i)(2)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EO.UIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - FIRST THIRD WASTES
specific wastes
prohibited from land
disposal effective
Auaust 8. 1988
land disposal prohi-
bition of K061 waste
containing 15% or
greater of zinc
pursuant to
2(58.41 treatment
standard for K061
containing less than
|1{>% zinc
K071 prohibited from
land disposal
effective
Auaust 8, 1990
effective August 8,
1990, land disposal
prohibition of wastes
specified in 268.10
having a treatment
treatment standard
in 268, Subpart D
based on incineration
arid which are con-
taminated soil and
debris
between November 8,
1988, and August 8,
1990, landfill or
surface impoundment
disposal of wastes
included under
2(>8(b) & (c) permitted
if unit is in compliance
with 268.5(h)(2)
50,66
50
50,83
50
50
268.33(a)
268.33(a)m
268.33(b)
268.33(c)
268.33(d)
Page 47 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Pnnt»d 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA,
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
requirements of
268(a)-(d) do not
apply if:
waste meets
applicable 268,
Subpart D standards
granted an exemption
from prohibition for
wastes and units
under 268.6
granted an extension
to an effective date
for wastes under
268.5
prohibition of
landfill or surface
impoundment disposal
of wastes specified
in 268.10 for which
treatment standards
have not been promul-
gated (other than
268.32 or section
3004(d) prohibitions)
unless a demonstration
and certification have
been submitted
for a waste listed
in 268.10, initial
generator testing to
determine exceedance
of 268.41 and 268.43
treatment standards;
prohibition from
land disposal if
exceed standards
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
50.66
50.66
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.33(e)
268.33(e)(1)
268.33(e)(2)
268.33(e)(3)
268.33(f)
268.33(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - SECOND THIRD WASTES
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition from
land disposal of
specific 261.31, 261.32
and 261 .33 wastes
63
268.34(a)
Page 48 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Print** 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FKDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition from
la.nd disposal, except
underground injection
pursuant to 148.14(f)
and 148.15(d), of
certain 261 .32 wastes
effective June 8,
1989, prohibition
from land disposal
of F006, F008, F009,
F011 and F012
effective July 8, 1989,
F007 prohibited from
land disposal except
underground injection
pursuant to 148.14(f)
July 8, 1989, until
December 8, 1989,
IF011 and F012 non-
wastewaters prohibited
from land disposal
pursuant to 268.41
and 268.43 treatment
standards for F007,
F008 and F009 non-
wastewaters; effective
December 8, 1989,
F011 and F012 pro-
hibited from land
disposal pursuant to
268.41 and 268.43
treatment standards
for F011 and F012
nonwastewaters
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
63
63
63
63
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.34(b)
268.34(C)
268.34(c)(1)
268.34(c)(2)
I STATE ANALOG IS:
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 49 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnnt»d 11/1OT2I
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective June 8,
1991, wastes
specified in 268.34
with Part 268,
Subpart D treatment
standard based on
incineration, and
which are con-
taminated soil and
debris, are prohibited
from land disposal
requirements for
landfill or surface
impoundment disposal
of wastes included in
268.34{c) and (d) be-
tween June 8, 1989,
and June 8, 1991;
applies to F007,
F008, F009, F011,
and F012 only be-
tween June 8,1989,
and Julv 8. 1989
requirements of
268.34(a)-(d) do
not apply if:
meet apr ;~able 268
Subpart _ standards
granted an exemption
pursuant to a 268.6
petition for the wastes
and units covered by
the petition
268.34(a), (b) and (c)
do not apply if
granted extension
under 268.5 for
wastes covered by
extension
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
63
63
63
63
63
63
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.34(d)
268.34(e)
268.34(f)
268.34(f)(1)
268.34(f)(2)
268.34(a)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 50 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
>_
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between June 8,
1989, and May 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal
in landfills or
surface impoundments
of 268.11 wastes for
which Subpart D
treatment standards
are not applicable,
including California
list wastes subject
to prohibitions under
3004(d) or 268.32;
exceptions under
268.8
initial generator
testing to determine
Jf a 268.10, 268.11
[and 268.12 waste
exceeds applicable
268.41 and
268.43 treatment
standards; land
disposal prohibited
and all 268 require-
ments apply if con-
stituents exceed Part
268. Suboart D levels
CHECK- |
LIST
REFERENCE
63
63
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.34(h)
268.340)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
•>
STATE ANALOG IS:
h EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS - THIRD THIRD WASTES
effective August 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal of
certain wastes
specified in 261.31,
261.32, 261.33(e)
and 261.33(t) as
listed in 268.35(a)
effective November 8,
1990, prohibition
from land disposal
of certain wastes
soecified in 261.32
78.83
78
268.35(a)
268.35(b)
Page 51 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [PnnUd: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
1
\
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of certain
wastes specified in
261.31, 261.32,
261.33(e), and
261.33(f); certain
characteristic
wastes; inorganic
debris defined in
268.2(a)(7); and
RCRA hazardous
wastes containing
naturally occurring
radioactive materials
effective May 8,
1992, prohibition from
land disposal of
268.10, 268.11,
268.12 mixed radio-
active/hazardous
wastes; and soil or
debris contaminated
with such wastes and
mixed with radio-
active/hazardous
waste are prohibited
from land disoosal
effective May 8, 1992,
prohibition from land
disposal of wastes
specified in 268.35
as having Subpart D,
Part 268 treatment
standards based on
incineration, mercury
retorting, vitrification,
acid leaching followed
by chemical precipi-
tation or thermal
recovery of metals,
and which are
contaminated soil
or debris
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78.83
73.83
78.83
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(C)
268.35(d)
268.35(e)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
-
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 52 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 lPnnt»d: 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
between May 8, 1990,
and August 8, 1990,
wastes included in
paragraph 268.35(a)
may be disposed of
in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
2<58.5(h)(2)
between May 8, 1990,
and November 8,
1990, wastes included
in paragraph 268.35(b)
may be disposed of in
a landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
268.5(M(2)
between May 8, 1990,
and May 8, 1992,
wastes included in
paragraphs 268.35(c),
(cl) and (e) may be
disposed of in a
landfill or surface
impoundment only if
such unit is in
compliance with
2<58.5(h)(2)
conditions under
which requirements
of paragraphs
268.35(a), (b), (c), (d)
and (e) do not apply:
wastes meet
applicable Part 268,
Suboart D standards
persons granted
exemption under 268.6
wastes meet
applicable alternate
standards under
268.44
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35(0
268.35(a)
268.35(h)
268.35(i)
268.35(0(1 )
268.35(0(2)
268.35(0(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
~R3uiv-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 53 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printed: 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
\
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
persons granted
extension to the
effective date
of a prohibition
under 268.5
initial generator testing
to determine if a
268.10, 268.11 and
268.12 waste exceeds
applicable 268.41 and
268.43 treatment
standards; land
disposal prohibited
and all 268 require-
ments apply if con-
stituents exceed Part
268, Suboart D levels
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.35W(4)
268.35H)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART D - TREATMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABILITY OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
restricted waste under
268.41 may be land
disposed if extract of
waste or treatment
residue, developed
using 261 Appendix
II methods, does not
exceed 268.41 Table
CCWE values;
exceptions; specific
wastes may be land
disposed if extract or
treatment residue
developed as speci-
fied does not exceed
Table CCWE values
for any hazardous
constituent in
Table CCWE for
waste
34,T39,
50.78.83
268.40(a)
Page 54 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Pnm«j 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
restricted waste with
a 268.42 treatment
technology may be
land disposed if speci-
fied technology or an
Administrator-approved
method is used
except as specified
in 268.43(C),
restricted waste
identified in 268.43
may be land disposed
only if Table CCW
constituent concen-
tration values are
not exceeded
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39
50.78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.40(b)
268.40(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
treatment standards;
explanation of
Table CCWE
Constituent Concen-
trations in Waste
Extract
treatment standards
for common
constituents in
combined wastes
34,50,
63,78
34,50,
63,70,83
34
268.41 (a)
268.41 (a)/
Table CCWE
268.41 (b)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS SPECIFIED TECHNOLOGIES
treatment of wastes
identified in
268.42(a)(1)&(2) and
Tables 2 and 3 with
tochnology(s) specified
in 268.42(a)(1)&(2)
and in Table 1
of 268.42
standard for
incineration of
liquid hazardous
wastes containing
PCBs
34,78
39
268.42(a)
268.42(a)(1)
Page 55 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13«2|
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA.
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
standard for
incineration
of certain nonliquid
hazardous wastes
containing HOCs;
where standards do
not aoolv
mixture of waste-
water (discharge of
which is subject to
Clean Water Act) and
de minimis losses of
materials that meet
the criteria of D001
ignitable liquids with
greater than 10%
TOC is subject to
Table 1 DEACT treat-
ment standard; de
minimis defined
removed
Technology Codes and
Description of
Technology-Based
Standards
Technology-Based
Standards by RCRA
Waste Code
Technology-Based
Standards for Specific
Radioactive Hazardous
Mixed Waste
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
39,50,
78,83
63.78,83
63.78
78,83
78,83
78.83
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.42(aK2)
268.42(a)(3)
268.42(a)(4)
268.42(aVTable 1
268.42(a)/Table 2
268.42(aVTable 3
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS.
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
37
38
Page 56 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Pnm«d: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.42(b) is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this paragraph into their code.
submit application to
Administrator
demonstrating alter-
nate treatment can
achieve 268.42(a),
(c), & (d) performance
specifications;
information demon-
strating compliance
with Federal, State
arid local require-
ments; criteria for
approval by
Administrator; approval
|n writing containing
provisions and con-
ditions as the Admini-
strator deems appro-
priate; compliance by
pefson to whom
approval is issued
34.39.78
268.42(b)
**lr****»*»**»»********»*»********************************»*********»*******»************»»«*******************************
t,
9
ALTERNATE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR LAB PACKS
conditions for
eligibility of lab
packs for land
disposal:
compliance of lab
pstcks with applicable
provisions of
264.316 and 265.316
Part 268 Appendix IV
and Appendix V
hazardous wastes
contained in lab
psicks
78
78
78
268.42(c)
268.42(c)(1)
268.42(c)(2)
Page 57 of 71
DLDR11.11 • 2/7/92 (Print*): 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA,
*
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
incineration of
lab packs in
accordance with
Part 264, Subpart O
and Part 265,
Subpart O
requirements
treatment standards
for incinerator
residues from lab
packs containing
D004, D005, D006,
D007, D008, D010
and DO 11
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.42(c)(3)
268.42(c)(4)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
39 radioactive
hazardous mixed
wastes with Table 3
treatment standards
not subject to 268.41 ,
268.43 or Table 2
treatment standards;
radioactive hazardous
mixed wastes not
subject to Table 3
treatment standards
remain subject to
268.41, 268.43 and
Table 2 treatment
standards
78
268.42(d)
TREATMENT STANDARDS EXPRESSED AS WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
introductory paragraph
for Table CCW
explaining table
Constituent Concen-
trations in Wastes; no
land disposal for
specified K wastes
34,50,
63,78
50,62,
63,78.83
268.43(a)
268.43(a)/
Table CCW
Page 58 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printtd: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
40 meet lowest con-
stituent treatment
standard when mixing
wastes with differing
treatment standards
for a constituent
of concern
ccmditions for
demonstrating
compliance with
treatment standards
for organic
constituents
orovided:
treatment standards
for organic
constituents
established based on
incineration in units
'operated in accor-
dance with Subpart O
requirements of Part
264 or Part 265 or
based on combustion
in fuel substitution
units in accordance
with applicable tech-
nical requirements
organic constituents
treated using
paragraph
268.43(cM1) methods
good-faith efforts
fail to detect the
organic constituents;
when such efforts
must be demonstrated
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50.63
78.83
78,83
78.83
78.83
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.43(b)
268.43(c)
268.43(c)(1)
268.43(c)(2)
268.43(c)(3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Page 59 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Prints \\i\3isi\
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Guidance note: 268.44 is NOT DELEGABLE. States should see Note 3 at the beginning of this
checklist regarding how to incorporate this section into their code.
VARIANCE FROM A TREATMENT STANDARD
conditions for
variance; petition
Administrator; what
must be
demonstrated
procedures in
accordance with
260.20
statement signed by
petitioner or autho-
rized representative
additional information
or samples may be
requested by
Administrator;
additional copies for
affected States and
reoion
Administrator gives
public notification
in Federal Register:
final decision in
Federal Register
268.7 waste analysis
requirements must be
followed for wastes
covered bv variance
requirements during
petition review
apply to Administrator
or delegated represen-
tative for site-specific
variance from a treat-
ment standard if
specified conditions
are appropriate; what
applicant must
demonstrate
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
50,66
268.44(a)
268.44(b)
268.44(c)
268.44(d)
268.44(6)
268.44(f)
268.44(0.)
268.44(h)
•
Page 60 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printed: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
260.20(b)(1)-(4)
information must
bo included
Assistant
Administrator or
delegated represen-
tative may request
additional information
if site-specific
treatment standard
variance then com-
pliance with 268.7
waste analysis
requirements
during application
review process, com-
pliance with land
disposal restrictions
once effective date
for waste reached
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
50
50
50
50
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.44(i)
268.44W
268.44(k)
268.44(1)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
********]
********i
***************************************
***************************************
*************
*************
SUBPART E - PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE
PROHIBITIONS ON STORAGE OF RESTRICTED WASTES
7 except as provided in
2(38.50, storage of
wastes restricted
from land disposal
is prohibited unless
certain conditions
are met:
7 on-site storage
exemption for
Generator
7 treatment, storage,
and disposal
facility exemption
7 container labelinq
7 tank labelinq
34,39
34
34
34
34
268.50(a)
268.50(a)(1)
268.50(aK2)
268.50(a)(2Mi)
268.50(a)(2)(ii)
Page 61 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Pnnt»d: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
(
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
transporter exemption
storage up to
one year
storage longer
than one year
268.50(a) prohibition
does not apply if
waste is exempt from
a prohibition on the
type of land disposal
utilized for the waste
no prohibition where
treatment standards
are not specified or
are met, or com-
pliance with 268.32
or RCRA 3004 exists
requirements for
storage of liquid
hazardous wastes
containing PCBs at
concentrations greater
than or equal to
50 ppm
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34
34
34
34,50,
66
34,t39
39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
268.50(a)(3)
268.50(b)
268.50(c)
268.50W)
268.50(e)
268.50(f)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX I TO PART 268
7,41
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)
TCLP is published
in Appendix II of
Part 261
34.74
Appendix I
APPENDIX II TO PART 268
TREATMENT STANDARDS (AS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE TREATMENT RESIDUAL EXTRACT)
table
34
Appendix II
Page 62 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
i
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-I MORE I BROADER
ALENTl STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
APPENDIX III TO PART 268
LIST OF HALOGENATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS REGULATED UNDER 268.32
HOC definition and
list of HOCs regulated
under 268.32
39
Appendix III
APPENDIX IV TO PART 268
ORGANOMETALLIC LAB PACKS
list of hazardous
wastes that may
be placed in
"organometallic" or
"Appendix IV lab
packs"
78.83
Appendix IV
APPENDIX V TO PART 268
ORGANIC LAB PACKS
list of hazardous
wastes that may be
placed in "organic"
or "Appendix V
lab packs"
78.83
Appendix V
Page 63 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Print«d: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX VI TO PART 268
RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES TO ACHIEVE DEACTIVATION OF CHARACTERISTICS IN
SECTION 268.42
list of technologies
which achieve the
standard of
"deactivation to
remove character-
istics of ignitability,
corrosivity, and
reactivity"; use of
specified technologies
not mandatory; alter-
native methods not
performed in land
disposal units
78
Appendix VI
APPENDIX VII TO PART 268
EFFECTIVE DATES OF SURFACE DISPOSED
comprehensive list of
wastes and effective
dates
78,83
Appendix
WASTES REGULATED IN THE LDRs
VII
APPENDIX VIII TO PART 268
NATIONAL CAPACITY LDR VARIANCES FOR UIC WASTES
comprehensive list
of national capacity
LDR variances for
UIC wastes
78.83
Appendix VIII
Page 64 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Prints 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA 11
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"RSuT^1
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX IX TO PART 268
EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (EP) TOXICITY TEST METHOD AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TEST
(SW-846. METHOD 1310A)
interim method to
determine whether a
waste exhibits the
characteristic of
EP Toxicitv
83
Appendix IX
PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION
CONTENTS OF PART B: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
copy of notice of
approval of petition
or extension
34
270.1 4(b)(21)
SUBPART C - PERMIT CONDITIONS
ESTABLISHING PERMIT CONDITIONS
insert
"through 268";
remove "267"
34
270.320»m
SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMIT
42 MINOR MODIFICATIONS OF PERMITS
conditions for
treating non-
soecified waste
prohibited from
one or more land
disposal methods
under Part 268,
Subpart C or RCRA
Section 3004
34
34.t39
270.42(0)
270.42(oK1)
Page 65 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 |Prinl»d: 11/13/92)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
!
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
treatment in
accordance with
268.4 and 268.3 and:
treatment in
accordance with
268.41, 268.42
or 268.44; or
no standards exist
and treatment
removes prohibitions
of 268.32 or RCRA
3004
no creased or
SUD uintially
different risks
Federal/State
approval; allowable
modifications
allow facilities to
change operation to
treat or store if:
major permit
modification
is requested;
demonstrates neces-
sh to comply with
2c ;. or RCRA 3004;
and
ensures compliance
pending administra-
tive determination
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
34.t39
t39
t39
34
34
t39
t39
t39
t39
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42(o)(2)
270.42(o)(2)(i)
270.42(o)(2)(ii)
270.42(o)(3)
270.42(o)(4)
270.42(0)
270.42(D)(1)
270.42(DH2)
270.42(0X3)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
APPENDIX I TO SECTION 270.42
43 CLASSIFICATION OF PERMIT MODIFICATION
44 add new item
involving F039 under
"General Facility
Standards"; add a
footnote symbol to
the Class I
desia nation at B(1)(b)
78.83
270.42
Aooendix I. B(1)(b)
Page 66 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Print«d: 11/13/921
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
redesignate old
B(1)(b) as
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
78
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
270.42
Aooendix I. B(1)(c)
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
SUBPART G - INTERIM STATUS
CHANGES DURING INTERIM STATUS
46 no reconstruction;
changes do not
include tank/
container changes
to comply with
land disposal
restrictions
39
270.72(e)
8
See amendment to rule addressed by Revision Checklist 39 at 52 FJR 41295 (October 27, 1987).
Paragraph 260.11 (a) is also affected by Revision Checklist 67 (54 FR 40260, September 29,
1989) and Revision Checklist 73 (55 FR 8948, March 9, 1990).
Paragraph 261.5(f)(2) is also affected by Revision Checklist 47 (53 FR 27162, July 19, 1988).
Note that the "TC Rule," Revision Checklist 74 (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990), has also made
changes to 261.24(b).
Paragraph 261.33(c) is also affected by Revision Checklist 41 (52 FR 26012, July 10, 1987).
Note that the final rule for Revision Checklist 39 (52 FR 25787) gives Subpart E, 262.51 as the
citation for Farmers. This is not correct as the August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28664, Revision Checklist
31) final rule regarding exports changed this section and moved it to Subpart G, 262.70. This
error in the final rule was deleted when Revision Checklist 39 was developed, and the proper
citation (262.70) was used on that checklist. This error was ultimately corrected at 53 FR 27164
(July 19, 1988).
Also see technical correction to the rule addressed by Revision Checklist 34 at 52 FR 21010
(June 4, 1987).
Subparagraphs 264.13(a)(1) and 265.13(a)(1) are also affected by Revision Checklist 64 (54 FR
33376, August 14, 1989).
This code is part of the optional requirements for the alternate treatment standards for lab packs
under the Third Third Scheduled Waste Rule. If adopted, all of the requirements (i.e., 264.316(f),
265.316(f), 268.7(a)(8), 268.7(a)(9), 268.42(c), 268.42(c)(1)-(4), and Appendices IV and V to Part
268) related to these alternate treatment standards must be adopted.
Page 67 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 [Printed: 11/13»21
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
SPA.,
t
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A new subparagraph was introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 78. The original
subparagraph 268.1 (c)(3) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34, modified by Checklist 39, then
removed by Revision Checklist 50, with 268.1 (c)(4) redesignated as (c)(3). The redesignated
subparagraph 268.1(c)(3) was subsequently removed by Revision Checklist 66.
Subparagraph 268.1(c)(4) originated in Revision Checklist 34, was modified by Revision Checklist
39, redesignated as 268.1 (c)(3) while the original 268.1 (c)(5) was redesignated as 268.1 (c)(4) by
Revision Checklist 50, and finally removed by Revision Checklist 66.
Subparagraph 268.1 (c)(5) originated in Revision Checklist 39, and was revised by Revision
Checklist 48. This text was redesignated as 268.1(c)(4) and new 268.1(c)(5) text was introduced
by Revision Checklist 50. This subparagraph was finally removed by Revision Checklist 78.
These definitions were introduced into the code as part of 268.2(a) by Revision Checklist 34.
Revision Checklist 78 designated them as individual paragraphs 268.2(b) and (c). The text of the
old 268.2(b), introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 34, was deleted from the section by
Revision Checklist 78.
This definition was introduced into the code as part of 268.2(a) by Revision Checklist 39.
Revision Checklist 78 designated it as an individual paragraph 268.2(e).
This subparagraph was originally 268.3 when it was added to the code by Revision Checklist 34.
However, it was redesignated as 268.3(a) by Revision Checklist 78.
268.6(c) was originally introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated
that 268.6(c) as 268.6(d) and inserted a new 268.6(c).
The original 268.6(d) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50
redesignated that paragraph as 268.6(g). That same checklist redesignated 268.6(c) as 268.6(d).
268.6(e) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated that
268.6(e) as 268.6(h) and inserted a new 268.6(e).
268.6(f) was introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated that 268.6(f)
as 268.6(i) and inserted a new 268.6(f).
268.6(d)-(j) were originally introduced by Revision Checklist 34. Revision Checklist 50
redesignated these paragraphs as 268.6(g)-(m).
268.6(k) was originally introduced by Revision Checklist 39. Revision Checklist 50 redesignated it
as 268.6(n).
Note that the rule addressed by Revision Checklist 78 (55 FR 22520) makes it appear as if
268.7(a)(3)(iii)-(v) were removed (see page 22687). This was~ an error and these subparagraphs
should remain in the code.
Page 68 of 71
DLDR11.11 - 2/7/92 (Printed: 11/13/92]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
i
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE
STRINGENT
BROADER
IN SCOPE
Initially, subparagraphs 268.7(a)(4)(i)-(iv) were introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 50.
Revision Checklist 78 completely changed the text of (a)(4)(i)-(iii) and removed (a)(4)(iv).
24 This subparagraph was originally 268.7(a){4) when it was added to the code by Revision Checklist
34. However, it was redesignated as 268.7(a)(5) by Revision Checklist 50.
25 268.7(a)(7) was originally 268.7(a)(6) on Checklist 50. Revision Checklist 83 inserted a new
268.7(a)(6) and redesignated the old 268.7(a)(6) as 268.7(a)(7). Revision Checklist 83 also
redesignated 268.7(a)(7)-(a)(9) as 268.7(a)(8)-(a)(10).
26 These subparagraphs were originally 268.7(b)(1) and 268.7(b)(1)(i)-(iv) when they were added to
the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, they were redesignated as 268.7(b)(4) and
268.7(b)(4)(i)-(iv) by Revision Checklist 50.
27 These subparagraphs were originally 268.7(b)(2) and 268.7(b)(2)(i)-(ii) when they were added to
the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, they were redesignated as 268.7(b)(5) and
268.7(b)(5)(i)-(ii) by Revision Checklist 50.
28 This paragraph was originally 268.7(b)(8) when it was entered into the code by Revision Checklist
50, but it was redesignated as 268.7(b)(7) by Revision Checklist 78 because the old 278.7(b)(7)
and 278.7(b)(7)(i)-(iv) were removed by Revision Checklist 78. Revision Checklist 66 corrected
268.7(b)(8) before it was redesignated by Revision Checklist 78.
pq
*•* The notice, certification and test requirements currently found in Federal code at 268.7(c)(1) and
(c)(2) were originally addressed in paragraph 268.7(c), as introduced into the code by Revision
Checklist 34. 268.7(c) was subsequently modified by Revision Checklists 39 and 50. Revision
Checklist 39 added the testing requirements now found at 268.7(c)(2), although at the time these
requirements were still part of 268.7(c). It was Revision Checklist 50 that significantly revised the
paragraph so that the notice and certification requirements now appear at (c)(1) and the testing
requirements appear at (c)(2). The checklist reference column, then, includes all relevant
checklists for 268.7(c)(1) and (c)(2), rather than just Revision Checklist 50 which primarily affected
the formatting.
on
Subparagraphs 268.7(c)(3) and (c)(4), introduced into the code by Revision Checklists 50 and 66,
respectively, were removed from the code by Revision Checklist 78.
31 An error in the September 6, 1989 rule (54 FR 36967) makes it appear that the revisions to
268.8(a) include the removal of 268.8(a)(4). This was not the Agency's intent and 268.8(a)(4)
remains in Federal code as introduced by Revision Checklist 50.
OO
0 The 268.30(a) introduction appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 50, but was
not changed by that rule. See Revision Checklist 50 for more information.
33 These subparagraphs were originally 268.30(c) and 268.30(c)(1)-(3) when they were introduced
into the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, Revision Checklist 50 redesignated them as
268.30(d) and 268.30(d)(1)-(3) because that checklist inserted a new paragraph at 268.30(c).
Page 69 of 71 DLDRH.H - 2/7/92 [Pnm.«
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO 9541.00-17
SPA ^
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
"EQUIV-
ALENT
MORE I BROADER
STRINGENT | IN SCOPE
These subparagraphs were originally 268.31 (b) and 268.31 (b)(1)-(3) when they were introduced
into the code by Revision Checklist 34. However, Revision Checklist 50 redesignated them as
268.31 (d) and 268.31 (d)(1)-(3) because that checklist inserted a new paragraph at 268.31 (b).
35 While this subparagraph appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 50, this rule
did not change this subparagraph. See Footnote 9, page 28 of Revision Checklist 50.
oc
The current text of 268.41 (a) indicates that an extract or treatment residue of certain wastes may
be land disposed only if certain requirements are met using either the test method in Appendix I
of Part 268 or the test method in Appendix II of Part 261. Following promulgation of the March
29, 1990 Toxicity Characteristics rule addressed by Revision Checklist 74 (55 FR 11798, as
amended at 55 FR 26986), both of these appendices relate to the same test method, the TCLP.
Previously, the Part 261 appendix contained the EP Toxicity test procedures while the Part 268
appendix contained the TCLP. EPA will issue a correction to the rule for these particular
paragraphs in the near future, clarifying which procedures may be used. Until such time,
however, EPA indicates that for the specific waste exceptions listed in these paragraphs, the
TCLP can be used for measuring compliance with the treatment standards for those specified
wastes, and if the extract or treatment residue fails that test, the EP Toxicity test can be used. If
the extract or residue passes that less stringent test, then such waste is considered in compliancy
with the treatment standards. For more information related to the use of either of the two test
methods, see the discussion at 55 FR 22660 (June 1, 1990).
3 268.42(a)(3) was introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 63. Revision Checklist 78
removed this paragraph and Revision Checklist 83 added a new 268.42(a)(3).
38
268.42(a)(4) was introduced into the code by Revision Checklist 63. Revision Checklist 78
removed this paragraph.
39
3 The 55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990, code incorrectly states that a subparagraph 268.42(e) is added.
The Federal Register did not contain a 268.42(e); it only added 268.42(d).
While 268.43(b) appeared in the final rule addressed by Revision Checklist 63, the text of the
paragraph was not changed and remains the same as that introduced by Revision Checklist 50.
As background, the TCLP was originally promulgated in 268, Appendix I, on November 7, 1986
(51 FR 40572; Revision Checklist 34) for use in the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program to
determine whether certain wastes require treatment prior to land disposal and to determine
whether certain treated wastes meet the applicable treatment standards. The TC rule and its
June 29, 1990 modification promulgated a revised TCLP at 261, Appendix II, with modifications
based on the Agency's own research and public comment. This TCLP is to be used in both the
TC and the LDR programs. The objective of the above footnoted revision to 268, Appendix I, is
to assure that the TCLP entered into the code by the November 7, 1986 notice (51 FR 40572;
Revision Checklist 34) is removed and replaced by the TCLP entered into the code and amended
by the final rules (55 FR 11798 and 55 FR 26986) addressed by Revision Checklist 74. The
actual placement of the TCLP within a State's code is not that important, per se; what is imporjiit
is that a State's code contains only the Revision Checklist 74 TCLP.
Page 70 of 71 DLDRH.H - 2/7/92 print* 11/13*21
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9541.00-17
SPA 11
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST: Land Disposal Restrictions (cont'd)
I
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
CHECK-
LIST
REFERENCE
FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
ANALOGOUS
STATE CITATION
STATE ANALOG IS:
EQUIV-I MORE I BROADER
ALENT I STRINGENT I IN SCOPE
Paragraphs 270.42(o) and (p) were introduced into the code by Revision Checklists 34 and 39,
respectively. Subsequently, Revision Checklist 54 removed both paragraphs, though these
deletions were optional. Though EPA strongly encourages States to adopt the permit modification
rule as addressed by Revision Checklist 54, States may elect to retain paragraphs 270.42(o) and
(p). Thus, the paragraphs are included in this consolidated checklist. If States have adopted the
Revision Checklist 54 modifications, the section title should also be modified to read "Permit
Modification at the Request of the Permittee" instead of "Minor Modifications of Permits" and the
Revision Checklist 54 modifications made. States should also note that 270.42 was not required
by 271.14 to be part of a State's authorized permit program. Thus, only States which elected to
have a section analogous to 270.42 (Minor Modifications of Permits) at the time of base program
authorization need worry about the 270.42 modifications made by Revision Checklists 34 and 39.
These changes are, of course, negated if the State chooses to also adopt the Revision Checklist
54 modification.
Appendix I was introduced by Revision Checklist 54 as an optional modification to Section 270.42.
Changes to this appendix addressed by the LDR Revision Checklist 78 are relevant only if a State
has modified its code to include Appendix I as per Revision Checklist 54.
Revision Checklist 78 redesignated item B(1)(b) as item B(1)(c) and added a new B(1)(b).
This item was entered into the code as Appendix I, B(1)(b) and was redesignated as B(1)(c) by
Revision Checklist 78.
Revision Checklist 61 revised and redesignated 270.72(e) as 270.72(b). The Revision Checklist
61 changes are optional, however, some States may have retained 270.72(e) in their code as
introduced by the LDR Revision Checklist 39.
Page 71 of 71 DLDRH.II - 2/7/92 [Print* 11/13/921
------- |