LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS SEMINAR
1
8
8
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RCRA ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SEMINAR
PREPARED UNDER
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7351
BY
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
222 S. RIVERSIDE PLAZA
CHICAGO, IL 60606
1988
-------
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
COURSE OUTLINE
-------
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SEMINAR OUTLINE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS
B. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
II. STATUTORY EFFECTIVE DATES
III. APPLICABILITY OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
IV. TREATMENT STANDARDS
A. CRITERION
B. WASTE SOLVENTS
C. DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
D. CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
V. VARIANCES AND EXTENSIONS
A. VARIANCE FROM TREATMENT STANDARD
B. NATIONAL CAPACITY VARIANCE
C. CASE-BY-CASE EXTENSION
D. NO MIGRATION PETITION
VI. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTIONS
A. MINIMUM TECHNOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
B. REMOVAL OF TREATMENT RESIDUE
C. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS
VII. STORAGE PROHIBITIONS
VIII. PERMIT PROGRAM
A. PERMITTTED FACILITIES
B. INTERIM STATUS FACILITIES
IX. TESTING & RECORD KEEPING
A. GENERATORS
B. TREATMENT FACILITIES
C. LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
X. INSPECTIONS
A. SOLVENTS AND DIOXINS
B. CALIFORNIA LIST
-------
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
SUMMARY
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 November 7, 1986 Overview
1.2 July 8, 1987 Overview
2.0 APPLICABILITY 5
3.0 TREATMENT STANDARDS 5
3.1 Spent Solvent Wastes
3.2 Dioxin-containing Wastes
3.3 California List Wastes
4.0 VARIANCES AND EXTENSIONS 13
4.1 Variance from the Treatment Standard
4.2 Two-year National Capacity Variance
4.3 Case-by-Case Extensions
4.4 No Migration Petitions
5.0 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTIONS 17
6.0 STORAGE PROHIBITION 18
7.0 PERMIT PROGRAM 20
7.1 Interim Status Facilities
7.2 Permitted Facilities
8.0 TESTING AND RECORD KEEPING 21
8.1 Generator Responsibilities
8.2 Treatment Facility Responsibilities
8.3 Land Disposal Facility Responsibilities
TABLES
TABLE 1 Schedule for Land Disposal Prohibitions 2
TABLE 2 Solvent Treatment Standards 9
TABLE 3 Dioxin Treatment Standards 11
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) were enacted on November 8, 1984. These far-reaching
amendments require EPA to evaluate all hazardous wastes according to a strict
schedule to determine whether land disposal of these wastes is protective of human
health and the environment. They also require EPA to set concentration levels or
methods of treatment which substantially diminish the toxicity of the wastes or
reduce the likelihood that the hazardous constituents of the wastes will migrate.
Beyond specified dates, restricted wastes which do not meet the treatment
standards, or are otherwise exempt as discussed in this manual, are prohibited from
land disposal. If EPA fails to set treatment standards for a particular waste by
specified deadlines, that waste is automatically prohibited from land disposal.
These so-called "hammer provisions" provide the impetus for EPA to keep to the
strict schedule, which is presented in Table 1.
On November 7, 1986, EPA published the Land Disposal Restrictions Final Rule.
This rule established the framework for implementing the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program. It also set specific treatment standards and effective dates
for the first category of wastes subject to the restrictions. These wastes include
F001-F005 spent solvent wastes, and F020-F023 and F026-F028 dioxin-containing
wastes.
On July 8, 1987, EPA published the final rule on land disposal restrictions for
certain "California List" wastes. Statutory levels were set for these wastes in the
HSWA. The California List includes liquid hazardous wastes containing free
cyanides, PCBs, and certain metals at or above specified concentration levels;
liquid hazardous wastes with a pH less than or equal to 2; and liquid and non-
liquid hazardous waste containing halogenated organic compounds at or above
specified concentrations. This final rule also modifies portions of the land
disposal restrictions framework which was published on November 7, 1986.
This manual summarizes the November 7, 1986, and July 8, 1987, rules and
describes the key requirements for treatment standards, variances, and extensions.
The manual also outlines the new responsibilities of generators, treatment
facilities, and disposal facilities and provides an overview of the specific
treatment standards for solvent- and dioxin-containing wastes and California List
-------
TABLE 1
SCHEDULE FOR LAND DISPOSAL PROHIBITIONS
November 8, 1986
July 8, 1987a
a
August 8, 1988
November 8, 1988
June 8, 1989
May 8, 1990
Within 6 months
of listing or
identification
Dioxin-containing wastes (F020, F021, F022, F023,
F026, F027, F028)
Spent solvents (F001, F002, F003, F004, FOOS)
California List wastes, which include liquid hazardous
wastes containing free cyanides, PCBs, and certain
metals at or above specified concentration levels; liquid
hazardous wastes having a pH of less than or equal to
2.0; and both liquid and non-liquid hazardous wastes
containing halogenated organic compounds at or above
specified concentration levels.
At least one-third of all listed hazardous wastes
Previously exempt wastes disposed of in injection wells
Previously exempt contaminated soil and debris from
CERCLA Section 104 or 106 response actions and
RCRA corrective actions
At least two-thirds of all listed hazardous wastes
All remaining listed hazardous wastes
AH characteristic hazardous wastes
Newly listed wastes (these wastes are not
subject to the automatic land disposal
prohibition)
8 Except for: Contaminated soil and debris from CERCLA 104 and 106
response actions and RCRA corrective actions; wastes disposed of in
injection wells
-------
wastes. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all regulatory issues
associated with the November 7 and July 8 rules. For further information, refer to
copies of the rules provided in Appendices A and B, or call the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline at (800) 424-9346.
1.1 November 7, 1986 Final Rule Overview
The November 7 final rule outlines EPA's approach to implementing the
restrictions on land disposal of hazardous waste. In addition to establishing
treatment standards for the specified spent solvent and dioxin wastes, it
established procedures for the following:
o Setting treatment standards for hazardous wastes;
o Granting nationwide variances from effective dates, due to insufficient
capacity;
o Granting extensions of effective dates on a case-by-case basis, due to
insufficient capacity;
o Evaluating petitions for a variance from the treatment standards, based
on the distinctness of the waste from that evaluated by EPA; and
o Evaluating petitions demonstrating that continued land disposal of
hazardous wastes is protective of human health and the environment (No
Migration Petitions).
The November 7 rule defines land disposal to include, but not be limited to, any
placement of hazardous waste in:
o Landfills;
o Surface impoundments;
o Waste piles;
o Injection wells;
o Land treatment facilities;
o Salt domes or salt bed formations;
o Underground mines or caves; and
o Concrete vaults or bunkers.
The land disposal restrictions rule covers hazardous wastes placed in land disposal
units after the effective dates of the prohibitions. Wastes disposed of before
November 8, 1986, do not have to be removed from land disposal for treatment.
However, if wastes are removed from land disposal, the wastes must meet the
-------
treatment standards before new placement in or on the land, or they must be the
subject of a variance or extension as discussed in this manual.
Contaminated soil and debris from CERCLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions are not subject to the land disposal restrictions rule until
November 8, 1988. In addition, wastes disposed of in underground injection wells
are not subject to the land disposal restrictions until August 8, 1988.
Wastes which are placed into storage prior to the effective date are not subject to
the restrictions on storage. However, once taken out of storage, these wastes must
meet the treatment standards before land disposal, or they must be the subject of a
variance or extension as discussed in this manual.
Wastes may be treated in surface impoundments that meet minimum technological
requirements provided that, among other things, treatment residuals which do not
meet the treatment standards are removed within one year of placement of the
waste in the impoundment.
Both interim status and permitted facilities are subject to the land disposal
restrictions rule. These restrictions supersede 40 CFR 270.4(a) which currently
provides that compliance with a RCRA permit constitutes compliance with Subtitle
C. However, small quantity generators of less than 100 kg/month of hazardous
waste, or less than 1 kg/month of acute hazardous waste, are not subject to the
restrictions.
1.2 July 8, 1987 Final Rule Overview
In addition to presenting treatment standards for the California List wastes, the
July 8 rule includes the following modifications to the November 7 rule:
o Strengthens the dilution prohibition by expanding the prohibition to
include dilution as a means of avoiding the land disposal restrictions;
o Provisions prohibiting the use of evaporation of hazardous constituents as
the principal means of treatment for the purposes of obtaining an
exemption for treatment of otherwise restricted wastes in a surface
impoundment;
o Provisions allowing a permitted facility to use the minor modification
process, under certain conditions, to obtain approval to change the
facility to treat or store restricted wastes in tanks and containers; and
-------
o Provisions allowing an interim status facility to expand its operations by
more than 50%, in terms of capital expenditures, to treat or store
restricted wastes in tanks and containers.
2.0 APPLICABILITY
Land disposal restrictions apply to the following:
o Generators of hazardous waste;
o Transporters of hazardous waste; and
o Owners/operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities.
All interim status and permitted facilities are subject to the restrictions, regardless
of existing permit conditions. The land disposal restrictions override 40 CFR
\/
270.4(a) which provides that compliance with a RCRA permit constitutes
compliance with Subtitle C.
Excepted from the land disposal restrictions are:
o Small quantity generators of less than 100 kilograms of hazardous wastes
per month, or less than 1 kg per month of acute hazardous waste;
o Hazardous wastes placed into storage before the applicable effective date,
unless removed from storage after the effective date;
o Facilities subject to effective date or treatment standard
variances/extensions, or a No Migration Petition.
o Hazardous wastes that are disposed of in injection wells, until August 8.
1988; and
o Contaminated soil or debris resulting from CERCLA and RCRA removal
actions, until November 8, 1988.
3.0 TREATMENT STANDARDS (Section 268.40)
HSWA requires EPA to set levels or methods of treatment which substantially
diminish the toxicity of a waste, or substantially reduce the likelihood that
hazardous constituents will migrate from a waste. These levels or methods,
referred to as treatment standards, must minimize short- and long-term threats to
human health and the environment. After the effective dates of the prohibitions,
hazardous wastes that do not comply with the treatment standards are prohibited
from being placed in land disposal units unless:
-------
o EPA has approved a petition demonstrating that hazardous constituents
will not migrate from the land disposal unit for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous; or
o EPA has granted an extension to the effective date of the prohibition.
To establish treatment standards, EPA identifies wastes with similar charcteristics
(i.e., similar physical and chemical properties). EPA then categorizes these similar
wastes into broad "waste treatability groups" and subgroups. The treatability
groups take into account differences in the types and effectiveness of treatment
for those particular wastes. Treatability groups may be formed by grouping wastes
by industries or manufacturing processes which generate wastes with similar
treatability characteristics. EPA then evaluates identified technologies used to
treat the wastes to determine the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT)
for each waste treatability group.
To establish BOAT for a particular waste treatability group, EPA first collects and
analyzes data on existing treatment technologies that are in full-scale operation.
EPA does not consider pilot- and bench-scale operations.
Once EPA has identified "demonstrated" technologies, the Agency then determines
whether these technologies may be considered "available", as based on three
criteria. The technology must:
o Be commercially available;
o Present less risk to human health and the environment than land disposal
of the untreated waste; and
o Provide substantial treatment.
If all demonstrated treatment technologies present greater risks than land disposal
for a particular waste, EPA will not set a treatment standard for that waste.
Therefore, the restricted waste will be prohibited from land disposal (unless it is
the subject of an approved No Migration Petition) until a new or improved
technology emerges that does not pose a greater risk than land disposal. EPA will
not consider treatment technologies that are prohibited under RCRA Section
3004(n) because of the potential for air emissions of hazardous consituents.
Once the demonstrated available treatment technologies are identified, EPA then
evaluates performance data on these technologies to determine if the data are
-------
representative of well-designed and well-operated systems. Only data from well-
designed and well-operated systems will be considered in setting BDAT. These
performance data are then analyzed to determine the best demonstrated available
technology.
Once BDAT is identified, EPA establishes the treatment standard as either a
specific technology (or group of technologies) or as a concentration level of
hazardous constituents in the waste, or extract of the waste that is representative.
Wherever possible, EPA will attempt to set concentration-based standards since
they will provide the most flexibility to the regulated community.
The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is an analytical method
used to determine whether the concentrations of hazardous constituents in a waste
extract or an extract of the treatment residual meet the applicable treatment
standards. EPA promulgated the TCLP for use only in the solvents and dioxins
final rule, and only when treatment standards are expressed as concentration levels
of hazardous constituents in an extract. EPA may revise the TCLP at some future
date based on public comments received on the June 13, 1986 Organic Toxicity
Characteristic proposed rule (51 FR 21648).
The November 7 rule prohibits the dilution of restricted wastes as a substitute for
adequate treatment to meet the treatment standards (Section 268.3). This provision
is strengthened in the July 8 rule to ensure that no one cicumvents the intent of
EPA's concentration-based regulations by simply adding material to those wastes
that do not meet the treatment standards, rather than treating the wastes.
Dilution as a necessary part of the waste treatment process is allowed. For
example, the addition of an acidic or basic reagent to waste in a neutralization
pond does not merely dilute the waste into a large volume of waste; rather, the
addition of the reagent is a necessary part of the process of chemically altering the
waste so as to render it less hazardous.
The July 8 rule prohibits the use of evaporation of hazardous constituents as the
principal means of treatment for the purpose of obtaining an exemption for
treatment of otherwise restricted wastes in a surface impoundment (Section 268.4).
-------
3.1 Spent solvents (Section 268.41)
Only solvent constituents listed in Table 2 (CCWE), when used to solubilize
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents, are considered spent solvents under the
land disposal restrictions rule. A solvent is considered "spent" when it has been
used and is no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise
reprocessed. Examples of spent solvents include solvents that are used as
degreasers, cleaners, fabric scourers, dilutents, extractants, and reaction and
synthesis media. Manufacturing process wastes containing F001-FOOS solvent
constituents are not spent solvents where the solvent constituents are reactants and
not carriers (solvents) in the process.
EPA established three separate treatability groups for spent solvent wastes:
o Wastewaters, defined for the purposes of Table 2 as solvent-water
mixtures containing less than or equal to 1 percent total organic carbon
(TOC) by weight;
o Methylene chloride containing wastewaters containing less than or equal
to 1 percent TOC generated from pharmaceutical plants; and
o All other spent solvent wastes, including wastewaters containing greater
than 1 percent TOC, solvent-containing solids, solvent-containing sludges,
and solvent-contaminated soils.
The solvent treatment standards are set as concentration levels based on the
technologies of steam stripping, biological treatment, activated carbon treatment
and incineration. EPA is not requiring that these specific technologies be used to
meet the treatment standards. Table 2 lists the spent solvent treatment standards
expressed as concentrations in the treatment residual extract.
The following spent solvent wastes (F001-FOOS) have been granted the maximum
two-year national variance. Effective November 8, 1988, these wastes will be
prohibited from disposal.
o Wastes generated by small quantity generators of 100 to 1,000 kg/month
of hazardous wastes;
o Wastes resulting from CERCLA response actions and RCRA corrective
actions; and
o Solvent-water mixtures, solvent-containing sludges or solids, and solvent-
contaminated soil containing less than one percent by weight total F001-
F005 solvent constituents listed in Table 2.
8
-------
TABLE 2
SOLVENT TREATMENT STANDARDS
CONSTITUENTS OF
F001-FOQS
SPENT SOLVENT WASTES
Acelone
n-Butyi alcohol
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Crecols (cresjlic acid)
Cyclohexanone
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzcne
Ethyl ether
bobutanol
Methanol
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl feobutyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Fyridine
Tetrachloroethyiene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichlorocthaoe
l,l,2-Trichloro-lA2-
trifluoroe thane
Trichloroethylene
Tricbloionuoromethane
Xylene
EXTRACT CONCENTRATIONS (»g/l)
WASTEWATER*
0.05
5.00
1.0S
0.05
0.15
2.82
0.125
0.65
0.05
0.05
0.05
5.00
OJ5
0.20b
0.05
0.05
0.66
1.12
0.079
1.12
1.05
1.05
0.062
0.05
0.05
OTHER
0.59
5.00
451
0.96
0.05
0.7S
0.75
0.125
0.75
0.053
0.75
5.00
0.75
0.96
0.75
033
0.125
033
0.05
033
0.42
0.96
0.091
0.96
0.15
a For determining the applicable treatment standard, wastewaters are defined as solvent-water mixtures containing less than
or equal to 1 percent total organic carbon.
b Treatment standard for wastewalers generated from pharmaceutical plants is 117 mg/L
-------
3.2 Dioxin-Containing Wastes (Section 268.41)
The treatment standards Tor dioxin-containing wastes F020-F023 and F026-F028
are based on incineration to 99.9999 percent destruction and removal efficiency.
The standards require treatment to a level below the routinely achievable detection
limit of 1 ppb (using Method 8280 in SW-846) in the waste extract for the specific
isomers of tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans
listed in Table 3. The treatment standards for the chlorophenols also require
treatment to a level below the routinely achievable detection limit.
Table 3 shows the dioxin-containing waste treatment standards expressed as
concentrations in the treatment residual extract. EPA has determined that there is
a lack of treatment capacity nationwide to handle dioxin wastes. Therefore EPA
has granted the maximum two-year national variance to the effective date of the
dioxin land disposal restrictions to allow time for the regulated community to
develop the necessary capacity. Effective November 8, 1988, the F020-F023 and
F026-F028 dioxin-containing wastes are prohibited from land disposal.
3.3 California List Wastes
The California List consists of liquid hazardous wastes containing certain metals,
free cyanides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), corrosives with a pH of less than
or equal to 2, and liquid and non-liquid wastes containing halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs) as described below:
(A) Liquid hazardous waste, including free liquids associated with any solid
or sludge, containing free cyanides at concentrations greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/1;
(B) Liquid hazardous waste, including free liquids associated with any solid
or sludge, containing the following metals or compounds of these metals
at concentrations greater than or equal to those specified below:
Arsenic and/or compounds (as As) SOO mg/1
Cadmium and/or compounds (as Cd) 100 mg/1
Chromium VI and/or compounds (as Cr VI) 500 mg/1
Lead and/or compounds (as Pb) SOO mg/1
Mercury and/or compounds (as Hg) 20 mg/1
Nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134 mg/1
Selenium and/or compounds (as Se) 100 mg/1
Thallium and/or compounds (as Tl) 130 mg/1
(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a pH less than or equal to 2;
10
-------
TABLE 3
DIOXIN TREATMENT STANDARDS
F020-F023 AND F026-F028
DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
EXTRACT
CONCENTRATIONS
HxCDD - All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
HxCDF - All Hexachlorodibenzof urans
PeCDD - All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
PeCDF - All Pentachlorodibenzofurans
TCDD - All Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
TCDF - All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
ppb = ug/1
ppm = mg/1
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 0.05 ppm
< 0.05 ppm
< 0.10 ppm
< 0.01 ppm
11
-------
(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at
concentrations greater than or equal to SO pptn; and
(E) Hazardous wastes containing halogenated organic compounds in total
concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg for nonliquids and
1,000 mg/1 for liquids.
The July 8 rule requires that the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFLT) be used to
determine whether a California List waste is a liquid or nonliquid. The procedure
is Method 9095 in EPA Publication No. SW-846.
To determine whether a waste meets the specified prohibition levels, the EPA is
departing from the proposed rule which stated that an extract generated using the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) would be tested. The July 8
rule requires a total constituent analysis when testing liquid wastes containing
PCBs or liquid or nonliquid wastes containing HOCs.
When testing liquid hazardous wastes to evaluate whether they have a pH less than
or equal to 2, the existing method for determining the characteristic of corrosivity
in Section 261.22(a)(l) is required. In determining compliance with the statutory
prohibition levels for metals and free cyanides, EPA will be evaluating whether
the filtrate generated from the Paint Filter Liquids Test contains the prohibited
constituents in concentrations exceeding the specified levels.
Corrosives
Corrosives are defined as liquid hazardous wastes with a pH less than or equal to
2. The treatment standard is not technology based. If acidic wastes are
neutralized to a pH greater than 2, or rendered non-liquid, they are eligible for
landfilling. If the waste is hazardous solely because of the characteristic of
corrosivity, rendering it non-liquid also renders it non-hazardous. This is because
the characteristic of corrosivity based on low pH only applies to aqueous waste.
EPA is not granting an extension of the July 8, 1987 effective date for these
wastes.
PCBs
Because PCBs are not listed as hazardous waste under RCRA, PCB-containing
wastes are restricted under the July 8 rule only if they are mixed with liquid
wastes which are listed as hazardous under 40 CFR Part 261, or if the mixture
12
-------
exhibits ignitibility, corrosivity, reactivity or EP Toxicity. The prohibition level is
greater than or equal to SO ppm. The treatment standard is thermal destruction.
EPA is not granting an extention of the July 8, 1987 effective date for these
wastes.
Haloeenated Organic Compounds
Halogenated Organic Compounds are those compounds which contain a carbon-
halogen bond. They are restricted by the July 8 rule if they are contained in a
liquid or non-liquid hazardous waste. The prohibition level is greater than or
equal to 1,000 mg/kg for non-liquids, or greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/1 for
liquids. The treatment standard is incineration. A two year national capacity
extension has been granted for all California List HOCs, except HOC-water
mixtures containing less than 10,000 mg/1 HOCs.
Cyanides
Cyanides are defined as compounds which have a resonant structure containing a
carbon-nitrogen triple bond. Treatment standards were not set in the July 8 rule.
Therefore, the November 7 statutory level of greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/1
free cyanides in liquid hazardous waste is in effect.
Metals
Treatment standards for the listed metals also were not set in the July 8 rule.
Therefore, the November 7 statutory levels for metals in liquid hazardous wastes,
as listed on page 10 of this manual, are in effect. A separate rulemaking will be
made for free cyanides and the listed metals.
4.0 VARIANCES AND EXTENSIONS
Under certain conditions, EPA may grant a variance from the treatment standard,
an extension to the effective date of the land disposal prohibition, or an exemption
from the prohibition for a specific waste at a specific site. In the November 7,
1986 rulemaking, EPA established four types of variances and extensions:
o Variance from the treatment standard.
o Two-year national capacity variance.
o Case-by-case extension.
13
-------
o No Migration Petition.
All variances and extensions are rulemaking procedures. Variances from the
treatment standard, case-by-case extensions, and "no migration" exemptions are
petition processes. EPA will publish its tentative determination on a petition in
the Federal Register. After a 30-day comment period, EPA will publish its final
decision in the Federal Register. The two-year national capacity variance is solely
an EPA determination.
4.1 Variance from the Treatment Standard (Section 268.44)
The November 7 rule established the variance from the treatment standard to
account for wastes that are signigicantly different from the wastes evaluated by
EPA in setting treatment standards and, therefore, cannot be treated to meet the
applicable treatment standard. Examples are exotic wastes, wastes formed by
inadvertent mixing, and wastes that require the use of technologies different from
those used to set the treatment standard. If a petitioner can successfully
demonstrate that a waste is significantly different from the wastes in its
treatability group, such that it cannot meet the treatment standard, EPA will grant
a variance from the treatment standard. In granting a variance, EPA establishes a
new treatability group for that waste and all similar wastes, and sets a new
treatment standard.
For EPA to grant a variance, the petitioner must not only successfully demonstrate
that the waste is significantly different from the wastes evaluated by EPA in
setting the treatment standards, but also demonstrate that the waste cannot meet
the treatment standard. The petitioner must show by actual treatment attempts
that fail, or by extensive analysis of the waste, that treatment of the waste by
well-designed and well-operated technologies is unsuccessful in meeting the
specified levels, or that the waste cannot be treated by the specified technology.
Anyone submitting a petition for a variance from the treatment standard must
certify that all information in the petition is true, accurate, and complete. In
addition, they must comply with all applicable hazardous waste management
regulations during the petition evaluation process.
14
-------
In considering variance petitions, EPA first will compare the physical and
chemical characteristics of the petitioner's waste with the physical and chemical
characteristics of the wastes evaluated by the Agency in setting the treatment
standard. This comparison will enable EPA to reexamine its treatment standard
for the waste. EPA will then determine whether the petitioner's treatment system
(if any) is well designed and well operated, and whether the system reflects
treatment by BOAT.
4.2 Two-Year National Capacity Variance (Section 268.30)
Certain wastes may continue to be land disposed without treatment for up to two
years past the applicable effective dates of the restrictions rule if EPA determines
that adequate treatment capacity is not available on a nationwide basis. In
determining the need for a national capacity variance, EPA will consider, on a
nationwide basis, both the capacity of alternative treatment technologies and the
quantity of restricted waste generated. If there is a significant shortage of
national capacity to treat all the restricted waste, EPA may set an alternative
effective date based on the earliest date on which adequate treatment capacity
becomes available.
In determining available capacity, EPA will consider both permitted and interim
status on-line facilities. EPA will also consider planned facilities that will be on-
line by the effective date of a land disposal prohibition. On-line facilities will
include on-site and off-site facilities. Both stationary and mobile facilities will be
considered. EPA will not consider underground injection in its capacity
determinations until the Agency has determined whether such injection is fully
protective of human health and the environment.
4.3 Case-by-Case Extensions (Section 268.5)
In cases where alternative treatment or disposal capacity cannot be made available
by the effective date of the land disposal prohibitions, interested parties may
petition EPA for an extension of the effective date on a case-by-case basis. EPA
may grant a case-by-case extension of up to one year. This extension may be
renewed once.
To be considered for a case-by-case extension, a petitioner must demonstrate a good
faith effort to locate and contract with hazardous waste treatment, recovery, or
15
-------
disposal facilities nationwide. A petitioner must also demonstrate that he has
entered into a binding contract to construct or otherwise provide adequate
treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity sufficient to manage the entire volume of
waste. In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate that due to circumstances beyond
his control, alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity cannot reasonably
be made available by the effective date.
Anyone submitting a petition for a case-by-case extension must certify that all
information in the petition is true, accurate, and complete. In addition, they must
comply with all applicable hazardous waste management regulations during the
petition evaluation process.
If wastes that receive an extension to the effective date are to be placed in or on
the land, then they must be placed in a facility that is in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements. These requirements, including a double
liner, leachate collection system, and groundwater monitoring system, apply to new
units, replacements units, and lateral expansions of existing landfills or surface
impoundments at existing facilities. Wastes receiving an extension may also be
placed in facilities that meet other alternative operating practices, design features,
or other characteristics determined by the EPA to be equally protective of human
health and the environment.
4.4 No Migration Petitions (Section 268.6)
EPA will consider allowing land disposal of restricted wastes if a petitioner can
demonstrate, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that such disposal will not allow
migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as
long as the wastes remain hazardous. In general, a successful No Migration
Petition will allow only land disposal of a specific waste at a specific unit.
EPA believes that there will be very few instances when "no migration"
demonstrations can be successfully made. However, candidates for a successful
petition include cases where wastes containing relatively immobile hazardous
constituents are placed in monofills located in arid climates with no groundwater
recharge. Other candidates for consideration are cases where a small amount of
compatible waste is placed in a massive and stable geological formation such as a
salt dome.
16
-------
5.0 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTIONS
Restricted wastes may be treated in surface impoundments if the following
conditions are met:
o The impoundment meets minimum technological requirements;
o Treatment residues which do not meet treatment standards are removed
within one year of placement of the waste into the impoundment; or
o EPA waives requirements.
The surface impoundment must meet minimum technological requirements. It must
have two or more liners with a leachate collection system between them, and must
comply with applicable groundwater monitoring requirements. The EPA may grant
a modification to the requirements on the basis that the surface impoundment is
located, designed, and operated so as to insure no migration of hazardous
constituents into groundwater or surface water at any future time.
Treatment residuals not meeting the treatment standards can remain in a surface
impoundment for up to one year. Beyond that time period, the treatment residuals
that do not meet the treatment standards must be removed and treated to meet the
treatment standards before being disposed, and may not be placed into another
surface impoundment. Treatment residuals that do meet the treatment standards
may remain in the surface impoundment. In cases where the volume of liquid
wastes annually flowing through an impoundment (or series of impoundments) is
greater than the capacity of the impoundment, this flow-through may consitute
annual removal of the supernatant. This will not, of course, constitute removal of
any sludge residues requiring annual removal.
A surface impoundment may receive a waiver from the double liner and leachate
collection system requirements if EPA determines that it meets certain other
conditions, including:
o It is located more than one-quarter mile from any underground drinking
water sources;
o It has at least one liner that is not leaking;
o It is in compliance with the applicable groundwater monitoring
requirements; and
17
-------
o If no migration can be insured.
Owners or operators seeking an exemption for treatment in surface impoundments
must certify to the EPA that the impoundment meets the minimum technological
requirements, or is exempt as discussed above, and must submit a copy of the
facility's waste analysis plan.
6.0 STORAGE PROHIBITION (SECTION 268.50)
Under the land disposal restrictions rule, storage of restricted wastes is prohibited
except where storage is solely for the purpose of accumulating sufficient quantities
of wastes to facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or disposal. Treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities may store restricted wastes for as long as needed, provided
that such storage is for this purpose.
If a facility stores a restricted waste for more than one year, it bears the burden
of proof, in the event of an enforcement action, that the storage was solely for the
above purpose. There is no notification requirement for storage of more than one
year. For storage of less than one year, EPA bears the burden of proof that such
storage was not for the sole purose of accumulating sufficient quantities of wastes
to facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or disposal.
This prohibition on storage does not apply to wastes which meet the treatment
standard, wastes which have been granted an extension to the effective date, and
wastes which are the subject of a "no migration" exemption.
For generators without a RCRA permit or interim status, the rules governing
storage (Section 262.34) have not changed under the land disposal restrictions rule.
Large quantity generators may store restricted hazardous wastes on-site for 90 days
or less without a permit or interim status. Small quantity generators of 100 to
1,000 kg of hazardous wastes per month may accumulate wastes for up to 180 days,
or 270 days if the waste must be transported 200 miles or more to a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility.
The EPA may grant a 30-day extension to these storage limits on a case-by-case
basis. The land disposal restrictions now impose the additional requirement that
such storage must be solely for the purpose of accumulating sufficient quantities
of waste to facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or disposal.
18
-------
As prior to the land disposal restrictions, all generator storage must comply with
the applicable standards of RCRA Part 265, including contingency planning,
preparedness and prevention, and personnel training. In addition, generators must
store their wastes in containers or tanks that are clearly marked with the words
"Hazardous Waste" and with the date on which the tanks or containers entered
storage. All container markings must be clearly visible for inspection.
If compliance with the land disposal restrictions requires storage beyond 90 days,
or 180 days for small quantity generator waste, generators must obtain RCRA
interim status or a RCRA permit. For a generator to qualify for interim status,
the wastes must have been placed into storage in tanks or containers before the
effective date of the restrictions. A generator must also demonstrate that the
additional storage time is necessary to comply with the land disposal restrictions.
Generators who need to obtain interim status must submit a Part A application to
EPA by the earlier of two deadlines:
o Six months after publication of regulations which first require the
facility to comply with RCRA Part 265; or
o Thirty days after the date the facility first becomes subject to the Part
265 standards. This is the most likely deadline for most generators since
a generator first becomes subject to the permitting requirements when
the accumulation time limit is exceeded.
Interim status granted under these conditions will apply only to those restricted
wastes identified in the Part A application.
Generators who obtain interim status are subject to the applicable RCRA Part 265
standards. EPA can take corrective action against these generators pursuant to
Section 30008(h) for failure to comply with these standards. EPA can also require
the generator to submit a Part B permit application.
The rules governing storage at transfer facilities (Section 263.12) have not changed
under the land disposal restrictions. Transporters may store restricted wastes at a
transfer facility for up to 10 days without a permit or interim status.
19
-------
7.0 PERMIT PROGRAM
7.1 Interim Status Facilities
Under RCRA, treatment facilities operating under interim status may make certain
changes to their operations which enable them to handle new wastes. These
changes include:
o Accepting new wastes;
o Increasing design capacity, if the facilities can demonstrate to EPA that
there is a lack of available capacity; and
o Changing treatment, storage or disposal processes as necessary to comply
with state or local laws.
To accept new wastes, interim status facilities must revise their Part A permit
applications. To increase the design capacity or change a treatment, storage, or
disposal process, an interim status facility must obtain prior approval from EPA.
RCRA limited these changes to facility alterations and expansions that do not
exceed SO percent of the capital cost of a comparable new facility. The July 8 rule
made provisions allowing an interim status facility to expand its operations by
more than 50%, in terms of capital expenditures, to treat or store restricted wastes
in tanks and containers.
7.2 Permitted Facilities (Section 270.42)
Prior to the November 7 rule, permitted treatment facilities did not have the same
flexibility to make waste management changes as interim status facilities. In the
November 7 rulemaking, EPA made some changes (Section 270.42) which will allow
permitted facilities to treat restricted wastes more promptly and increase the
availability of treatment capacity. A permitted facility may now treat restricted
wastes not identified in the permit if the treatment is such that the residual meets
the applicable treatment standards. In addition, permitted facilities may treat new
wastes as long as such treatment does not pose substantially different risks from
the risks associated with wastes included in the permit. These changes require an
EPA-approved minor permit modification.
20
-------
The July 8 rule made provisions allowing a permitted facility to use the minor
modifications process, under certain conditions, to obtain approval to change the
facility to treat or store restricted wastes in tanks and containers. Facilities would
be required to submit a major modification request, which EPA would process at a
later date, and must comply with all applicable requirements of the RCRA Part
264 standards.
8.0 TESTING AND RECORDFCEEPING (SECTION 268.7)
The testing and recordkeeping requirements of the land disposal restrictions rule
reflect EPA's philosophy of tracking wastes from generation to ultimate disposal.
All restricted wastes, whether treated and disposed on-site, or sent off-site to a
RCRA treatment or disposal facility or to a recycling facility, are subject to
testing and recordkeeping requirements. Although recycling facilities may be
exempt from RCRA regulation, the wastes they receive and the resulting residues
are regulated by RCRA and subject to the land disposal restrictions.
Generators, treatment facilities, and land disposal facilities each have specific
responsibilities under the land disposal restrictions rule. However, the land disposal
facility bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that only wastes meeting the
treatment standards, or wastes that are subject to an exemption, extension or
variance, are landfilled.
8.1 Generator Responsibilities
The generator is responsible for testing his waste or using knowledge of his waste
to determine if it is restricted from land disposal. If the generator determines that
he is managing a restricted waste, he is responsible for determining whether the
waste meets the applicable treatment standard. If the generator has used
knowledge of his waste to determine the applicable treatment standard, or to
determine if the applicable standard has been met without treatment, he must
maintain records at the location where the waste is generated of all supporting
data. As prior to the land disposal restrictions, the generator must conduct a waste
analysis if there is any reason to believe that the waste composition of the
generating process has changed. He cannot rely on his knowledge of the waste in
such cases.
21
-------
If the waste meets the treatment standard, the generator may transport the waste
directly to the disposal facility, providing a notice with the following information:
o The EPA hazardous waste number(s);
o The applicable treatment standard(s);
o The manifest number associated with the waste shipment; and
o The waste analysis data (if available).
The generator must also provide a certification which states that the waste
delivered to the disposal facility meets the treatment standard, and that the
information included in the notice is true, accurate, and complete. If EPA has
granted an extension to the effective date for a particular waste, it is the
generator's responsibility to notify the land disposal facility.
For restricted wastes that do not meet the treatment standard, the generator must
send a notice with each shipment to the treatment facility. The generator must
determine the appropriate treatment standard based on waste analysis data,
knowledge of the waste, or both.
Generators who treat and/or dispose of restricted waste on-site must also comply
with the recordkeeping requirements of treatment and/or disposal facilities, except
for the manifest number.
8.2 Treatment Facility Responsibilities
Treatment facilities are responsible for treating restricted wastes to the levels
specified by the applicable treatment standards, or by the specified technology. A
treatment facility also is responsible for:
o Keeping a copy of the notice and any available waste analysis data
provided by the generator in the treatment facility's operating record;
o Testing the treatment residual, according to the frequency established in
the facility's waste analysis plan, to determine whether it meets the
treatment standard; and
o Conducting a waste analysis if there is any reason to believe that the
waste composition or the treatment process has changed.
22
-------
Where treatment residuals meet the treatment standards, the treatment facility, like
the generator who ships waste directly to a disposal facility, must submit a notice
and certification to the disposal facility. The certification must state that the
treatment standards have been met in accordance with the prohibition on dilution,
and that the information is true, accurate, and complete.
Where treatment residuals do not meet the treatment standards and the facility
ships the residuals off-site to another treatment facility for further treatment, the
notice requirements are the same as for the original generator sending the wastes
to the treatment facility.
8.3 Land Disposal Facility Responsibilities
Land disposal facilities are responsible for ensuring that only wastes meeting the
treatment standards, or wastes that are subject to an exemption or variance, are
land disposed. In addition, land disposal facilities must document that the waste
has been treated in accordance with the applicable EPA treatment standards. The
results of any waste analyses must be placed in the land disposal facility's
operating record, along with a copy of all certifications and notices.
23
-------
NOVEMBER 7, 1986 FINAL RULE
-------
FrMay
November 7, 1986
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40CFR Part 260 etaL
Hazardous Waste Management System?
Land Disposal Restrictions; Final Rule
-------
40572 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261, 262,264,265.
268,270, and 271
ISWH-FRL 3089-51
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Land Disposal Restrictions
AOINCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is today promulgating its
approach to implementing the
congressionally mandated prohibitions
on the land disposal of hazardous
waste. This action is responsive to
amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). enacted through the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA).
Today's notice establishes procedures
for setting treatment standards for
hazardous wastes, for granting
nationwide variances from statutory
effective dates, for granting extensions
of effective dates on a case-by-case
basis, for evaluating petitions for a
variance from the treatment standard,
and for evaluating petitions
demonstrating that continued land
disposal of hazardous wastes Is
protective of human health and the
environment.
m addition. EPA is promulgating
specific treatment standards and
effective dates for hazardous wastes
included in the first phase of the land
disposal prohibitions: certain dioxia and
solvent-containing hazardous wastes.
EPA also is promulgating the Toxidty
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) for use in determining whether
these wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards. Extensions of the
effective date for certain categories of
these wastes are also promulgated in
today's rule.
Prohibitions on underground injection
of these wastes are on a different
schedule and are being addressed in a
different rulemaking. The treatment
standards, however, will apply when the
restrictions are effective.
OATK This final rule is effective
November 8, 1986. except for the
provisions in <{ 26S.30(b) and 268.31(aL
which will become effective on
November 8.1988.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking under Docket Number LDR-
3 is located in the RCRA Docket (Sub-
basement). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW,
Washington. DC 20460. and is available
for viewing from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m..
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials
by calling Mia Zmud at (202) 475-9327 or
Kate Blow at (202) 382-4675 for
appointments. The public may copy a
maximum of 50 pages of material from
any one regulatory docket at no cost
Additional copies cost 120/page.
PON niMTMEH INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
rulemaking contact the RCRA Hotline.
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
(800) 424-4348 (toll free) or (202) 382-
3000 in the Washington. DC
metropolitan area.
For Information on specific aspects of
this rule contact: Stephen R. Weil or
Jacqueline W. Sales. Office of Solid
Waste (WH-862B). US. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW,
Washington. DC 20460 (202) 382-4770.
Preamble Outline
L Background
A. Summary of Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendment* of IBM
1. Solvent* and Dioxins
i California U*t
3. Scheduled Wastes
4. Newly Listed Wastes
a Summary of the Proposed Rule
1. Determination of Section 3004
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1966 / Rules and Regulations 40573
5. Definition of Available Capacity
B. Definition of Alternative Treatment
Capacity
7 Definition of Alternative Recovery and
Disposal Ciipaeity
8. Estimation of Capacity
9. Applicability of the Minimum
Technological Requirements
E. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundment!
1. Sampling and Removdl of Treatment
Rpudual*
2. Applicability of Minimum Technological
Requirements
F dse-by-Case Extensions
1. Demonstration* Included In Application!
2. Where to Send Extension Applications
3. Review of Application* For an Extension
4. Applicability of Case-by-Case
Extensions
S. Length of dse-by-Ca** Extension and
Renewals
6. Consultation With Affected Statoa
C. Evdluatlon of Petitions Demonstrating
Land Disposal To Be Protective of
I lumen Health and the Environment
1. Procedures for Submitting and Reviewing
Petitions
H. Treatability Variance
1. Basis for Establishing Treatability
Variance
2. Demonstration* Included In a Petition
V. Treatment Standard* for Solvent*
A. Introduction
B. Treatment Standard* For F001-FDOS Spent
Solvents
1. Industries Affected
2. Demonstrated Technologies for F001-
F009 Spent Solvent
3. Determination of Treatment Standard*
(BOAT) for Spent Solvent*
C Comparative Risk Assessment
Determination* for F001-F005 Spent
Solvent*
D. Treatment and Recycling Capacity for
Solvent*
1 Quantity of Waste* Land Disposed
2. Reanalysi* of Land Disposal Practices
Used
3. Comments on EPA'i Estimates
4 Summary of Quantities Requiring
Capacity
5. Comment* on Types of Treatment
Required
E. Unused Capacity of Solvent Treatment and
Recycling Facilities
1. Capacity for Wastewater Treatment
2. Capacity for Incineration
3 Capacity for Fuel Substitution
4. Capacity for Distillation
F Determination of the Effective Data
VI. Treatment Standards for Dioxln
Containing Waste*
A. Introduction •
& Summary of Regulations Affecting Land
Disposal of Draxin-Contaming Wastes
C Analyst* of Treatment Technologic* for
Dioxin-Contaiiung Waate* and
Determination of BOAT
1. Applicable Treatment Technologies
2. Comparative Risk Assessment
Determination* for Dioxio-Containing
Waste
3. Demonstrated Technologies a*)d
Determination of BOAT
D. Determination of Alternative Capacity and
Effective Date*
1. Required Alternative Treatment
Capacity for Dioxin-Contaming Waste*
2. Treatment. Disposal, and Recovery
Capacity Currently Available
VII. Stale Authority
A. Applicability of Rule* in Authorized State*
B. Effect on State Authorization*
C State Implementation
VUI. Effect* of the Land Disposal Restriction*
Program on Other Environmental Program*
A. Discharges Regulated Under the Clean
Water Act
a Discharge* Regulated Under the Mann*
Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries
Act
C Air Emission* Regulated Under the dean
Air Act
IX. Implementation of die Put 268 Land
Disposal Restriction* Program
X. Regulatory Requirement*
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Cost and Economic Impact Methodology
2. Costa and Economic Impact*
3. Benefit* and Coat-EnecnveiwM of the
Restrictions Role
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analyst*
1. Economic Impact on Small Businesses
2. Certification of Finding That No
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I*
Required
C Review of Supporting Document* and
Respoiue to Public Comment
1. Review of Supporting Comment*
2. Response to Comment*
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
XL Reference*
XIL LUI of Subject* In 40 CFR Peru 200.281.
282.264.203.268,270 and 271
A. Summary of Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984
The Hazardous and Solid Waato
Amendment* of 1984 (HSVVA). enacted
on November & 1984. Impose substantial
new responsibilities on those who
handle hazardous waste.
In particular, the amendments prohibit
the continued land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes beyond specified
dates, "unless the Administrator
determines that the prohibition... is not
required in order to protect human
health and the environment for as long
as the wastes remain hazardous..."
(RCRA sections 3004 (d)(l). (e)(l). (g)(5).
42 U.S.C 6924 (d)(U (e)(l). (gMS)).
Congress established a separate
schedule in section 3004(0 for making
determinations regarding the disposal of
dioxins and solvents in injection wells.
Wastes treated in accordance with
treatment standards set by EPA under
section 30M(m) of RCRA are not subject
to the prohibitions and may be land
disposed, lite statute requires EPA to
set "levels or methods of treatment if
any. which substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized" (RCRA. section
3004(m)(l). 42 U.S.C. 6924(m)(l)).
Land disposal prohibitions are
effective immediately upon
promulgation unless the Agency sets
another effective date based on the
earliest date that adequate alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity which is protective of human
health and the environment will be
available (RCRA sections 3004(h] (l)
and (2). 42 U.S.C. 6924{h) (1) and (2)).
However, these effective date variances
may not exceed 2 years beyond the
applicable statutory deadline. In
addition, two 1-year case-by-case
extensions of the effective date may be
granted under certain circumstances.
For the purpose* of the land disposal
restrictions program, the legislation
specifically defines land disposal to
include, but not be limited to. any
placement of hazardous waste in a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome or salt bed formation,
or underground mine or cave (RCRA
section 3004(k). 42 U.S.C. 6024(k)).
Congress also has prohibited the
storage of any hazardous waste that is
subject to a prohibition from one or
more methods of land disposal unless
"such storage is solely for the purpose of
the accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal" (RCRA section 3004(j). 42
U.S.C8924(j)L
There also is a statutory exemption
from the land disposal restrictions for
the treatment of wastes in a surface
Impoundment, provided that the
impoundments meet minimum
technological requirements (with limited
exceptions) and that treatment residue*
that do not meet the treatment
standard(s) are removed within 1 year
of the entry of the waste into the
impoundment (RCRA section 300S(|)
(11)(A)(B). 42 U.S.C 6925(j)(ll)(A)(B)).
The legislation sets forth a series of
deadlines for Agency action. At certain
deadlines, further land disposal of a
particular group of hazardous waste* i*
prohibited if the Agency has not set
treatment standards under section
3004(m) for such wastes or determined.
based on a case-specific petition, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the unit for as long as
the wastes remain hazardous. Other
deadlines cause conditional restrictions
-------
40574 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
on land disposal to take effect if
treatment standards have not been
promulgated or if a petition has not been
granted. In any case, where EPA does
not set a treatment standard for a waste
by the statutory date, it is not precluded
from later promulgating a treatment
standard for that waste. Similarly.
where EPA has set a treatment
standard, it is not precluded from
revising that standard after the statutory
date through rulemaking procedures.
The relevant statutory deadlines are
explained in detail in the following
units.
1. Solvents and Dioxins
Effective November 8,1980, the
statute prohibits further land disposal
(except by deep well injection) of the
following wastes: dioxin-containing
hazardous wastes numbered F020. F02L
F022. and F023,1 and solvent-containing
hazardous wastes numbered F001. F002.
F003. F004, and FOOS. (RCRA sections
3004 (e)(l). (e)(2). 42 U.&C 6924 («)(!).
(e)(2|). These wastes are listed in 40 CFR
261.31.
If EPA fails to set treatment standards
or grant petitions for solvent* and
dioxin-containing wastes by the
statutory deadline, such wastes are
prohibited from land disposal as of that
deadline (other than in injection wells.
where the prohibition is effective as of
August 8.1988). If EPA has set treatment
standards, wastes that meet the level or
are treated by the specified method may
be land disposed. Wastes subject to a
successful petition may also continue to
be land disposed.
2. California List
Effective July 8.1987 (32 months from
November 8. 1984). the statute prohibits
disposal (except with respect to deep
well injection) for the following waste*.
listed or identified under RCRA section
3001: •
a. Liquid hazardous wastes, including
free liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing free cyanides at
concentrations greater than or equal to
1.000 tag/l
b. Liquid hazardous wastes, Including
free liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing the following metals
(or elements) or compounds of these
metals (or elements) at concentrations
' The final dioxin rultmikiag (SO FR1978. Jimury
14. IMS) crania* thin ««»<• code*. FIBS. F027.
ind FD2S. not ipeaflid In du »l»hil*. Th* iddiltoMl
wain code* in I mult of iwjrgiiuxiUan ind do
not represent • tubiiinave departure ban tbt
weite code* tnumtnied in teciion»M(e)(i).
• Tbii Hit u baud en nfulitknu dtviloped by
lha California Department ol Htillb Scrmca far
htunlauf w»(i land diipoul mtrictlan* in the
Slate of California Thiu. it ha* bccena known u
Ihe-CilifomuUtL*
greater than or equal to those specified
below:
(1) Arsenic and/or compounds (as As)
SOOmg/1:
(2) Cadmium and/or compounds (as
Cd) 100 mg/l:
(3) Chromium (VI) and/or compounds
(as Cr VI) 500 mg/l;
(4) Lead and/or compounds (as Pb)
500 mg/l:
(5) Mercury and/or compounds (as
H«) 20 mg/l;
(8) Nickel and/or compounds (as Ni)
134 mg/l:
(7) Selenium and/or compounds (as
Se] 100 mg/l:
(8) Thallium and/or compounds (as
Tljl30mg/L
c. Liquid hazardous wastes having a
pH leas than or equal to 24.
d. Liquid hazardous wastes containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBa) at
concentrations greater than or equal to
50 ppm.
e. Hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds in total
concentrations greater than or equal to
1.000 mg/kg. (RCRA sections 3004(d) (1)
and (2). 42 U.S.C 6924(d] (1) and (2)).
If EPA falls to set treatment standards
or grant petitions by July B, 1987. for
wastes appearing on the California List,
these wastes will be prohibited from
land disposal (other than in injection
wells, when the applicable statutory
deadline is August & 1988).
EPA will propose treatment standards
for California List wastes in a future
Federal Register notice.
During the period ending November 8,
1988 (48 months bom November 8. 1984).
disposal of contaminated soil or debris
resulting from a response action taken
under sections 104 or 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (Superfund). or a
corrective action required under Subtitle
C of RCRA, Is not subject to any land
disposal prohibition or treatment
standard for FOOl-FOOS solvent wastes.
dioxin-containing wastes, and wastes
covered by the California Ust (RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(3). (e)(3). 42 U.S.C 6924
3. Scheduled Wastes
Section 3004(g) of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
6924(g)) requires the Agency to set a
schedule for making land disposal
restriction decisions for all hazardous
wastes listed as of November a, 1984,
under RCRA section 3001. This list
excludes solvent and dioxin wastes
prohibited under section 3004(c) and
California List wastes prohibited under
section 30M(d). EPA submitted this
schedule to Congress on May 28, 1986
(51 FR 19300).
RCRA section 3004(g)(6) (42 U.S.C
6924(g)(6)) provides that if EPA fails to
set treatment standards or grant
petitions by the statutory deadline for
any hazardous waste according to the
schedule, such hazardous waste may be
disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundments only in facilities In
compliance with the minimum
technological requirements set forth in
RCRA section 3004(o). 42 U.S.C.
0924(o)).• If EPA fails to set treatment
standards or grant a petition for any of
the scheduled listed wastes by May 8.
1990, all such wastes will be prohibited
from land disposal
4. Newly Listed Wastes
The land disposal prohibitions apply
to all hazardous wastes under RCRA
section 3001 as of November a 1984. the
date of enactment of HSW A. For any
hazardous waste identified or listed
under RCRA section 3001 after
November 8,1964. EPA la required to
make land disposal restriction
determinations within 6 months of the
'date of identification or listing (RCRA
section 3004(g](4). 42 U.S.C. 6924[g}(4)].
However, the statute does not impose an
automatic prohibition on land disposal if
EPA misses a deadline for any newly
listed or identified waste.
B. Summary of the Proposed Rule
On January 14,1986, EPA proposed to
establish a framework by which
treatment standards for hazardous
wastes restricted from land disposal
would be established. EPA also
proposed treatment standards and
effective dates (dates by which wastes
must be treated or be prohibited from
land disposal unless subject to a
successful petition) for the first class of
hazardous wastes—solvents and
dioxins—to be evaluated under the
proposed framework (51 FR 1602).
1. Determination of Section 3004(m)
Treatment Standards
In developing treatment standards
under RCRA section 3004(m). the
Agency proposed an approach using
technology-based levels in conjunction
with risk-based standards (screening
levels). The technology-based levels
were derived from the performance of
the best demonstrated available
technologies (BOAT). Performance or
treatment processes was evaluated
based upon the teachability of the
residuals of such treatment in the lanf*
• la Ihi* nutation, placement of iiich wane* in
olhir ijipn of Und disposal imil* (e*. deep
Infection w«lb) would not be precluded by MClion
NOKgMB). SM VoL 130. Cong. Ree. S01S2 (daily ed
|uly a, 1984).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40S75
disposal environment. The screening
levels specified maximum concentration
levels of individual hazardous
constituents in extracts of hazardous
wastes. The Agency also noted that air
emissions contamination was not
addressed in the proposed framework.
However, when work was completed on
the air model, more stringent screening
levels would be set. if necessary, to
protect this media.
To ensure that the total risks to
human health and the environment were
not increased as a result of
implementing the land disposal
restrictions, the Agency proposed to
compare the risks of managing wastes in
land disposal units with the risks of
managing wastes in alternative
treatment technologies. Treatment
technologies found to pose greater risks
than those posed by land disposal of the
waste would be considered unavailable
for purposes of establishing RCRA
section 3004(m) treatment standards.
The proposed rule set treatment
standards in the following way. If
application .of BOAT treatment resulted
in concentration levels equal to or lower
than the screening levels, the Agency
proposed to issue the screening level as
the treatment standard, capping off
required BOAT treatment at these
protective levels. If application of BOAT
treatment resulted in levels less
stringent than the screening levels, but
BOAT realized substantial reductions in
toxicity or mobility and did not pose
greater risks than land disposal then the
technology-based level would become
the treatment standard and the
screening level would remain as a goal
that could be reached as new
technologies emerged.
The Agency proposed to apply this
framework to the waste codes specified
in section 3004(e) (I.e., F020-F023. F028
and F027 « for dioxin-containing wastes.
and F001-FOOS and the corresponding
constituents listed In 40 CFR 28143 (e)
and (f) for solvent-containing wastes •).
« The Aginey omitted POM boa tht proposed nil*
becauae it u the rendue from the ihtnul Mttmenl
of Mill contaminated with other diaxiiMontauuni
weiiet. Thil wet an •nor. u (hit waate alao I*
required to meet the treatment aundanL FQ28 te
Included la today'a final rule.
• The tolvent waitei are Hated u POO. UOO.
U031. U037 UOJZ. UOJ7. U07Q. UOBOi U112. U117.
um. ui« uisi. um um. met. UUB, uzia
U211. Vac. U2Z8. U22B and U2W.
The screening levels for dioxin-
containing wastes were below
established detection limits achievable
using standard EPA analytical methods.
thus, the Agency proposed treatment
standards based on the detection limits.
The proposed treatment standards for
solvents were derived from screening
levels and the potential effects of
solvents on synthetic and clay liners.
The Agency requested comments on
an alternative approach, that of
establishing treatment standards under
RCRA section 3004(m) based solely on
the performance of the best
demonstrated available technology
(BOAT).
2. Variance Based on Lack of National
Capacity
Because no incinerator or thermal
treatment facility has been approved by
EPA to treat dioxin-containing wastes.
the Agency proposed to grant a 2-year
national variance for all dioxin-
containing wastes subject to the
restrictions. The Agency alao proposed
to grant a 2-year nationwide variance
for F001-FOOS solvent wastes containing
less than 1 percent (by weight) total
organic constituents, and solvent-
contaminated soils, because of capacity
limitations on alternative treatment.
recovery, and disposal technologies.
3. Petition Process
The Administrator is authorized to
find that land disposal of a particular
waste will be protective of human
health and the environment if an
interested person demonstrates, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the land disposal unit
or Injection zone for aa long aa the
wastes remain hazardous (RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(U (e)(l). and (g)(5). 42
U.S.C. (d)(l). (e)(l). and (g)(5J). Under
the proposed nile. this demonstration
was to be made in the form of a petition
to the EPA Regional Administrator or
authorized State program director. The
applicant would have been required to
prove that a specified waste could be
contained safely in a particular type of
disposal unit The Agency proposed that
the "no migration... for as long as the
wastes remain hazardous" standard
could be met if the petitioner
demonstrated that, by the time the
constituent reached a point of potential
human exposure, or a sensitive
environment it would be at a
concentration level that did not threaten
human health and the environment.
4. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
Section 3004(|) of RCRA specifies that
any waste that is prohibited from one or
more methods of land disposal also is
prohibited from storage unless the
storage is solely to accumulate sufficient
quantities of the waste to allow far
proper recovery, treatment or disposal.
The Agency interprets the statute to
provide that the storage prohibition does
not apply to wastes that have been
treated in accordance with treatment
standards or that have been subject to a
successful petition demonstration. EPA
proposed that generators and treatment.
storage, and disposal facilities be
allowed to accumulate prohibited
wastes on-site for up to 90 days.
U. Summary of Today's Final Rule
A. Regulatory Framework
The Agency is finalizing the
regulatory framework for implementing
the land disposal restrictions and
promulgating treatment standards and
associated effective dates for certain
solvent- and dioxin-containing wastes.
By each statutory deadline, the
Agency will promulgate the applicable
treatment standards under Part 288
Subpart D for each hazardous waste.
After the standards are effective, wastes
may be disposed of in a Subtitle C
facility if they meet the applicable
treatment standard.
After the effective dates of the
prohibitions, wastes that do not comply
with the applicable treatment standards
will be prohibited from continued
placement in land disposal units unless
a petition has been granted by the
Administrator under { 288.8
demonstrating that continued
management of specific hazardous
wastes in land disposal units is
protective of human health and the
environment for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. EPA may provide an
extension of the statutory effective date
under 1288.5.
-------
40576 Fadanl Rambler / Vol 51. No. 216 / PHday. November 7.1986 / Rules and Regulation*
I ••iimtfca "a".^ A I
v^1*^1*^^^****"**0*^** V
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40577
A Applicability
\. Scope of Land Disposal Restrictions
The definition of land disposal la not
being limited to placement in a landfill.
surface impoundment, waste pile.
injection well land treatment facility.
salt dome formation, salt bed formation.
or underground mine or cave as
specifically Identified in RCRA section
3004(k). The Agency also considers
placement in concrete vaults or bunkers
intended for disposal purposes as
methods of waste management subject
to the land disposal restrictions, as
proposed The Agency, however, is
departing from the proposed rule with
respect to open detonation. For purposes
of clarification, the final rule notes that
the Agency interpret* any reference to
open detonation to include open burning
(see Unit OLA.}. The Agency has
concluded that these methods do not
constitute land disposal, except in cases
when the residuals from open
detonation and open burning of
explosives continue to exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste.
The Agency interprets the land
disposal restriction adopted in today's
final rule as applying prospective!/ to
the affected hazardous wastes, hi other
words, hazardous wastes placed into
land disposal units after the effective
date are subject to the prohibitions, but
wastes land disposed prior to the
applicable effective date do not have to
be removed or exhumed for treatment.
Similarly, the Agency interprets the
restrictions on storage of prohibited
wastes to apply only to wastes placed in
storage after the effective date of an
applicable land disposal restriction. If.
however, wastes subject to land
disposal restrictions are removed from
either a storage or land disposal unit
after the effective date, subsequent
placement of such wastes in or on the
land would be subject to the restrictions
and treatment provisions.
The provisions of today's final rule
also apply to wastes produced by
generators of 100 to 1000 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a calendar month.
The land disposal restrictions apply to
both interim status and permitted
facilities. All permitted facilities are
subject to the restrictions, regardless of
existing permit conditions, because the
provisions of RCRA require compliance
by all facilities even though the
requirements are not specifically
referenced In the permit conditions. The
land disposal restrictions supersede 40
CFR 270.4(a). which currently provides
that compliance with a RCRA permit
constitutes compliance with Subtitle C.
2. CERCLA Response Action and RCRA
Corrective Action Wastes
Under section 3004(e)(3) Congress
provided a 48-month exemption (until
November 1988) from the land disposal
restriction provisions for disposal of
contaminated soil and debris from
CERCLA 1M and 108 response actions
and RCRA corrective actions. Because
of this statutory exemption, today's final
rule is not applicable to these wastes.
The exemption covers the disposal of
any soil and debns wastes under
section 3004 (d) and (ej. All other
CERCLA response action wastes and
RCRA corrective actions wastes are
subject to this rule.
CERCLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions often address waste
matrices different than those associated
with industrial waste processes on
which this rule is primarily based. These
waste matrices an different in terms of
chemical/physical composition.
concentrations, and media within and
among sites. The Agency anticipates
that tnatabiUty variances may be
needed for some soils, debris, and other
similar wastes. Therefore, before
November & 1988, the Agency plans to
perform additional characterization of
soils and debris and other similar
wastes and. when necessary, amend
the treatment standards by adding
additional standards specifically for
these wastes.
Today's final rule provides a 2-year
national variance for waates from
CERCLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions that an not soil and
debris. These wastes must be disposed
of in facilities that an in compliance
with the requirements of section 3004(o).
CERCLA and RCRA soil and debris
wastes Include but an not limited to
soils, dirt, and rack as well as materials
such as contaminated wood, stumps.
clothing, equipment building materials,
stonge containers, and liners. In many
cases soils and debris will be mixed
with liquids or sludges. The Agency will
determine on a case-by-case basis
whether all or portions of such mixtures
should be considered soil or debris.
3. Air Emissions
The framework for restricting wastes
from land disposal focuses primarily on
the relationship between the land
disposal of hazardous waste and ground
water quality. However, the Agency
also is concerned with air emissions
from land disposal of these wastes. The
Agency plans to address the issue of
nleases to the air in a broad context in
response to various provisions in RCRA
including section 3001 (characterization
of waste as hazardous) and section 3004
(restriction of waste from land disposal
and standards for air emissions from
land disposal).
Historically, the Agency has
developed and promulgated rules under
section 3001 of RCRA classifying wastes
as hazardous based on the potential of
these wastes to cause harm to human
health and the environment if managed
Improperly. These determinations have
Included the potential for harm as a
result of nactivity. ignitability.
corroaivily. and toxicity via the ground
water or surface water pathway. While
the Agency has consistently maintained
that exposure from air emissions is a
potential problem for wastes that are
treated and disposed improperly, work
to develop a characteristic based on
potential for air contamination has not
as yet been completed. The Agency
plans, however, to propose an air
toxicity characteristic in the future to
provide a more complete definition of
hazardous waste. Including a list of
hazardous constituents that are of
concern based on their potential for air
contamination.
In conjunction with the development
of an air toxicity characteristic, the
Agency also plans to propose criteria
and performance standards for air
emissions in its development of
treatment standards for wastes in
accordance with section 3004(m). The
development of these criteria is tied to
the characterization of wastes as
hazardous and that portion of the land
disposal restrictions framework related
to the risks posed by air emissions from
best treatment technologies.
Both the air toxicity characteristic and
the criteria for treatment standards
based on air emissions are related to
both the development of air emission
standards under section 3004(n) and the
petition demonstration for continued
land disposal under section 3004[d).
With respect to the former, section
3004[n) requires the Administrator lo
promulgate standards for the control
and monitoring of air emissions from
treatment storage and disposal
facilities. These standards an currently
under development.
In establishing a framework for
dealing with air emissions under the
RCRA statute, the Agency must also
develop criteria under section 3004 (d).
(e), and (g) for determining when the
statutory standard of "no migration of
hazardous constituents from the
disposal unit or injection zone for as
long as the waste remains hazardous"
has been met As with other portions 01
the statute dealing with air emissions.
the standards and criteria to be applied
to the petition demonstration an closely
-------
40578 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
related to the factors and criteria to be
used to determine when a waste should
be managed as hazardous under section
3001 of RCRA. EPA expects that the
technical analysis of air emissions that
will provide a basis for future
rulemaking under sections 3001 and
3004(n) will also be used as a guide in
making decisions on petitions
addressing air emissions concerns.
Implementation of two portions of the
regulatory program, nevertheless, must
proceed as the air strategy is being
developed. These include the issuance
of permits to treatment, storage and
disposal facilities and the establishment
of corrective action requirements as a
part of those permits. In these cases, it is
expected that air contamination from
operating and closed facilities will be
addressed on a ease-by-case basis as
part of the permit process.
C. Section 3OM(m) Treatment Standards
As discussed earlier, the Agency
proposed two major approaches to
setting treatment standards under
section 3004(m). The first approach
involved development of treatment
standards based on either technology-
or risk-based screening levels. The
second approach was based entirely on
technology-based standards expressed
as BOAT. The Agency is promulgating
the second approach as the framework
under which disposal of solvents.
dioxms, and the scheduled wastes wiO
be evaluated.
The risk-based methodology proposed
by the Agency considered the degree of
hazard posed by wastes land disposed
in Subtitle C facilities. This led to the
development of "maximum acceptable
contaminant concentrations'' (or
screening levels), which were based on
the recognition that the potential for
harm to human health and the
environment will differ depending on
the loxicity. mobility, and persistence of
the waste stream. This approach also
recognized that in some cases, any
single technology-based level may
provide more protection than is
necessary, while in other cases, may
provide insufficient safeguards' for
human health and the environment
Moreover, under the proposed approach,
relatively "low hazard" wastes could be
considered suitable for land disposal
without any treatment at all.
Although a number of comments on
the proposed rule favored the first
approach: that is, the use of screening
levels to "cap" treatment that can be
achieved under BOAT, several
commenters, including eleven members
of Congress, argued strongly that mis
approach did not fulfill the intent of the
law. They asserted that because of the
scientific uncertainty inherent in risk-
based decisions, Congress expressly
directed the Agency to set treatment
standards based on the capabilities of
existing technology.
The Agency believes that the
technology-based approach adopted in
today's final rule, although not the only
approach allowable under the law. best
responds to the above-stated comments.
Accordingly, the final rule establishes
treatment standards under RCRA
section 3004(m) based exclusively on
levels achievable by BOAT. The Agency
believes that the treatment standards
will generally be protective of human
health and the environment Levels less
stringent than BOAT may also be
protective.
The plain language of the statute does)
not compel the Agency to set treatment
standards based exclusively on the
capabilities of existing technology.
RCRA section 3004(m) requires EPA to
"promulgate regulations specifying those
levels or method* of treatment if any.
which substantially diminish the toxidty
of the waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized" (42 U.S.C 6924(m)). By
culling for standards that minimize
threats to human health and the
environment the statute clearly allows
for the kind of risk-baaed standard
originally proposed by the Agency.
However, the plain language- of the
statute does not preclude a technology-
based approach. This is made clear by
the legislative history accompanying the
introduction of the final section 3004(m)
language. The legislative history
provides that "TTJhe requisite levels of
(sic) methods of treatment established
has bees demonstrated to be
achievable" and thai "ITJhe intent here
is to require utilization of available
technology fn lien of continued land
disposal without prior treatment" (VoL
130. Cong. Rec. «78. (daily ed. Iidy 25.
1984)). Thus, EPA is acting within the
authority vested by the statute in
selecting to promulgate a final
regulation using its proposed alternative
approach of setting treatment standards
based on BOAT.
The Agency believes that it* major
purpose in adopting the risk-baaed
approach of the proposal (f.e, to allow
different standards for relatively low-
risk, low-hazard wastes) may be better
addressed through changes tn other
aspects of its regulatory program. For
example, EPA is considering the use of
its risk-based methodologies to
characterize wastes as hazardous
pursuant to section 3001.
D. Petition Procedure* for
Demonstrating Land Disposal To Be
Protective of Human Health and the
Environment ("No-migration" Petitions)
In carrying out the directives of RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(l), (e)(l). and (g)(5). the
Agency proposed to consider petitions
to allow land disposal of restricted
wastes, provided that petitioners
demonstrated that any migration from
the disposal site would be at
concentrations that did not pose a threat
to human health and the environment.
Today's final rule adopts the statutory
language requiring petitioners to
demonstrate "to a reasonable degree of
certainty that mere will be no migration
of hazardous constituents from the
disposal unit or injection zone for as
long as the wastes remain hazardous."
The Agency will allow continued land
disposal of hazardous wastes without
further treatment only when It can be
demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, that the statutory standard
will be met
Since the Agency expects that then
will be relatively few cases in which
this demonstration can be made, and.
therefore, that relatively few petitions
might be submitted for review, the
Agency is- requiring that petitions be
submitted to the Administrator rather
than to permit writers in authorized
States or Regional EPA offices as
originally proposed. As noted in the
proposed rule, a petition may be
submitted at any time prior to or after
the effective data of the ban (see Unit
IV.C.). However, submission of a
petition will not stay the effective date
of *h* prohibitions.
£ Variance From the Treatment
Standard
The Agency recognizes that there may
exist unique wastes that cannot be
treated to the levels specified as the
treatment standard (or, In some cases.
by the method specified). In such cases,
generators or owners/operators may
submit a petition to the Administrator
requesting a variance from the treatment
standard. Today's final rale Includes
procedures for obtaining such a variance
(see Unit IV.H.). Following a restriction
effective date and while the Agency is
reviewing the request for a variance, the
generator may not land dispose the
waste. Alternatively, continued land
disposal in surface impoundments
meeting, the standards of 12B8.4(a)(3)
may be feasible for some wastes.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40579
F. National Variance From the Effective
Date
The Agency has the authority to grant
national variances to the effective date
based upon a lack of capacity to treat
the wastes. The new effective date of
the prohibition is to be established
based on the earliest date on which
treatment capacity that is protective of
human health and the environment will
be available. In no case can this
extension be longer than 2 yean. During
the period of such a variance, the waste
is not subject to the land disposal
restrictions or any requirements relating
to such restrictions. However, during the
period of such an extension, the wastes
must be managed la facilities that an in
compliance with the requirement* of
section 30M(o) (42 UAC 6824(0)).
C. Caee-oy-Case Extensions
The Agency will consider granting up
to a 1-year extension (renewable once)
of a ban effective date if the applicant
demonstrates that a binding contract
has been entered into to construct or
otherwise provide alternative capacity
that cannot reasonably be made
available by the applicable effective
date due to circumstances beyond the
applicant's control The Agency ia
departing from the procednneoutlined-
in the proposed rule by deleting the
proposed cancellation penalty clause for
contracts to construct or provide
capacity. The final rule makes It dear
thai in demonstrating that capacity
cannot reasonably be available the
applicant may show that it Is not
feasible to provide such capacity (see
Unit IV.F.). During the period that the
extension is in place, the waste ia not
subject to the land disposal restrictions:
thus, the successful applicant also ie
exempt from the prohibition on storage
under { 268.50. However, during the
period of the extension, the wastes must
be disposed of in facilities meeting the
requirements of RCRA section 30M(o)
(42 U.S.C. 6924(0)].
H. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
The Agency proposed a 90-day
storage limit to allow the generator and
owner/operator of a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facility
time to accumulate sufficient quantities
of wastes to allow for proper recovery.
treatment, and disposal Commenters to
the rule stated that 90 days was
insufficient and more time should be
allowed for storage. In today's final rule
the Agency is removing the 90-day
storage limit for owners/operators.
Owners/operators may store restricted
wastes as needed to accumulate
sufficient quantities to allow for proper
recovery, treatment and disposal
However, where storage occurs beyond
one year, the owner/operator bears the
burden of proving that such storage is
solely for the purpose of accumulating
sufficient quantities to allow for proper
recovery, treatment, or disposal
Generators who need to store restricted
wastes for periods in excess of the
accumulation time limits in 40 CFR
262.34 must obtain Interim status and
eventually a permit The Agency is
maintaining the proposed 10-day storage
limit for restricted waste at transfer
facilities. The prohibition on storage
applies to restricted wastes, and does
not apply to wastes that meet the
treatment standard or an the subject of
a successful petition under 1 2684 or
extension under 1 TW!t_
/ Treatment Standards and Effective
Dates far Solvents
The Agency proposed to establish
treatment standards for FOOL FOB. POOS.
FDOt. and FOOft solvent wastes and their
corresponding P and U wastes (40 CFR
281 J (ej and (f)) using screening level*
and a liner protection threshold. Today'a
rule, however, addresses only the P001
through POOa solvent waste* (including
solvent mixtures). The Agency will
evaluate- the P and U solvent wastes la
accordance with the schedule for listed
waste*. In today's rule, the Agency ia
promulgating technology-based
treatment standards for the FOOT-FOGS
solvents. The Agency also is
promulgating the effective dates for
F001-F005 solvent wastes essentially as
proposed, with modifications to the
range of applicable wastes. The land
disposal restrictions become effective
on November a 1986. for all FOOl-FOOS
solvent wastes, with the exception of
the following wastes which will receive
a 2-year variance that extends the
effective date for the land disposal
restrictions to November e. 1988:
(1) The generator of the solvent waste
is a small quantity generator of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
(2) The solvent waste Is generated
from any response action taken under
sections 104 or 106 of CERCLA or any
RCRA corrective action, except when
the waste is contaminated soil or debris
not subject to the provisions of this
chapter until November 8, 1988: or
(3) The solvent waste is a solvent-
water mixture, a solvent-containing
sludge, or a solvent-contaminated soil
(non-CERCLA or RCRA corrective
action) containing less than 1 percent
total FD01-F005 solvent constituents
listed in Table CCWE of 1 288.41.
/. Treatment Standards and Effective
Dates for Dioxins
The proposed rule set treatment
standards for dioxin-contalning wastes
(F020. F021. F02Z F023. F028. F027)
below the current detection limit of 1
ppb for each of the chlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated
dibenzofurans (CDFs) (i.e.. all isomers of
tetra-. penta-. and hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
respectively), and the applicable
detection limits for the specified
chlorophenols.* The proposed standards
required that these constituents be
below the 1 ppb limit in the waste
extract before being land disposed.
Wastes having concentrations that meet
or exceed the 1 ppb limit may be treated
in accordance with the criteria
established for incineration (40 CFR
284.343 and 285.332). and thermal
treatment (40 CFR 284.383) for dioxins.
The Agency Is promulgating the dioxin
treatment standards as proposed (see
Unit VI). The Agency also is setting
treatment standards for F028. which was
not included in the proposed rule.
As proposed, the Agency is
establishing a 2-year national variance
from the effective date for all dioxin-
contaJning wastes covered under
today's final rule. Accordingly.
treatment standards for dioxin-
containing wastes will not take effect
until November a 1988,
K. Rationale for Immediate Effective
Dates
Today's rule provides for an effective
dale of November a. 1988. It is dear
from the statute that today's rule must
go Into effect no later than the effective
date of the prohibition on solvent* and
dioxins ia section 3004|e). Absent any
regulations, the prohibition on solvents
and dioxins in section 30M(e] takes
effect automatically on November a
1988. Therefore. November a 1988 is the
latest date for EPA to promulgate
regulations thai will prevent the
"hammer" In section 3004|e) from
falling. Section 30M(h] of RCRA
provides that a prohibition in
regulations under section 3004 (d), (e).
(f). or (a) takes effect immediately upon
promulgation. For section 3004(ej. that
date is November a 1988. Moreover.
section 3004(m) provides that
regulations setting treatment standards
• In addition la CDO» ud CDF*. d» eoudtucnt*
of eonem for the dioxJn-conuining wane* alto
Include LOMeMoraphnwL iomchlorophenol.
«.4jHtBidduBVhinot ud pmuchlorephenol
(MI Appandis VU to ft* ZS1). Tta Mianmt
ilindirdt for tbcw COBJIUIMM* in » SO. 100. ind
10 ppb. respectively.
-------
40580 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
must have the same effective date as the
applicable regulation promulgated under
subsection (d). (e). (fl, and (g). Therefore.
since the statute dearly provides that
the regulations implementing section
3004(e) go into effect on November 8,
1986. EPA finds that good cause exists
under section 3010(b)(3) of RCRA to
provide for an effective dale of
November B. 1988. For the same reason,
EPA finds that there is good cause under
section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative
Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. ft 553(d)(3). to
waive the requirement that regulations
be published at least 30 days before
they become effective.
III. Agency Response to Major
Comments oa Proposed Rule
EPA received approximately 200
comments responding to the proposed
rule. Comments were submitted by
treatment storage, and disposal (TSDF)
facilities, environmental organizations,
Irade associations, companies. State and
Federal regulatory agencies, and private
citizens.
The Agency received considerable
comment on all aspects of the proposed
rule. In today's final rule, major
comments on applicability, treatment
alternatives (BOAT), capacity, petitions,
storage. CERCLA Interface, solvents.
and dioxins an addressed. Responses to
comments not addressed in today's rule
are available in the background
document to this rulemakiag (see
Comment Response Background
Document For the Land Disposal
Restrictions Volume L November 7.
1988), available in the RCRA docket
The Agency received numerous
comments on the ground water back
calculation model used in developing
health-based screening levels. However.
because the approach promulgated in
today's rule does not employ screening
levels, the Agency Is not addressing
these comments in the final rule. The
Agency does anticipate using similar
models In future regulatory actions. We
will address the issues raised by the
applicable comments in these future
rulemaking activities.
A. Applicability
1. Open Burning and Open Detonation
The majority of the conunenters were
opposed to the inclusion of open
detonation and open burning as forms of
land disposal. It was argued that these
two methods of waste management an
treatment rather than disposal as
supported by the standards in 40 CFR
265.382 for owners and operators who
thermally treat explosive wastes using
open detonation or open burning. The
commenters stated that most wastes
handled in (his manner are hazardous
because they exhibit the characteristic
of reactivity (i.e* they an explosive),
and when these wastes an open burned
or detonated they an rendered
nonreactive. The commenters also
indicated that no other available
technologies provide a safer alternative
to handling these wastes.
Although the Agency did not
specifically address open burning in the
proposed rule, current EPA regulations
classify both open detonation and open
burning as types of thermal treatment
under Subpart D of Part 265. Because
open detonation and open burning an
similar waste management methods for
treatment of explosive wastes, the same
regulatory requirements apply to both
methods under 40 CFR 285482.
Therefore, we believe that considering
open burning in conjunction with open
detonation for purposes of this final rule
ia reasonable and consistent with the
current regulatory structure.
Upon reevaluation. the Agency agrees
that open burning and open detonation
of explosiva wastes does not constitute
land disposal EPA does not believe that
Congress intended to prohibit these
activities because open burning and
open detonation are not included in the
definition of land disposal In section
3004(k). They an primarily treatment
processes that typically result in by-
products which are no longer reactive
and. therefore, are not considered
hazardous. The Agency also agrees with
commenters that open detonation and
open burning may be the only safe
waste management method for handling
explosiva wastes.
In view of these considerations, the
Agency has concluded that the land
disposal restrictions program is not
applicable to open detonation and open
burning.
2. Wastes Produced by Small Quantity
Generators
While EPA is authorized to vary
standards for small generators under
RCRA section 3001(d), this authority is
circumscribed by the need to protect
human health and the environment The
Agency has carefully considered the
risks posed by land disposal of small
generator wastes and baa weighed these
against the impacts of the land disposal
restrictions on these generators. Given
the smaller aggregate amounts of
hazardous waste produced by small
generators, it is arguable that the
relative risks of land disposal to human
health and the environment an lower.
However, the major concern with land
disposal is the toxicily of the waste
rather than the quantity. As EPA
explained in a recent rulemaking
imposing certain RCRA regulatory
requirements on generators of 100 to
1000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
data from EPA's National Small
Quantity Hazardous Wasie Generator
Survey indicate that both small and
large quantity generators produce many
of the same types of waste and use
many of the same waste management
practices. 50 FR 31285 (Aug. 1.1985).
Therefore. It is appropriate to include
wastes produced by small quantity
generators in the land disposal
prohibitions.
B. Treatment Alternatives (BOAT)
1. BOAT Expressed as d Performance
Standard
Generally, commenten supported the
Agency's interpretation of section
3004(m) regarding the criteria for the
selection of BOAT. The statute specifies
that BOAT may be expressed as either a
performance standard or a method of
treatment Wherever possible, the
Agency prefers to establish BOAT
treatment standards as performance
standards rather than adopting an
approach that would require the use of
specific treatment methods. To date, all
treatment technologies considered as
BOAT can result in a wide range of
performance values depending on the
operation of the technology. EPA
believes performance standards ensure
that the technology is properly operated.
Additionally, the Agency believes
concentration-based performance
standards offer the regulated community
greater flexibility to develop and
implement compliance strategies as well
as incentive to develop innovative
treatment technologies.
2. Process Variability
One commenter asserted that normal
process variability has not been
accounted for in the Agency's
calculation of treatment standards. The
commenter urged the Agency to
calculate variability factors which
account for variations in influent
composition, system performance,
sampling and analytical test methods.
and site specific conditions. The
commenter further stated that the
variability factors should be used to
develop BOAT treatment standards on a
daily maximum basis.
The Agency agrees with the comments
that treatment standards need to
incorporate a variability analysis. Since
variability in performance occurs even
at facilities that are well designed and
well operated. EPA believes it is
appropriate to include such an analysis
in the development of BOAT treatment
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40581
standards. This analysis is not intended
to account for performance differences
which occur as a result of treating a
waste that is significantly different in
composition or for differences which
occur from improper or poor treatment
of the same waste. Instead.
incorporation of a variability factor into
(he development of a BOAT standard is
intended to account for variations which
arise from mechanical limitations in the
equipment used to maintain treatment
parameters at the proper setting, small
variations in the waste, and variations
in analytical test methods.
The variability factor, as outlined in
the Notice of Availability of Data (see 51
FR 31783. September 5.1988), is the ratio
of the calculated 99th percentile
concentration. Gn. to die mean
treatment concentration. A detailed
discussion of the statistical calculation
used to account for process variability is
provided In Unit IVA
3. Criteria for Well-Designed and
Operated Treatment Systems
One commenter asserted that the
Agency should document In the record
its rationale for evaluating and editing
data based on the performance of the
treatment system. The commenter stated
that the Agency should not simply
presume that well designed and
operated treatment systems are those
that achieve the lowest performance
values but should Instead consider the
effects of the characteristics of the
waste on treatment performance. The
Agency is aware that the level of
treatment achievable is dependent upon
the physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste.
Accordingly, it Is necessary for the
Agency to assess design and operating
parameters In determining whether a
system is performing well in addition to
its consideration of the performance
value achieved. Because the parameters
that comprise a well-designed and
operated system will vary for each
technology, it is difficult for EPA to
generalize the specific parameters that
need to be examined. Whenever the
Agency has little or no data on the
design and operation of the system, the
Agency will evaluate the constituent
concentrations in the waste before and
after treatment and use engineering
judgment to determine whether the
system is performing well. The Agency
also will use a statistical outlier analysis
to confirm engineering judgment The
statistical analysis to be used was
published in the Federal Register on
September 5.1988 [51 FR 31783). The
rationale the Agency used for editing
performance data can be found In the
technical support documents.
C Capacity
1. Capacity for Waste-as-Fuel
Several commenters argued that EPA
did not consider wasle-as-fuel as a
treatment alternative in estimating
capacity. As one commenter painted
out. this is a potentially large treatment
option that cannot be ignored. EPA did
not consider this alternative because the
data were not available. Since the
November 14.1988, proposed rule the
Agency has received waste-as-fuel data
from the 'Telephone Verification Survey
of Commercial Facilities that Manege
Solvents" (August 1988). Data from this
survey were noticed for public comment
on September 5.1988 (51 FR 31788) and
have been Included in capacity
estimates for today's final rule.
2. Commercial vs. Private Capacity
Several commenters stated that EPA
should not consider private capacity as
available alternative treatment capacity.
They explained thai private facilities
may not be willing to accept off-site
wastes because liability could be
considerable, permit conditions may
prohibit accepting off-site waste, or on-
site capacity may be fully committed to
nonhazardoiu waste*.
EPA recognizes the issues raised by
commenters and agrees that private
capacity should not automatically be
considered as available alternative
treatment capacity. However, when
there Is insufficient available
commercial treatment capacity. EPA
plans to consider the potential for
private facilities to become commercial
facilities. EPA will include private
capacity If then is sufficient evidence
that the private facilities plan to accept
off-site wastes. Because limited
information exists on the planned public
availability of current private capacity.
EPA has no basis for including private
capacity in total capacity estimates for
solvents and dioxins subject to today's
final rule.
3. Permitted Facility vs. Interim Status
Facility Capacity
Several commenters stated that only
existing permitted treatment facilities
should be considered in estimating
available capacity. They argued that
interim slants facilities may not receive
final permits and consequently may not
provide available capacity.
In calculating available capacity for
solvents and dioxins, EPA included
capacity that is currently available from
some interim status fatalities and all
permitted facilities. The interim status
facilities included did not notify the
Agency of an intent to close end.
therefore, can be expected to provide
capacity for the November 8,1988.
effective dale. In future capacity
determinations. EPA will assess, on e
case-by-case basis, the number of
Interim status facilities expected to
accept wastes.
4. Existing Facility vs. Planned Facility
Capacity
Several commenters stated that only
existing, permitted facilities should be
considered in estimating available
capacity, because it is uncertain
whether "planned" facilities will be on-
line by the effective date of the
restrictions with approval to operate
from Federal Slate, and local agencies.
EPA will include planned capacity only
when there is sufficient evidence that
the planned facilities will be fully
operational by the effective date of the
prohibitions. In the case of solvents and
dioxins. such evidence does not exist:
therefore, planned facilities have not
been included in the capacity estimates
for today's rule.
5. National vs. Regional Capacity
Several commenters stated that EPA
should determine available capacity
under section 3004(h)[2] on a regional
basis rather than on a national basis.
and variances should be regionalized
based on the availability of treatment
These commenters stated that it is
realistic to assume that economic and
transportation problems affect the
availability of alternative capacity for a
particular generator. They pointed out
that national capacity for some
treatment technologies is based on a
few high-volume treatment facilities.
and emphasized the need for Federal
State, and local efforts to construct more
waste treatment facilities.
EPA recognizes these problems.
However, the legislative history (S. Rep.
No. 284.98th Cong. 1st Sess. 19.(1983]).
clearly states that "the available
capacity determination is to be done on
a national basis" in order to prevent a
situation in which regions obtaining
variances would become the "dumping-
ground" for wastes generated in regions
implementing the land disposal
restrictions. Accordingly, EPA believee
that national capacity determinations
under section 3004(h)(2) are more in
accord with the statutory intent
D. Petitions Demonstrating Land
Disposal of Untreated Waste is
Protective
1. Generic Petitions for Sites With
Similar Hydrogeologic Properties
Several commenlers suggested that
the Agency accept generic petitions that
address similar management techniques
-------
40582 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 218 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
for the same or similar wastes in
hydrogeologic settings with similar
characteristics. Commenters felt thai a
generic petition, once approved, would
allow all such sites where the same or
similar wastes were managed with a
similar technique to automatically
receive approval for land disposal
without individual petition
demonstrations.
RCRA sections 3004 (d)(l). (e)(l). and
(g)(5) do not preclude the submission of
generic petitions. However, as a
practical matter, the usefulness of the
generic petition is limited, since a
petition demonstration must include
site- and waste-specific data (see § 268.6
(a) and (b)). Accordingly, petitioners
must demonstrate that each scenario
covered under the generic petition is
similar. For example, a demonstration
that the hydrogeological
characterization of sites ia similar would
require a detailed assessment of each
site addressed in the petition. As a
result the Agency expects few. if any.
generic petitions.
2. Conditional Petition Approval Based
on Prima Facie Evidence
Several commentera expressed
concern over the possibility that land
disposal restrictions would become
effective prior to Agency rulings on
petitions, causing disruption in waste
disposal activities. To prevent this
situation, the commentera suggested that
approval of a petition be granted on the
basis of superficial evidence of
compliance with the statutory standard.
The Agency would perform a brief
review of the petition for completeness.
and would then grant conditional
approval until such time that a full
technical review could be completed.
Other commenters argued that the
statute requires a demonstration that the
statutory standard is met. not merely aa
application for petition approval It
would not be possible, according to
these commenters. for the Agency to
grant approval for such a demonstration
without a full technical review.
Other commenters suggested that the
statute provides the Agency with the
flexibility of granting a 2-year extension
of the effective dale, pursuant to section
3004(h)(2) upon receipt of prima facie
evidence that the "no migration"
standard has been met. Commentera
argued that this superficial showing of
evidence would satisfy the requirements
of the extension to identify the adequate
alternative disposal capacity that
protects human health and the
environment.
The Agency agrees with those
commentera who stated that the statute
calls for a positive demonstration that
the statutory standard is met. which
implies that a full review of the petition
has been made. Thus, the Agency will
not grant a conditional variance for
disposal of untreated restricted waste in
a Subtitle C unit based on a superficial
review of the evidence. The Agency will
only make the decision regarding the
granting of a variance after an in-depth
review of a fully developed no migration
demonstration submitted by the
petitioner.
Under section 3004(h). the Agency is
allowed to set different effective dates
for the restrictions based on lack of
available capacity for treatment.
recovery, or disposal. The Agency does
not believe that submission of a petition
request is relevant to such a finding.
3. Eligibility for Petitions
The Agency requested comment on an
approach limiting eligibility for petitions
to those wastes for which no alternative
treatment is available. Several
commentera objected to this approach.
stating that the statute and the
legislative history do not limit eligibility
for petitions.
Other commenters agreed with this
approach for several reasons. They
argued that the statute clearly reflects
congressional intentions that restricted
wastes be treated prior to land disposal.
They also argued that rendering
ineligible those wastes that can be
treated to meet a BOAT standard fulfills
the spirit of the law and gives a dear
signal to Industry to plan for expanded
treatment capacity. Additionally, they
noted that this approach would reduce
the burden on the Agency and the States
for petition review, so that resources
could be devoted to petitions for
untrmUbla wastes.
The Agency continues to believe that
the better reading of the law allows no
basis for limiting eligibility for the
petition process la the manner
discussed. RCRA sections 3004 (d). (e)
and (g) set up the petition process as a
clear albeit limited alternative treatment
prior to land disposal of hazardous
wastes. Accordingly, the final
regulations do not limit eligibility for
petitioners.
£ Storage of Prohibited Wastes
A number of commenters argued that
because transporters, recyclers. or
treatment facilities often give priority to
larger volumes of waste or even refuse
to take small quantities, more than 90
days are needed to accumulate,
sufficient quantities.
All of the comments received
regarding the proposed storage limit for
waste treatment storage, and disposal
stated that 90 days is inadequate. Some
commenters stated that additional time
is needed because some waste streams
are accumulated more slowly than
others. More specifically, one
commenter presented the case of a plant
that generates a very small amount of
spent solvents (e.g., one drum every
three months), but is not a small
quantity generator due to other
nonrestricted waste streams. Because of
the small amounts generated, the
turnaround time during which waste is
accumulated to an amount sufficient for
a transporter to pick up consistently
takes longer than the 90-day period.
Additionally, another commenter stated
that because halogenated solvents are
often blended with other materials
before incineration, the 90-day penod
will be insufficient due to the
evaluations and trial bums that will be
required for these new blends of wastes.
Other commentera cited the frequent
back-ups and delays at treatment
facilities that may require storage for
more than 90 days: however, these
factors are not directly relevant to the
statute, which allows storage only for
the purpose of accumulating sufficient
quantities necessary to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment, or disposal.
The alternatives suggested by
commentera ranged from setting a
storage limit of 180 days to not limiting
the storage period. The majority of
commentera suggested that the Agency
establish a 1-year storage limit. Several
of these commenters stated that the
provision should be similar to the
existing speculative accumulation
provision in 40 CFR 281.1(b)(8). This
provision allows for a matenal to be
accumulated for recycling provided that
during the calendar year (commencing
January 1) at least 75 percent of the
matenal accumulated at the beginning
of the time period is recycled or is
transferred to a different site for
recycling.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
allowed treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities the same time periods for
accumulating restricted wastes in tanks
and containers as specified under 40
CFR 262.34 for large quantity generators
accumulating hazardous waste prior to
shipment off-site for treatment or
disposal. Effective September 22.1986.
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo can store
hazardous waste for 160 or 270 days
depending on transportation distances.
(See 51 FR10175 (March 24.1986).) For
hazardous waste storage facilities
operating under interim status or a
RCRA permit, the Agency proposed H
90-day limit for the storage of restricted
wastes.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40583
After considering the length of an
appropriate storage limit, (he Agency
agrees with the commenlera that 90 days
may not be sufficient time to accumulate
quantities necessary to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment and disposal of
restricted wastes. However, the Agency
does not believe that the storage lime
permissible at a waste management
facility should be indefinite but. rather.
must have some limit because the
legislative history indicates that
Congress' concern in enacting this
provision was lo foreclose the
possibility of using long-term storage as
a means of avoiding a land disposal
prohibition. (S. Rep. No. 284.98th Cong..
1st Sess. 18 (1983).)
The Agency disagrees with the
commenters who felt that a system
similar to the speculative accumulation
provision (40CFR 281.1[b)(8)) should be
Implemented for the storage of restricted
wastes. The speculative accumulation
provision is designed to determine when
a material becomes a waste and relies
on assumptions that the materials will
be continuously removed from storage.
The Agency does not believe that this
provision is applicable lo the storage of
restricted wastes.
The Agency believes that a storage
limit of up to one year should generally
provide sufficient time for an owner/
operator to accumulate sufficient
quantities to facilitate proper recovery.
treatment, or disposal of restricted
hazardous wastes while meeting the
intent of Congress to prohibit long-term
storage as a means of avoiding the land
disposal restrictions. The burden is on
the Agency to demonstrate that storage
of restricted wastes for periods less than
or equal to one year ia not in compliance
with the storage provisions. The Agency
also recognizes that there may be
instances where one year does not
provide sufficient time to accumulate
such quantities. Therefore, the Agency
will allow an owner/operator to store
restricted wastes beyond one year.
Although the owner/operator is not
required to submit any data or
application to EPA. in the event of an
enforcement action, the burden of
proving compliance with 3 268.50(b) is
on the owner/operator. The Agency
believes that this is reasonable because
the record for this rulemaking indicates
that less than one year should be
sufficient. This provision does not apply
to situations where back-ups at
treatment or recovery facilities.
operational difficulties, and repairs and
maintenance result in additional delays.
Comments received on the proposed
90-day limit on the length of storage of
restricted wastes also indicate that a
substantial number of generators
without permits or interim status will
need to accumulate restricted wastes for
more than 90 days to comply with Part
268.
Section 3005(e) allows generators to
apply for facility Interim status if their
accumulation will exceed the time limits
of 40 CFR 262.34. as long as the storage
is necessary to comply with the land
disposal restrictions. 40 CFR 270.70(a]
codifies that provision. This section
provides that facilities "in existence on
the effective date of statutory or
regulatory changes... that render the
facility subject to the requirement to
have a permit" may qualify for interim
status if they make the appropriate
application. A generator who is
accumulating hazardous wastes in tanks
or containers before the effective date of
today's rule, ia "in existence" and may
qualify for interim status provided that
the above stated requirements an met
Section 300S(e)[1) allows interim status
only where new regulatory requirements
subject an existing facility to permitting
requirements. It is not intended to
provide an opportunity for a facility to
newly engage in hazardous waste
management
Generators who need to obtain
Interim status should submit a Part A
application to the Agency as provided ia
Part 270. In the Part A application, the
generator must demonstrate that the
additional accumulation time is
necessary as a result of the land
disposal restrictions of Part 268.
Toe Part A must be submitted to the
Agency by the deadline specified in
{ 270.10(e). Note that the | Z70.10(e)
deadline is the earlier of the following
two alternative dales: (1) Six months
after publication of regulations which
first require the facility to comply with
Part 265. or (2) thirty days after the date
they first become subject to the
standards in Part 285. It is expected that
the deadline for most if not all. of the
large quantity generators will be
established by the second alternative.
By operation of 40 CFR 270.10(eJ(iI). the
generator becomes first subject to the
permitting requirements when he
exceeds the generator accumulation
time limit For example, the generator
would be required to submit the Part A
within 30 days after the 90-day
accumulation period ends. Therefore, it
ia critical that any generator who will be
newly subject to the interim status
requirements becomes familiar with the
Part 270 requirements and submit a Part
A application on time.
The Agency believes that generators
will ship restricted wastes off-site in
accordance with the 90-day provision in
40 CFR 2S&34 whenever possible in
order to remain subject only to the
generator standards. Generators
applying for interim status must comply
with the applicable requirements of Part
265. Furthermore, if requested by the
Administrator, the facility will be
required to submit to Part B permit
application.
The Agency received only one
comment addressing the proposed to-
day storage limit for transporters of
restricted wastes. The commenter staled
that 10 days would be insufficient
because it does not allow for
unexpected back-ups and delays.
Although such situations may occur, the
Agency does not have data indicating
that such delays occur frequently so as
lo create a serious problem. Therefore.
the rule being promulgated today
maintains the 10-day limit for the
storage of restricted waste at a transfer
facility lo allow for activities incidental
to normal transporter practices.
To implement the storage provision.
the Agency is requiring owners/
operators to comply with the same
requirements for dating containers as
set forth for generators under 40 CFR
26Z34(a)(2). The Agency believes that
the restriction* on the storage of wastes
under 1268.50 are consistent with the
intent of Congress to preclude the
possibility of using long-term storage as
a means of avoiding a land disposal
prohibition and are sensitive to the time
constraints of the regulated community
expressed by the commenters.
F. CERCLA Interface
1.48-Month Exemption for CERCLA
Wastes That Are Sod or Debris
Several commenters requested
clarification of f 268.1(c)(3). namely the
scope of the 48-month exemption for
certain CERCLA wastes (soil or debns)
from the solvents and dioxins land
disposal restrictions. It was suggested
that this exemption should be defined to
include all CERCLA bulk wastes. In
addition. It was questioned whether
State-ordered. State-funded, or private
party-funded response action wastes are
granted the same exemption.
The Agency does not believe the 48-
monlh exemption can be interpreted to
include CERCLA bulk wastes that are
clearly not contaminated soil or debns.
CERCLA soil and debris have been
defined to include, but not be limited to,
soil dirt and rock as well as natural
and manufactured materials such as
contaminated wood, stumps, clothing.
equipment, building materials, storage
contair era. and liners. In many cases.
soil or lebns will be mixed with liquids
-------
40584 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
or sludges. Hie Agency considers' liquid-
or sludge-containing wastes, including
bulk wastes that are not contaminated
soil or debns. generated by a CERCLA
response action, to be subject to the
land disposal restriction requirements.
However, a variance from the land
disposal restriction requirements, based
on insufficient treatment capacity, was
granted for these restricted wastes until
November 1988. The Agency is
preparing guidance that will further
define CERCLA soil and debris wastes
in order to assist the regulated
community in determining which wastes
are covered under the exemption. In
addition, before November 6,1988. the
Agency will further analyze the solvent
and dioxin treatment standard* to
determine if these standards an
applicable to contaminated soil or
debris.
Only those wastes that result from
CERCLA Fund-financed actions (section
104) and the exercise of CERCLA's
enforcement authority (section 108) are
included in the exemption. Response
action wastes that result from State-
ordered. State-funded, or private party-
funded responses taken under the
authority of CERCLA or exclusive of this
authority are not Included in the
exemption. Relevant sections of the
National Contingency Plan (NCR 50 FR
47912. November 20.1085) that address
these distinctions include Subpart F.
§ 300.82 (State participation) and
S 300.71 (other party responses). Wastes
not included in the exemption and
prohibited from land disposal are
subject to the schedule imposed by the
land disposal restriction requirements.
Responses generating these wastes may
be preauthonzed under section 111 of
CERCLA (see i 30O25 of the NCP) and.
if so. are eligible for the recovery of
certain costs under CERCLA section 107.
Other party responses under NCP
S 300.7l(a)(4) are required to comply
with all legally applicable or relevant.
and appropriate requirements. RCRA
clearly states that the exemption applies
to all CERCLA soil and debns land
disposed before November 8.1988. After
this date, these wastes will be managed
in accordance with the requirements of
the land disposal restrictions applicable
to CERCLA wastes.
2. Capacity Shortfall Due to CERCLA
Wastes
Several commenters stated that the
Agency had not adequately evaluated
the effect on treatment capacity of
CERCLA wastes. As indicated in Unit V.
CERCLA capacity estimates have been
revised to incorporate the results of a
recently completed EPA analysis of
future volumes of wastes resulting from
CERCLA responses. A variance has
been granted for CERCLA wastes, that
are not soil or debris, until November 8.
1988. The Agency acknowledges that
CERCLA demand for treatment capacity
may compete with generator demand for
the same treatment capacity. However,
the Agency's "Off-Site Policy" for
disposing CERCLA waste contains
stringent criteria that could render some
existing capacity unavailable for the
management of CERCLA wastes.
C. Solventa
1. Definition of Solvent Wastes
A number of commenters stated that
the scope of the land disposal
restrictions for solvent-containing
wastes extends beyond congressional
intent In particular, the commenters
stated that the land disposal restrictions
rule should address only F001-FD05
hazardous wastes (regulated as of July 1.
1983) specified in section 3004(e).
Another specific concern raised by the
commenters was that the impacts of
including the P and U hazardous wastes
as listed In 40 CFR 281.33 (e) and (f).
respectively, have not been adequately
assessed: therefore, these wastes should
not be included in the first class of
solvent-containing wastes (i.e.. FOOl-
FOOS) subject to the land disposal
restrictions.
In proposing treatment standards for
solvent-containing wastes, the Agency
included the corresponding commercial
chemical products and off-specification
spedes (P and U hazardous wastes) as
listed In 40 CFR 281.33 (e) and (f).
respectively, and solvent mixtures
containing 10 percent or more of the
listed solvents (pursuant to the solvent
mixtures rule. 50 FR 53315, December 31.
1985). The Agency proposed to exercise
its statutory authority under section
3004(g)' and include the corresponding
P and U wastes with decisions on the
F001-F005 wastes because the data
indicate that these wastes may pose
hazards similar to the spent solvents
when disposed in Subtitle C facilities.
However, we are continuing to gather
data to better define and characterize
the P and U wastes and to assess
treatment and recycling capacity for
these wastes. Because the Agency
agrees with the commenters that we do
not have sufficient data to promulgate
treatment standards for these wastes by
the November & 1988. deadline, we will
postpone decisions on the P and U
wastes until we address the hats of
scheduled wastes.
With respect to solvent mixtures, the
provisions under section 3004(g](4)
require the Agency to make a
determination within six months
whether to subject newly identified or
listed hazardous wastes to the land
disposal restrictions (the statute does
not Impose an automatic prohibition if
the Agency misses the deadline).
Because six months have already
elapsed since the Agency promulgated
the final rule to bring certain spent
solvent mixtures into the hazardous
waste system,* the Agency is including
solvent mixtures in today's rule.
2. Impacts on Small-Quantity
Generators and Small-Volume Wastes
Several comments were received
concerning the Impacts of the land
disposal restrictions on small-quantity
generators and small-volume waste
types. One commenter was concerned
that the economic impacts on small-
quantity generators of solvents have not
been adequately assessed.
An assessment of the economic
impacts on small-quantity generators
from land disposal restrictions affecting
solvent-containing wastes is included in
the "Regulatory Analysis of Proposed
Restrictions on Land Disposal of Certain
Solvent Wastes." Total small-quantity
generator costs attributed to the land
disposal restrictions were found to be
significant, but the costs and associated
economic impacts for individual
facilities were found to be small.
Overall, based on economic ratios that
were determined for small-quantity
generators that dispose of solvent-
containing wastes, the land disposal
restrictions appeared not to impose
significant economic burdens on these
generators.
3. Disposal of Lab Packs Containing
Solvents
Several commenters addressed
disposal of small quantities of solvent-
containing wastes in lab packs.
Commenters requested that solvent-
containing lab packs be exempt from the
land disposal restrictions. They stated
that such an exemption would be
consistent with existing exemptions
under 40 CFR 264.318 and would allow
the disposal of only small quantities of
solvent wastes.
Another commenter questioned
whether the entire lab pack is banned
from land disposal if all the packaged
wastes are not solvents. Alternatively.
the commenter proposed to remove
• Section 30M|g) require* thai the AdmuueMlor
shall "noi later than the dale specified in the
schedule... promulgate final regulation* prohibiting
one or more metnoda of land diipaiaL"
1 The Agency promulgated the solvent mixtures
final rule on December 31. IMS. The rule became
effective on January 30. 1988 (tea SO FR SMI 5)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1966 / Rules and Regulations 40585
restricted solvents before land disposal
of the lab pack.
Neither the legislative history nor the
statute indicates that lab packs can be
excluded from the land disposal
restrictions if they contain solvents
designated as F001-FOOS or other
restricted wastes. Under the approach
promulgated in today's rule, listed
solvents are subject to the land disposal
restrictions. If a lab pack contains these
restricted wastes, the entire lab pack is
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
As a practical matter this means that the
lab pack may not be land disposed
unless the solvents or other restricted
wastes are removed before land
disposal, the solvents in the lab pack
meet the treatment standard, or a
successful petition demonstration has
been made under 8 268.6.
H. Dioxins
1. Quantity of Dioxin-Containing Wastes
Generated
Several commenters argued that the
Agency underestimated the actual
quantity of dioxin-contaminated soil
subject to the proposed rule.
Specifically, one commenter argued that
EPA did not take into consideration the
dioxin-contaminated sites In the States
of Arkansas. New Jersey, and New York
in developing the estimate for the
quantity of dioxin-contaminated soil in
the U.S.
In the proposed rule. EPA
acknowledges that the estimated
quantity of dioxin-contaminated soil
present in the U.S. was derived by
assessing estimates for such
contaminated soil from the State of
Missouri. At this time, the Agency does
not have data to determine more
accurately the total quantity of dioxin-
contaminated soil from sites in the U.S.
other than the State of Missouri. Thus.
EPA decided to estimate the quantity of
dioxin-contaminated soil nationwide
based solely on (he data provided for
the State of Missouri. In making this
determination, the Agency should have
noted that the estimated quantity of 1.1
billion pounds for dioxin-contaminated
soil was accurate within a range of ±20
percent. If this quantity is understated.
then the Agency acknowledges that the
national estimate is also
underestimated. However, such an
underestimation would have no effect
on the decisions made in today's rule
regarding capacity because there is
inadequate disposal or treatment
capacity even for substantially lower
quantities of dioxin-containing wastes.
2. Treatment Standard for Dioxin-
Containing Wastes
One commenter argued that as the
analytical methodology improves.
increasing amounts of materials which
might contain insignificant levels of
dioxins would be prohibited from land
disposal.
The treatment standard for the listed
dioxin-containing wastes is based on
the currant limits of technology
available to treat dioxin-containing
wastes. The treatment standard for
these wastes was proposed at the
detection limit afforded by test method
8280 for the CDDs and CDFs in waste
extracts because current analytical
techniques are not capable of detecting
dioxin-containing wastes at the levels
achievable by incineration. Research
analytical methods indicate that
incineration to six 9s destruction
removal efficiency (ORE) can achieve
reduction in the treatment residuals five
to seven orders of magnitude from those
concentrations in the starting material
The treatment standard of 1.0 ppb
however, represents the routinely
achievable detection limit for the CDDs
and CDFs using test method 8280. (See
51 FR1988Z)
If additional data become available
which demonstrate a lower detection
limit for these dioxin wastes, the
treatment standard may be revised as
necessary.
Lowering the detection limit and
changing the subsequent treatment
standard will not prohibit significantly
Increased amounts of materials
containing low concentrations of dioxins
from land disposal. The prescribed
toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) is designed to
determine the leachability of both
organic and inorganic contaminants
present in liquid, solid, and multiphase
wastes. The constituents of concern in
the listed dioxin-containing wastes are
not mobile, and are generally in low
concentrations. The treatment standard
would have to be significantly lower
than 1 ppb in order to significantly
Increase the amount of material that
does not meet the treatment standard
(before any treatment). In addition, to
the extent that incineration achieves
99.999 percent (six 9s) destruction
removal efficiency (DRE) (as required
under the dioxins listing rule), a
lowering of the detection limit will only
verify that treatment is achieving levels
far below the standard method detection
limit As the detection limit approaches
the actual treatment level, the Agency
will lower the treatment standard to that
level.
3. Land Disposal Restrictions Effective
Date
Several commenters addressed EPA's
proposal to delay the effective date for
the land disposal restrictions for dioxin-
containing wastes. All commenters
agreed that the 2-year variance to the
effective date was necessary because of
a lack of available treatment capacity.
The commenters also argued that unless
treatment capacity is available by the
effective date, they will be confronted
with an unavoidable noncompliance
situation due to the limitations on
storage of resticted wastes.
The Agency, in today's rule, is
granting the maximum 2-year variance
allowed under section 3004(h)(2) for the
listed dioxin-containing wastes. At the
present time, there is no data to show
that treatment capacity for dioxin-
containing wastes will not be available
after the effective date, or after the
additional two 1-year extensions which
are available to generators on a case-by-
case basi*.
-------
40586 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7.1986 / Rules and Regulations
Defint 3004(m) Treatment
Standard for.
• Solvent! and Diomnt fcy N«« 8. !«!«
• Conform* Uu rty July 4. 1987
• Fifil Third By Aviiul 8. 19X8
• Second Third by June 8. 1989
• Third Third by May 8. 1990
Sutxitctoriuilon of RCR
Hamdoin Wane Coda
1
Identify 'Dimonfinietf-
Traaimcnt TtcfeaolO(ia
1
Exclude TrauiBcni TechnoletMf
ih«i u* OM *A»lUbl<"
Ya
An
Treatment
Performance
from FuU Suit
TccnnolofMi
Ant
Treainwai
Performance
Data A
(ram Pilol-SctM
T«baolo|iet
An
Treitmenl
Pitrornanci
DMI A«iil*M«
(ram Bench-SfiM
No
Perform Full Scale. Plloi-SuM ot
Bench-Scale Tmimem on Wuw
Sempla Unnf ihc Dcnwruinted
Avulable Tf«»im«m TtchnolotMf
-------
Federal Register / Vol. SI. No. 216 / Friday. November 7.1986 / Rules and Regulations 40587
Perform the Toxlcity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and
Total Waste Analysis on the
Treatment Residuals (or the
Constituents of Concern
Exclude Treatment
Technology lor the
Wasw Trcataculiiy Croup
Does
the Treatment
Technology Substantially
Diminish the Toxicity
and/or Mobility
of the Wa»ti
Where
Performance
Data Is Represen-
tative of More Than one
Technology. Are Perfor-
mance Data Significantly
for a
Different
Particular
Constituent of
Concern
Set 3004(m) Treatment Standard
Bawd on the 'Bent" Performing
Technology
Specify the "Best" Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technology as
the Required }004(m) Treatment
Method Tor a Pjr'iculur Constituent
of Concern
Publish the Waste
Ttestability Croup
and Corresponding
Treatment Method
In § 268 42
Set 3004 (m) Treatment Standard*
Based on Performance Achievable
by all Technologies
1
Specify all Demonstrated
Available Treat men I Technologies
ai the Acquired 30M(m) Treatment
Method
Publish the Waste Trealahilily
Croups and Corresponding
}Q04(m) Treaiment Slandarji
in §268 41 and }26» 42
coMM*e-fa-c
PuMNh the Wa«tc
Trcaiiihiliiy Croup
and Corresponding
Treatment Ntuthod
In § 268 42
-------
40580 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 218 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Detailed Analysis of the Finel
Regulatory Framework
A. Determination of Best Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technologies
(BOAT)
This section establishes the
framework under which treatment
standards based on the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
will be developed in accordance with
3004(m).
1. Waste Treatability Groups
Fundamental to waste treatment is the
concept that the type of treatment
technology used and the level of
treatment achieved depend on the
physical and chemical characteristics of
the waste. In the proposed rule, the
Agency discussed establishing broad
"waste treatability groups" based on
similar physical and chemical properties
(e.g.. metal-bearing sludges or wastes
containing cyanides in order to account
for differences in types of treatment
used and effectiveness of treatment on
different wastes. While not directly
addressing this approach, commentera
stated that the proposed solvent
treatment standards did not account for
waste matrix effects. These commenters
suggested that waste matrix effects
could be considered by pooling all
available data on the applicable
constituents from the plants sampled.
presumably without regard to the
varying treatability of the specific
wastes sampled or the design and
operation of the treatment system.
EPA disagrees with this approach
because the use of such a pooled data
set would result in the establishment of
an artificially high treatment standard.
This would occur because the broad
range of treatment levels associated
with numerous waste matrices will yield
a high vanability factor. The approach
of pooling all treatment data would
actually result in the masking of
different waste matrices as opposed to
accounting for matrix effects as
suggested by the commenter. While EPA
believed, that waste matrix effects were
considered in ihe proposed solvent
standards. EPA recognizes, nonetheless.
that these effects may not have been .
fully accounted for in the proposed
standards. The Agency anticipates that
in future rulemakmgs. treatment groups
could require further subdivision to
more fully account for waste matrix
effects subject to the availability of
sufficient resources. In any event. EPA
remains convinced that waste matrix
effects are best accounted for by
establishing treatability groups and
subgroups wherever possible. The
legislative history of 3004(m) supports
this approach by providing that
treatment determinations do not have to
be made only by waste code and by
authorizing EPA to establish "generic"
treatment standards for similar wastes
(130 Congressional Record section 91*9.
daily edition July 25.1984).
EPA believes that in addition to the
types of treatability groups described i:
the proposed rule, grouping and
subgrouping wastes by industry or
manufacturing process may be used to
account for waste matrix effects on
treatment performance (i.e. similar
manufacturing operations appear to
generate wastes with similar treatability
characteristics). For example, in today's
rule. EPA has sufficient data to create a
separate treatability group for
wastewaters containing spent
methylene chloride generated by the
pharmaceutical Industry. However.
while the Agency believes that industry-
specific analyses will generally account
for waste matrix effects, some wastes
(e.g.. contaminated soils) cannot be
categorized by industry. Therefore. EPA
may also establish treatability groups
for wastes from unknown sources.
Finally, as noted in the proposal. EPA
intends to focus on the constituents in
sections 3004 (d). (e). and (g) and
Appendix VIII to Part 261.
2, Determination of "Demonstrated"
Treatment Technologies
EPA proposed to determine which
technologies are "demonstrated" for a
specific waste by studying available
data on the types of treatment (including
recycling methods) currently used to
treat a representative sample of wastes
falling within a waste treatability group.
To make this determination. EPA
proposed first to examine wastes
treated by full-scale treatment
technologies. A technology may be
demonstrated if currently used to treat
wastes within the group or wastes
judged to be similar. EPA proposed not
to consider treatment demonstrated on
the basis of insufficient or inadequate
full-scale data, for example, if the
facility was not designed to remove the
constituent or the facility was not well
operated. If the treatment of these
wastes (or wastes judged to be similar)
was not demonstrated by any full scale
facility. EPA proposed to study data
from pilot-scale and bench-scale
treatment operations to determine if a
technology was demonstrated. Some
commenters were concerned, however.
with the use of pilot-scale and bench-
scale operations as the basis for
determining whether a technology was
demonstrated. The Agency agrees with
the commenters position that its
determinations should not be based on
emerging and innovative technologies.
This would be in violation of the intent
of the statute as indicated in the
legislative history; "(t|he requisite levels
of [sic) methods of treatment established
by the Agency should be the best that
has been demonstrated to be
achievable" and not a "BAT-type
process which contemplates technology-
forcing standards." (Vol. 130 Cong Rec.
S9178 (daily ed.. July 25.1984). To the
extent that bench- and pilot-scale data
represent such emerging and innovative
technologies, the Agency believes the
proposed approach was too broad.
Therefore, today's final rule represents a
change in the definition of demonstrated
in response to comments. To be
considered a "demonstrated" treatment
technology for purposes of the final rule.
a full scale facility must be known to be
in operation for the waste or similar
wastes. EPA is amending the proposed
approach to the extent that Ihe Agency
will not. at this initial stage, examine
data to see if the data from the
treatment facility represents d well-
designed and operated system, because
this factor is more appropriately taken
into account when evaluating the
performance of the treatment
operations. EPA believes that this
procedure will address the issues raised
by commenters who were concerned
that the Agency specify the design and
operating parameters upon which
determinations were made. Accordingly.
if no full scale treatment operations are
known to exist for a waste or wastes
with similar treatability characteristics.
the Agency will be unable to identify
any "demonstrated" treatment
technologies for the waste and.
accordingly, the waste will be
completely prohibited from continued
placement in land disposal units (unless
handled in accordance with the
exemption and variance provisions
promulgated in today's final rule). The
Agency is. however, committed to
establishing new treatment standards as
soon as new or improved treatment
processes become demonstrated as full-
scale operations.
While, the Agency did not consider
pilot- and bench-scale operations in
identifying "demonstrated" treatment
technologies for solvents and dioxins. in
certain circumstances, data from these
operations may continue to be used by
the Agency in evaluating the
performance of demonstrated full scale
treatment operations for certain wastes.
A more detailed discussion of the
circumstances that would prompt the
use of data from pilot- or bench-scale
operations in assessing treatment
performance, as well as the manner in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40589
which such data will be used, is
presented below.
3. Determination of "Available"
Treatment Technologies
EPA proposed the following criteria
for "available" treatment technologies:
(i) The technology does not present a
greHler total risk than land disposal: (2)
if the technology is a proprietary or
patented process it can be purchased
from the proprietor, and (3) the
technology provides substantial
treatment. Today's final rule includes an
additional criteria in the determination
of "aiailable" treatment technologies.
Treatment technologies that are
prohibited under section 3004(n)
because of air emissions will be
excluded as "available" technologies for
purposes of establishing treatment
standards.
EPA will not set treatment standards
based on a technology that does not
meet the above criteria. Thus, the
decision to classify a technology as
"unavailable" may have a direct impact
on the treatment standard. If the best
technology is unavailable, the treatment
standard would have to be based upon
the next best treatment technology that
was determined to be available. To the
extent thai the resulting treatment
standards are less stringent, greater
concentrationa of hazardous
constituents in the treatment residuals
could be placed in land disposal units.
There may also be circumstances
where EPA concludes that for a given
waste none of the demonstrated
treatment technologies are "available"
for purposes of establishing the
treatment standards. These wastes will
be prohibited from continued placement
in or on the land unless managed In
accordance with the exemption and
variance provisions promulgated in
today's final rule. The Agency, however.
is committed to establishing new
treatment standards as soon aa new or
improved treatment processes become
"available".
a. Treatment technologies that
present greater total risks than land
disposal methods. As explained in the
proposed rule. EPA will evaluate the
risks associated with treatment
technologies and land disposal methods.
Based on a comparative risk
assessment, those technologies that are
found to present greater total risks than
land disposal of the untreated waste
will be excluded (i.e.. considered
"unavailable") as a basis for
establishing treatment standards.
If all demonstrated treatment
technologies are determined to present
greater nsks than land disposal for the
waste treatability group, the Agency will
not be able to identify any "available"
treatment technologies and. accordingly.
will not set a treatment standard for that
group. As a result of such a
determination, the waste will be
prohibited from land disposal unless
managed in accordance with the
exemptions and variance provisions in
today's final rule or a new or improved
technology emerges that is determined
not to pose greater total risks than direct
land disposal. Treatment technologies
identified aa riskier than land disposal
and. therefore, classified as unavailable
for purposes of establishing standards
may still be used by facilities in
complying with treatment standards
expressed aa performance levels. EPA la
committed to developing sufficient
regulatory controls or prohibitions over
the design and operation of these
technologies to ensure that their use in
complying with the treatment standards
do not result in Increased risks to human
health and the environment
b. Proprietary or patented processes.
If the demonstrated treatment
technology la a proprietary or patented
process that is not generally available.
EPA will not consider the technology in
its determination of the treatment
standards. In the proposed rule. EPA
explained that proprietary or patented
processes will be considered available if
the Agency determines that the
treatment method can be purchased
from the proprietor or Is commercially
available treatment The services of the
commercial facility offering this
technology can often be purchased.
although the technology itself cannot In
these cases, the Agency proposed that
the technology should be considered
"available" to treat wastes generated by
those other than the owner of the
proprietary process.
EPA received some comments
supporting and others disagreeing with
this approach. The comments objecting
to this approach stated that EPA should
use the best demonstrated treatment
regardless of its commercial availability
and thereby, provide strong financial
incentives for development of new
technologies on the grounds that
excluding such technologies from the
analysis may result in less stringent
treatment standards. The Agency
believes, however, that its proposal
represents a reasonable compromise
that is intended to exclude only those
technologies that would not be made
available even with strong regulatory
and economic incentives. Therefore.
EPA intends to retain the position
expressed in the proposed regulation
that proprietary technology that cannot
be purchased or is not commercially
ava leble treatment cannot be the basis
for the treatment standard. The Agency
will review the availability of
proprietary or patented processes on a
case-by-case basis.
Treatment technologies classified as
proprietary are unavailable for the
purposes of establishing the treatment
standards but may still be used by
facilities in complying with treatment
standards expressed as performance
levels.
c. Substantial treatment. In order to
be considered "available", a
demonstrated treatment technology
must "substantially diminish the
toxicity" of the waste or "substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents" from the waste
in accordance with section 3004(m). By
requiring that substantial treatment be
achieved in order to set a treatment
standard, the statute ensures that all
wastes are adequately treated before
being placed in or on the land, and that
the Agency does not require a treatment
method that provides little or no
environmental benefit As part of the
proposed regulation, the Agency slated
that treatment will always be deemed
substantial if it results in nondetectable
levels of the hazardous constituents of
concern In the TCLP extract or if the
technology can achieve the protective
screening concentration levels. Although
the screening level approach has been
eliminated in today's rule. EPA sttll
intends to evaluate whether or not a
treatment technology provides
substantial treatment on a case-by-case
basis when the treatment technology
does not achieve nondeteciable
constituent concentrations in the
residual This approach is necessary due
to the difficulty in establishing a
meaningful guideline that can be applied
broadly to the many wastes and
technologies that will be considered. As
stated in the proposed regulation. EPA
will consider the following factors in an
effort to evaluate whether or not a
technology is substantial on a case-by-
case basis:
(i) Number and types of constituents
treated:
(ii) Performance (concentration of the
constituents in the treatment residuals):
and
(iii) Percent of constituents removed.
Several commenters objected to this
approach. These commenters believed
that EPA should have a standard by
which to judge whether a technology is
simply "treatment for treatment's sake."
Although EPA is sympathetic to this
concern, no workable suggestions for a
standard were provided. The Agency
believes that there will be ample
opportunity for comment on EPA's
-------
40590 Federal Register / Vol. 81. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
individual BOAT decisions as they are
developed. Futhermore, available EPA
data show thai Few. if any,
demonstrated technologies will nol
achieve a high percentage of removal.
destruction, or immobilization in the
wastes for which they are demonstrated.
As a result, the Agency finds no
alternative to the approach as proposed
(omitting, of course, consideration of the
no-longer used screening levels).
If none of the demonstrated treatment
technologies achieve substantial
treatment of a waste, the Agency cannot
establish treatment standards for the
constituents of concern in that waste.
4. Collection and Analysis of
Performance Data
a. Collection of performance data.
Once the demonstrated available
treatment technologies have been
determined fora waste IreatabiUty
group, the Agency will collect data
representing treatment performance and
information on the design and operation
of the treatment system. In developing
technology-based standards for today's
final rule, treatment performance is
evaluated using the TCLP. The Agency,
in future land disposal restrictions
rulemakings. may consider using a total
waste analysis as the basis for
determining treatment standards.
Wherever possible, the Agency will
evaluate treatment technologies using
fulUscale systems. If performance data
from properly designed and operated
full-scale treatment methods for a
particular waste or waste judged to be
similar are not available. EPA will use
data from pilot-scale operations.
Similarly, where pilot-scale data cannot
be obtained. EPA will use data from
bench-scale treatment operations.
Whenever bench- and pilot-scale data
are used. EPA may explain the use of
such data in the preamble or
background documents and will request
comments on the use of such data.
When data on treatment performance
for a particular waste or similar wastes
are judged by EPA to be insufficient
EPA will generate data and information
through sampling and analysis regarding
the operational parameters and
performance of the demonstrated
available treatment technologies.
The Agency realizes that in some
instances all wastes represented by a
particular waste code may not be
included in the analysis, therefore, the
possibility exists that same unique
waste matrices may not be considered
in establishing the treatment standard.
EPA is providing the opportunity for
interested parties to petition the Agency
for variances to the treatment standards
based on a demonstration that the
treatment standards for a particular
waste cannot be attained (see Unit
IV.H.). The variance process allows the
applicant to present information which.
if properly considered when the
treatment standard was originally
developed, would have required EPA to
create a separate treatability subgroup
for the waste (see the relevant BOAT
background document for information
regarding the technologies used to
develop the standard).
b. Treatment design ami operation.
The Agency will not establish treatment
standards using performance data that
are determined nol to be representative
of a well-designed and operated
treatment system. The effectiveness of a
particular treatment technology will
depend, to a «BniBeimi extent, on how
well the system Is designed and
operated. In the proposed rule, the
Agency slated Its intention to use only
treatment data from well-designed and
operated systems. Commentera
criticized the Agency for not specifying
the parameters on which these
determinations wan made. Today's rule
does not represent a change from the
proposed rule with regard to EPA's
consideration of the design and
operation of treatment in developing
treatment standards. Instead, we have
revised the BOAT background document
to better explain EPA's rationale for
data editing with regard to the design
and operation of the treatment system. It
is difficult for EPA to generalize on the
specific parameters that will be
examined because parameters that
comprise a well designed and operated
system will vary for each technology.
EPA intends to explain the factors
considered in connection with
individual regulatory packages. For
example, some of the critical design and
operating parameters for steam stripping
include the number of equilibrium stages
in the column, the temperature at which
the unit is designed to operate, and how
well the design temperature Is
controlled. In evaluating performance
data from a steam stripping operation.
the Agency would examine the design
specifications (e.g. the basis for
selecting the number of stages and
design temperature) for the treatment
unit in order lo determine the extent to
which the hazardous constituents could
be expected to volatilize. After the
design specifications are established.
the Agency would collect data (e.g.,
hourly readings of the column
temperature) throughout the operation of
the treatment process demonstrating
that the unit was operating according to
design specifications. If the data
collected vanes considerably from the
design requirements, it could form the
basis of a determination that the
treatment was improperly operated. If
the temperature data show, for example.
that for significant periods of time the
temperature varied considerably from
the design requirements, the Agency
would not use this data to determine the
levels of performance achievable by
BOAT.
Ideally, for all treatment data EPA
will have associated design and
operating data. However, because
treatment performance data are limited.
EPA may use treatment performance
data for which there are few or no
associated design and operating data. In
these instances. EPA will use
engineering judgement based on a
comparison of constituent
concentrations before and after
treatment to determine whether the data
reflect a well-designed and operated
treatment system. The Agency will also
use a statistical outlier analysis to
confirm the engineering analysis. An
outlier In a data set is an observation
that ia significantly different from the
trend in the data. The measure of
difference is determined by the
statistical method known as the Z-score.
The Z-score is calculated by dividing the
difference between the data point and
the average of the data set by the
standard (deviation. For data that are
normally distributed. 95.3 percent (or
two standard deviations) of the
measurements will have a Z-score
between -2.0 and 2.0. A data point
outside this range is not considered to
be representative of the population from
which the data are drawn. The Agency
requested comment on this analysis in
its September 5.1988 Notice of
Availability (31FR 31783). A
comprehensive discussion of this
statistical method can be found in many
statistics texts (see, for example,
Statistical Concepts and Methods by
Bhattacharyya and Johnson. 1977. John
Wiley Publications. NY). The Agency
believes this approach is reasonable in
view of statutory time constraints.
A. Identification of "Best" Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technologies and
Determination of Treatment Standards
In the proposed regulation, EPA based
the calculation of the treatment
standards on the mean of all data points
after rejection of outliers by inspection.
Commenters criticized the proposed
method to setting treatment standards
stating that: (1) EPA did not account for
process variability: (2) the Agency did
not explain how it would assess
whether a treatment system was well
designed and operated; and (3) the
Agency did not explain how it weuld
-------
Fedaial Register / VoL 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7, 1386 / Rules and Reoulatioaa
4O591
determine tnatment standards whan
man than one technology applied to a
waste. In response to theae comments,
EPA revised its methodology for
establishing tnatment standards. The
revised approach Incorporates several
statistical methods that wen presented
In EPA'* Notice of Availability.
September A, 1988 (51 PR 31783].
a. Analysis of variance. EPA is using
the statistical method known ea analysis
of variance In the determination of the
level of performance that represents
BOAT. This method provides • meaann
of the differences between data sets. If
the differences an not statistically
different the data sets are said to be
homogeneous.
Thie method may be used In two
cases. The first ease Is whan more than
one technology can be used to treat a
waste. In this case, the analysis of
variance method would be used to
determine whether BOAT would
npreaent a level of performance
achieved by only one technology or
represent a level of performance
achievable by more than one or aD of
the technologies.
If the Agency found that the levels of
performance for one or man
technologies en not statistically
different (l.«, the data sets an
homogeneous), EPA would avenge the
long term performance values achieved
by each technology and then multiply
this value by the largest variability
factor associated with any of the
acceptable technologies. If EPA found
that one technology performs
significantly better (Le.. the date seta an
not homogeneous). BOAT would be the
level of performance achieved by the
best technology multiplied by its
variability factor.
The second case when the analysis of
variance may be used is when different
wastes with common constituents an
treated with the same technology. The
Agency could use this statistical method
to determine whether separata BOAT
values should be established for each
waste or whether the level* of
performance an homogeneous <""i,
therefore, amenable to a single
concentration level for a given
constituent
Te determine whether any or all of the
tnatment performance data sets an
homogeneous using the analysis of
variance method, it is necessary to
compare a calculated "P value" to what
is known as a "critical value". These
critical values an available in most
statistics texts (see for example.
Statistical Concepts and Methods by
Bhattacharyya and lohnaoo, 1877, John
Wiley Publications, NY).
When the F value la leas than the
critical value, all tnatment data seta an
homogeneous. If the F value exceeds the
critical value, It is necessary to perform
a "pair wise F' teat to determine If any
of the sets are homogeneous. The "pair
wise F" test would be done for all of the
various combinations of data sale using
the earns method and equation u the
general P test
The F value is calculated as follows:
(1) All data need to be logtraaaformed.
(lij The sum of the data points for
each data aet an computed (TIJ.
(ill) The statistical parameter known
aa the sum of the squares between data
seta (SSB) la computed:
k Ti2
COMPUTATIONAL TABU FOR THE f VALUE-
Continued
k-aumber of ftvaunaat technologies
n^amabtt of data point* for technology i
N-aoubif of data prints far all technologies
T-ium of data point* fe aU technologies
(iv) The nun of the squares within
data sets (SSW) ls computed:
k ni
eat .
J-l
••the abMrvetfoas (0 far treatment
r(D
a-1
(v) The degnea of freedom
corresponding to SSB and 85Wan
calculated. For SSB. the degrees of
freedom la given by k-1. For SSW. the
degrees of freedom la given by N-k.
(vi) Using the above parameters, the P
value is calculated aa follows:
F--
MSB
MBW
where
MSB-SSB/(k-l)aad
MSW-SSW/{N-k).
A computational table •t«n«««
the above parameters is shown below.
COMPUTATIONAL TABU ton TW f VALUE
Sun of
k-1
b. Process variability. Since
variability hi performance principally
arises from Inherent mechanical
limitations in tnaintat^jpg control
parameters at the optimum setting.
calculation of the tnatment standard
now Incorporates a process variability
factor. An example of process
variability would be an automatic pH
control system used to maintain the
proper pH range for precipitation of a
toxic metal In this system, a pH sensing
device provides a signal to the controller
that the pH Is not at the set point [Le-
the optimum design point]. The
controller then changes (either
pneumatically or electrically) the
position of the valve that supplies the
nagentfe) used to ad|uat pH. The
Agency would consider such a system to
be well-operated provided that it is
properly designed calibrated, and
maintained. Nevertheless, this system
cannot be operated without any
variation In the level of performance.
Control valves an not manufactured b
such a way that they can precisely add
the exact amount of nagent needed to
be at the aet point either too much or
too little nagent will be added. Also,
then la a lag time between the time
when the sensing device detects a
problem and the time that the controller
adjusts the valve to the correct position.
Additionally, man can be process
upsets that require greater changes to
the system corresponding to greater
variations in performance. Another
source of variability will occur during
the analysis of the tnatment samples.
Finally. It la acknowledged that EPA
approved methods will exhibit some
degree of variability in test results for
Identical samples. All of the above
variations can be expected to occur at
well designed and operated treatment
facilities. Therefore, setting tnatment
standards utilizing a variability factor
should be viewed not as "relaxing'1
90M(m] requirements, but rather as e
function of the normal variability of the
treatment processes. A plant will have
to be designed to meet the mean
achievable treatment performance level
In order to he assured that the
performance levels remain within the
limits of the tnatment standard. The
Agency will calculate a variability
factor for each constituent of concern
-------
40592 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
within a waste testability group using
the statistical calculation presented in
the Notice of Availability. The equation
for calculating the variability factor, as
shown below, is the same as has been
used by EPA for the development of
numerous regulations in the Effluent
Guidelines Program under the Clean
Water Act.
VT-
MEAN
where:
VF-Estimate of dally maximum variability
factor determined from a (ample
population of daily data
CM •Estimate of performance value* for
which 99 percent of the daily
observations will be below. COT la
calculated using the following equation:
Cit«Exp(y+U3Sy) where y and Sy ant
the mean and itandard deviation.
respectively, of the logtranaformed data.
mean • average of the Individual performance
value*.
EPA is establishing this figure as a
daily maximum because the Agency
believes that on a day-to-day basis the
waste should meet the applicable
treatment standards. In addition.
establishing this requirement makes it
easier to check compliance on a single
day. The 99th percentile is appropriate
because it accounts for almost all
process variability.
6. Dilution Prohibition
In the proposed rule. EPA recognized
that successful implementation of the
land disposal restrictions program
required that dilution be prohibited aa a
partial or complete substitute for
adequate treatment of restricted wastes.
The legislative history indicates that
such a prohibition "is particularly
important where regulations are bawd
on concentrations of hazardous
constituents." (H.R. Rep. No. 198. Part I
98th Cong.. 1st Sess. 38 (1983)).
The commenters unanimously support
a prohibition on dilution. Their
comments indicate a concern with
dilution after the waste is generated but
before the applicable treatment
standard and effective date haw been
determined, and after the treatment
standard has been determined but
before the residuals are land disposed. It
should be noted that this prohibition
does not affect provisions in other EPA
regulations which may allow dilution for
other purposes.
a. Dilution before determination of toe
applicable treatment standard and
effective date. One commeater urged
EPA to prohibit dilution to avoid an
effective date. Today's rule does not
include this provision. EPA's proposed
prohibition was limited to dilution for
the purpose of substituting for adequate
treatment under section 30M(m). A
prohibition on dilution for the purpose of
avoiding an effective date is outside the
scope of this proposal and. therefore.
would have to be the subject of a
separate proposal. However, as noted in
the waste analysis section to today's
rule, the applicable treatment standards
are to be determined by generators in
accordance with 1288.7.
b. Dilution to meet the treatment
standards. One commenter suggested
that EPA reiterate that dilution with
non-aqueous agents (e.g.. flyash.
sawdust or other materials) is also
prohibited. The Agency agrees and
intends that the addition of any other
material, either liquids or non-liquids, is
prohibited as a substitute for treatment
under section 3004(m).
Several commenters expressed
concern that some treatment processes
(e.g» equalization ponds), which require
the addition of other materials to
physically or chemically treat the
wastes, would be prohibited. Aa stated
in the preamble to the proposed rule (51
FR1680). the Agency recognizes that
many treatment methods require the
addition of reagents. These reagents.
however, produce physical or chemical
changes and do not merely dilute the
hazardous constituents into a larger
volume of waste sa as to lower the
constituent concentration. In
establishing BOAT. EPA considered
dilution which is a normal part of the
production process or a necessary part
of the process to treat a waste. The
legislative history indicates that this is
consistent win coagreasioaal intent (see
& Rep. No. 284. BBtfa Cong, 1st Seas. 17
(1983)). In prohibiting dilution aa a
substitute for adequate treatment, die
Agency does not intend to prevent the
regulated community from adding
materials that an necessary to facilitate
proper treatment in meeting treatment
standards (e.g.. adding lime to neutralize
or precipitate a waste prior to further
treatment). In addition. EPA does not
intend to disrupt or alter the normal and
customary practices of properly
operated treatment facilities. For
example, treatment facilities could mix
compatible wastes in order to treat (e.g.,
incinerate) at capacity levela ratiier than
treating wastes in small batches.
c. Dilution of residuals. One
commenter recommended that the
language of the prohibition should be
modified to reflect that the prohibition
on iHiittiM oi.«. applies after treatment.
In particular, wastes meeting Subpart 0
treatment standards must not be mixed
with wastes that do not meet such
standards in order to achieve the
treatment standard for the mixture. EPA
agrees with the commenter and intends
that this type of dilution after treatment
or at any other time is prohibited under
§ 268.3. The Agency believes that the
language in 9 268.3 prohibiting dilution
"as a substitute for adequate treatment
to achieve compliance with Subpart 0"
is sufficiently broad enough to cover this
scenario.
EPA is adopting die proposed
prohibition with the following
modifications. First, the prohibition
extends to transporters and handlers
which were inadvertently excluded from
the proposed prohibition. Since the
proposal cited legislative history which
included the transportation and
handling stages within the prohibition as
the basis for { 2884. the Agency
believes that the favorable comments
indicate support for such a modification
which conforms more closely to
congressional intent. In addition.
support for the prohibition was very
broad and did not indicate any intent to
treat transporters or handlers
differently. EPA believes that this
modification is reasonable and
necessary in order to implement this
provision.
Second, the prohibition extends only
to the act of dilution itself. The Agency's
proposed language would have
prohibited "attempted dilution" but not
dilution itself. This is dearly not what
was intended by EPA. Overall the
commenters who supported die
prohibition expressed concern with the
act of dilution.
B. Comparative Risk Assessment and
Available Treatment Alternatives
1. Proposed Use of Comparative Risk
Assessment
EPA proposed the use of comparative
risk analyses as part of its evaluation of
treatment technologies in conjunction
with establishing treatment standards.
As described in the proposed rule, a
number of criteria affect the
determination of "available" treatment
technologies for the purpose of setting
treatment standards. Among the criteria
considered is whether application of a
treatment technology (including land
disposal of treatment residuals) poses
greater risks to human health and the
environment than those posed by direct
land disposal of the waste. Comparative
nsk analyses were proposed to prevent
situations in which regulations
restricting hazardous wastes from land
disposal would encourage treatment
technologies posing greater risks to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40593
human health and the environment than
risks posed by direct land disposal.
2. Agency Response to Comments
The majority of ihe comments
supported the concept of conducting
comparative nsk assessments. However,
several comments strongly opposed this
concept. Both sets of commenters had
specific criticisms and suggestions.
The commenters who objected to the
use of comparative risk assessment
stated that EPA does not have the
authority under RCRA to conduct such
analyses. The Agency disagrees with the
commenters. The Agency interprets Ihe
provisions in section 3004(m) to direct
EPA to set treatment standards which
minimize threats to Ihe "environment"
as applying to all media fi.a- air. land.
and water). Because there is no
language indicating that this term does
not include all media, accordingly. EPA
does not believe that the section 30M(m)
standard can be read to preclude
comparative risk analyses. Therefore,
EPA believes that Congress did not
intend that risks to human health and
the environment be Increased as a result
of implementation of the land disposal
prohibitions. The national policy
provision in section 1003 supports this
approach in stating that hazardous
wastes should be treated in order to
minimize the present and future threat
to human health and the environment
Moreover, this provision, as well as Ihe
legislative history (e«. HJt. Rep. No.
198. Part L 98th Cong, 1st Seas. 32
(1903)). does not focus merely on the
risks of land disposal, but instead
demonstrates a concern for the toxicity
and mobility of hazardous wastes In all
media. EPA believes that it is desirable,
reasonable, and consistent with the
intent of Congress to include
comparative risk assessments in the
determination of available technologies
for purposes of setting technology-baaed
treatment standards.
One commenter fell that the use of
comparative risk assessments are
reasonable, but questioned whether it is
appropriate to use wont case scenarios
in assessing the relative risks. The
suggested approach is to utilize a
"middle-of-the-road" scenario in
evaluating risks at both land disposal
and alternative treatment facilities. In
response lo the comment the Agency ia
not using best or wont case scenarios.
Instead. EPA has chosen to analyze
several land disposal and treatment
facilities which represent high, medium.
and low exposure sites. High risk, low
risk, and representative waste streams
were modeled through each of these
facilities in order lo capture the entire
range of waste site scenarios.
Several commenters were critical of
EPA's proposal to evaluate population
risk in assessing comparative nsks. The
Agency believes it useful to consider
population in comparative risk analyses
because it can Identify sources of
increased risks where a comparison
with the Maximum Exposed Individual
(MEI) risks may not do so. For example.
the MEI risks of incinerating certain
wastes may be low in comparison lo the
MEI risks of land disposal This could be
due lo few people living in the
Immediate path of an incinerator plume.
The Agency does, however, want to
consider cases when then may be a
larger population affected by Incinerator
emissions.
One commenter was concerned that
the treatment methods for a given waste
may be riskier in absolute terms than
the treatment method for another waste.
Their concern was that the riskier
technology could be used to define the
treatment standard as long aa the
process poses comparatively less risk
than land disposal. In the context of
ensuring that the land disposal
restrictions do not shift higher risks to
other media, the Agency maintains that
comparative risk analyses are not the
proper vehicle for making absolute risk
determination*. The analyse* are aimed
at assessing whether the land disposal
of a given waste or waste stream will
poae relatively greater risks than
alternative treatment technologies. Aa
stated above, if the alternative
treatment method la determined to be
less risky than land disposal it will be
used ia the determination of BOAT. The
Agency does, however, have the
authority to impose additional controls
on die technology if it later determines
that the actual risks are unacceptable.
Such a determination could lead to
either a modification of the BOAT
standard or die Imposition of additional
standards oa treatment facilities.
3. Use of Comparative Risk Assessment
in the Final Framework
Results of the comparative risk
analysis will not be used to allow
continued land disposal of untreated
hazardous waste. Aa discussed m
section A of this unit treatment
technologies that are determined to pose
greater risks than direct land disposal of
a waste will be considered
"unavailable" as a basis for establishing
Ihe treatment standard for the waste.
C Application of Standards
1. Leaching Procedure
a. Final decision. The Agency
proposed to use the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) to determine whether applicable
treatment standards have been met.
Although EPA is changing its overall
approach in today's final rule (i.e.. from
risk-based decisions lo technology-
based decisions), the Agency will
continue to require Ihe use of the TCLP
to determine whether a waste requires
treatment or when a treated waste
meets the applicable treatment
standards. Today the Agency is
promulgating Ihe TCLP with
improvements and modifications based
on the comments received on the
proposed rule, as well as applicable
comments received on the Toxiciiy
Characteristic (TC) proposed rule (Si FR
21648. June 13.1988). The Agency is
promulgating the TCLP in today's final
rule specifically for evaluation of the
solvent and dioxin-contaming wastes.
The revised TCLP is promulgated as
Appendix I to Part 208.
Because the Agency is continuing to
investigate other means of defining
BDAT(e«.. a definition based on the
concentration of hazardous constituents
in the waste, at least in Ihe case where
treatment is based on destruction). EPA
will make decisions regarding the
applicability of the TCLP to other
restricted wastes according to the final
schedule for land disposal restrictions
which was promulgated on May 28.
1986. hi addition, the Extraction
Procedure (EP) will continue to be used
In determining which nonhsted wastes
ere hazardous in accordance with the
EP toxicity characteristic (40 CFR
291.24). The Agency expects to
promulgate the TC by early 1988.
b. Response to comments. The general
comments EPA received on the leaching
test as it applies to its use in this
rulemaking. and EPA's response to these
comments an summarized below.
Technical and procedural comments on
the TCLP. and related issues are
summarized and addressed in a
background document supporting the
use of the TCLP in today's final rule
(Ref. 3). The background document also
summarizes modifications to the TCLP
based on further evaluation of the
procedure.
|1) Use of the TCLP is premature.
Many of the commenters argued that use
of the TCLP was premature. Reasons
that wen given include: (i) An
inadequate amount of tine was given lo
evaluate the method and its impact on
current waste management practices.
due to the unavailability of test
equipment: (ii) the institution of a new
test would impose unreasonable delays
on treatment facilities who need to test
Ihe wastes prior to disposal: and (in) the
test had not been properly validated.
-------
40594 Federal Register / Vol. 5t No. 218 / Friday. November 7. 1966 / Rules and Regulations
EPA does not believe that these
concerns are sufficient reasons to
prevent the use of the TCLP in today's
regulation. In view of the statutory
deadlines. EPA was aware that the time
available for public review of the
leaching test would be relatively short.
As a result during the course of
developing and evaluating the TCLP.
public presentations were held to
familiarize interested parties with the
test procedure, in order to facilitate their
evaluation of the test
In addition, most of the equipment
needed to conduct the TCLP is the same
as that used for the existing EP. The
only "new" equipment is the Zero-
Headspace Extractor (ZHE) and
ancillary equipment (e.g~ TEDLAR bags
and gas-tight syringes) needed for
evaluation of volatile organic
compounds.
In addition to the data and
information made available to the public
in the January 14.1986 proposal
information on the development and
evaluation of the TCLP was provided in
the toxicity characteristic proposed rule.
Further supporting information on the
leaching test was also provided through
notices of availability of reports on July
9.1986 (51 FR 24856) and September 19.
1986 (51 FR 33297). EPA received over
150 comments on the TCLP in response
to these proposals and notices. These
comments were considered in issuing
today's final rule. EPA. therefore, does
not agree with die commenter's claim
that they have not had adequate
opportunity to evaluate the method. The
Agency believes that adequate data has
been developed and noticed for public
comment to allow generators to
adequately evaluate the procedure.
Another general concern expressed by
commenters related to the belief that the
institution of a new test would present
unreasonable delays on tieatnient
facilities. Although there may be some
delay. EPA does not believe that this
would be caused by the introduction of
a new testing protocol or a protocol
requiring new equipment. Some form of
waste analysis is required in order to
implement the land disposal restriction*
rule. EPA anticipates that the institution
of a new protocol will not cause delays
beyond those required to perform any
waste characterization. The procedures
used in conducting the TCLP an very
similar to the existing EP. Therefore, the
Agency expects that laboratories
familiar with the EP protocol should
have little problem conducting the TCLP.
Commeaten alao expressed concern
that the TCLP waa not ready for
application because the method bad not
been properly tested or validated. The
TCLP has been the subject of an
extensive evaluation. EPA has
completed both intra- and inter-
laboratory (collaborative) studies of
method reproducibility using a variety of
wastes. Industry groups and commercial
laboratories participated in EPA's TCLP
collaborative evaluation. In addition, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPR1)
also evaluated the TCLP in a
collaborative study. Finally, six industry
associations submitted data to the
Agency from a collaborative study of
the TCLP. (The results of these studies
an detailed in the TCLP Background
Document supporting today's rule (Ref.
3)). Based on all these efforts. EPA
believes that the test has been
sufficiently evaluated.
(2) The TCLP is inappropriate for use
in the land disposal restriction's rule.
Approximately one third of all
commenters addressing the leeching test
argued that it is inappropriate for such
use. Specifically, these coamenten
argued that the method would be
inappropriate as a means ID evaluate
Subtitle C hazardous wastes because it
was developed based on a municipal/
industrial waste codisposal scenario.
They specifically pointed out that
hazardous waste landfills do not contain
municipal wastes and. therefore, that
the leaching medium within these
landfills was unlikely to contain acetate
or acetic acid, common degradation
products of decomposing renise. These
commenters further suggested that a
water leaching medium would be more
representative of a Subtitle C disposal
facility.
Several commenters also disagreed
with application of the TCLP because of
other differences between Subtitle C
and Subtitle D land disposal facilities.
They asserted that Subtitle C facilities
differ in design from mnniripal facilities
in several respects, including
plnlmiTaHrMt r\f farffff SAd gTOUfl
water intrusion and *"*"*"'*"'"''* of
accumulated fluids through the 30-year
post-doswe period beyond the
operating life of the facility. They
pointed out that well-engineered
hazardous waste land disposal units
provide a physical-chemical
environment that n sqruficantly
different from the municipal landfill.
EPA recognizes that RCRA Subtitle C
and Subtitle 0 facilities dinar in many
respects. However, commenters
generally addressed only the fairly
narrow example of a well engineered
Subtitle C landfill that accepts treated
wastes or that is dedicated to a
particular waste. Subtitle C facilities
include not only these types of landfills
but also existing facilities which may be
unlined or which may contain a variety
of untreated wastes. The current
regulations do not prohibit the
landfilling of mildly acidic wastes, nor is
it uncommon to put liquid acidic wastes
in surface impoundments. Thus, a
significant number of facilities may not
conform to the model suggested by the
commenters. In view of these
differences. EPA does not believe the
commenters have shown that it is
unreasonable to assume that wastes in a
Subtitle C environment may be subject
to mildly acidic conditions. In view of
these factors, and considering the time
constraints imposed on the Agency's
issuance of land disposal regulations.
EPA believes it is justified in using the
TCLP for the wastes covered by today's
rule.
In this regard. It is important to note
that the leaching of the organics covered
by today's rule is not significantly
effected by minor changes to the
predominantly aqueous leaching media
used in the TCLP (Ref. 24). Thus, the
Agency believes it is being prudent in
not introducing yet another leaching test
for regulatory application.
(3) Effect of the TCLP on constituents
other than solvents and dionns.
Because today's final rale addresses
only solvents and dioxina. EPA is not
responding to those comments dealing
with inorganics at this time. EPA has
received substantial comment regarding
the TOP'S use of a "stronger" leaching
Quid for wastes of moderate to high
alkalinity, and the need for particle size
reduction of all wastes, including
monolithic materials. A detailed
discussion is available in the TCLP
background document.
(4) Potential laboratory capacity
shortfall. Several commenters.
anticipating that the TCLP may
eventually be required as a result of
both the land disposal restrictions
program and the toxicity characteristic.
were concerned over a potential
laboratory capacity shortfall. They
indicated that commercial laboratories
are currently backlogged with work, and
that TCLP requirements under both rules
would make the situation critical.
We disagree with these commnenters.
Many commercial laboratories are
presently performing TCLP analyses. For
example, over 20 laboratories were
involved in EPA's TCLP collaborative
effort In addition. EPA is aware that
laboratories have been in the process of
gearing-up to perform TCLP analyses.
primarily in anticipation that the TCLP
will be required as part of both the land
disposal restrictions rale and the
toxicity characteristic. In addition, due
to the phased approach for the
restrictions rule, and the fact that the
toxicity characteristic will not be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rulea and Regulations 40595
promulgated until early 1988, EPA
believes that-the laboratory capacity
problem will not be as severe as
commenters suggest. By the rime the
toxicity characteristic becomes
effective. EPA believes that sufficient
laboratory capacity should exist to
conduct the required analyses. Several
commenters agreed with EPA. indicating
that there are {or would be) a sufficient
number of laboratories that will be able
to perform the TCLP.
(5) TCLP reproducibility. EPA also
received substantial comments
regarding the precision or
repraducibility of the TCLP. most of
which were critical of the method's
precision. While specific comments
regarding method precision are
addressed in the TCLP background
document, the outcome of EPA's general
evaluation of these comments is
presented below.
The relevant question with respect to
method precision UK "is the method
sufficiently precise for its intended
application?" In other words, given a
particular waste, can the same
conclusions derived from results of
running the TCLP in one laboratory (La*
are treatment levels exceeded) be
reached in other laboratories. EPA
believes that the TCLP is sufficiently
precise in this application, a* indicated
below.
A total of three separate multi-
laboratory collaborative evaluations of
the precision of the TCLP were
conducted {Ref. 3]. One of these
evaluations was sponsored by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPBI).
and was limited to investigating the
precision of the method for inorganic
parameters and dealt specifically with
utility industry wastes. This study is
unique in that it attempted to determine
the relative contribution to total
variability due to the three major
components of variability: sampling
variability, analytical variability, and
variability due to the TCLP itself. EPRI
also conducted side by side
comparisons of the EP to the TCLP. This
study was similar to a study EPRI did on
the EP in 1979 (Ref. 3].
EPRI's evaluation concluded in
general that the TOP'S reproducibility
was equal to or greater than that of the
EP (Ref. 3). More significantly. EPRI
found thai the most frequently
encountered source of variability in the
TCLP extracts was the analytical
variability associated with analysis of
duplicate extracts by different
laboratories. EPRI. however, also
indicated thai the interpretation of
results may depend on the statistical
approach used to analyze the data.
Nevertheless, il appears that regardless
of how data are interpreted analytical
variability can account for a major
source of variability in results.
EPA's collaborative study addressed
the conventional bottle extraction (i.e..
for metals, semi-volatile orgamcs, and
pesticides and herbicides) and (he Zero-
Headspace Extractor (ZHE) used for
volatile orgarrics. The results of this
study, noticed in the September 21.1988
Federal Register, presented the full
results of the evaluation for the
conventional extraction, and a summary
of the results for the ZHE extraction.
This report has since been finalized. The
genera) conclusion reached hi this study
was that "the TCLP could be applied
consistently by a diverse group of
organizations.**
The third collaborative effort was
sponsored by six industry trade
associations, end dealt with both the
conventional bottle extraction and the
ZHB. This study also compared the
precision of the EP to the TCLP. and. like
the EPRI study, concluded that the
precision of the TCLP wat
approximately the same as, or slightly
better than, that of the EP. This study
further concluded, however, that the
TCLP procedure was not a precise test
but attributed the major source of
variability to the -lack of homogeneity
of wastes and the resulting difficulty in
obtaining representative samples..."
One comment received, however (from
one of the participating trade
associations}, concluded that the
association's study seemed to be
consistent with the EPA effort in that the
data for metals and non-volatile
organlcs showed adequate
reproducibility, and thai the
"preliminary* data for volatile organtea
also indicated adequate reproducibility.
EPA believes that these three efforts
adequately demonstrate the precision of
the TCLP, and also support EPA's
contention that precision over the
existing EP has been improved.
Specifically, these stedJes show mat
considering the variability contributed
by both sampling and analytical
variability, the TCLP can be applied
consistently among laboratories with
reasonable precision.
Nevertheless. EPA agrees with the
conclusion in the industry association
study that sampling variability Is likely
to be the roost significant contribution to
totaJ variability, (EPA is also concerned.
to a lesser extent wilh the contribution
of analytical variability.) Farther. EPA
believes mat sampling variability may
actually be more of a problem than
indicated In these studies. Whereas
extra efforts are usually made in
collaborative studies to minimize
variability due to the samples, such
efforts are not always entirely
niccessful. When sampling for waste
analyses or characterizations, it is likely
that sample representativeness will not
receive the same close attention that it
receives during collaborative efforts.
EPA believes that the besl way to
deal with (he variability problem is to
take multiple "representative" samples
of wastes following a well-developed
sampling plan, and to subject these
samples to the intended analyses.
Following fairly simple and fundamental
statistical concepts, the results can then
be subjected to a statistical evaluation
designed to determine whether
applicable regulatory levels are
exceeded with a certain degree of
confidence (e.g.. the upper limit of the 90
percent confidence interval). This
approach is detailed in Chapter 9 of
EPA's 3rd edition of Its solid waste
testing manual (Test Methods For
Evaluating Solid Waste—SW-846).
which ia complete with several easy
way* to follow example (Ref. 3).
(6) Applicability of the TCLP to multi-
phasic (oily) wastes. EPA has also
received substantial comment on the
applicability of the TCLP to oily wastes.
Commenters were both concerned that
the TCLP would not distinguish "liquid"
oils from solid materials, resulting in
little or no filtration of oil through the
TCLP's glass fiber filter (OFF), and that
the TCLP's GFF would treat these oils as
liquids, resulting in too much oil passing
through the filter. These commenters
further criticized the TCLP because it
treated aqueous liquids and non-
aqueous (oily) liquid* in an identical
manner, when these commenters
perceived these liquids to behave
differently in the environment.
Materials which filter through the CFF
an defined as liquids and are analyzed
directly, whereas the "solid" portion of
the waste [i.e., that portion which does
not pas* through (he GFF) is extracted
with an amount of extraction fluid equal
to twenty tones its weigh). This
differentiation is especially critical for
oily wastes (which are known to pose
filtration problems, especially with the
EFs membrane filler), as exceedance of
the treatment level can depend very
heavily on whether the "liquid oil"
within the waste is defined as a liquid
(passes through the GFF and is analyzed
directly), or is defined as a solid (does
not filter and is extracted with twenty
times its weight of extraction fluid).
EPA agree* that this is a difficult issue
and believes that it is important that the
TCLP be capable of indicating the
movement of oily material, as these
materials have been known to migrate
from wastes.
-------
40596 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
Data is available which suggests that
the TCLP's OFF more readily passes oily
material than does the EP's membrane
filter. In developing the TCLP. EPA
investigated eleven wastes in its
lysimeter evaluations, three of which
were oily wastes (Ref. 24). During this
phase of the research, it was
demonstrated that oil is capable of
migrating from the "solid" matrix of the
waste as droplets.
While the OFF was selected mainly
for operational reasons, the research
also indicated that it was consistently
more efficient at detecting
contamination due to movement of the
oil than was the EFs membrane filter.
The GFF is therefore expected to
provide a more reasonable
differentiation between liquids and
solids.
While the OFF then, is an
improvement upon the EFs membrane
filter, in terms of its ability to pass oils.
EPA is continuing to investigate if the
TCLP's nitration regime should be
altered to better predict movement of
the oily phase of a waste. Upon
completion of these evaluations. EPA
may propose modifications to the TCLP
specifically for wastes containing oily or
other non-aqueous liquids. In the
meantime, given the GFFs ability to
better indicate the movement of oil. EPA
believes that the TCLP's filtration
regime will be sufficiently capable of
indicating whether oily wastes meet the
treatment levels.
(7) Complexity of TCLP. Several
commenters were also concerned that
the TCLP is too complex and loo
dependent on the use of skilled
personnel and specialized equipment
like the ZHE. Many of these commenters
suggested changes to the ZHE protocol.
Commenters further asserted that the
procedure was overly burdensome.
especially for wastes containing solids
and multiple liquid phases.
As indicated previously, the TOP
involves two separate procedures with
differing equipment. The conventional
bottle extraction conducted for "non-
volatile" constituents is much simplified
over the EP protocol. In fact one of the
conclusions of the EPRI collaborative
TCLP study was that "the main
advantage of the TCLP appears to be in
the ease of use." The TCLP extraction
for volatile*, involving the ZHE. is
agreeably more complicated than the
conventional extraction. The two
protocols, however, are very similar.
and EPA believes that analysts familiar
with the EP method will have little
problem, successfully conducting the
TCLP. As with any new procedure, there
will be some learning involved.
especially with regard to the ZHE
device. Familiarization with the device
should be fairly rapid, however.
EPA has also taken steps to simplify
the procedure, both on our own further
evaluation of the method, and in
response to the comments received on
the method. EPA is also considering
further simplification of the ZHE
protocol, as indicated in the background
document. Finally, while EPA believes
that the protocol can be successfully run
by technicians and analysts, as with any
waste characterization (including the
EP). the oversight of skilled chemists is
always essential.
(8) Operational difficulty of the TCLP
with some waste types. EPA has
received many comments addressing the
operational difficulties perceived in
performing the TCLP on some waste
types. For example. EPA is aware that
the TCLP will be more difficult to
perform on wastes containing
immiscible liquid phases, and on wastes
which contain low percent solids (e.g«
<5 percent solids). EPA Is also aware
that the ZHE device may be difficult to
clean after extraction of a particularly
contaminated waste.
To help generators in dealing with
these problems in a consistent manner.
EPA Is in the process of preparing a
guidance section for the TCLP. that will
offer suggestions on the best way to deal
with these problems. In addition, this
forms for recording results, and will also
contain helpful suggestions in dealing
with minor problems. This guidance
section will accompany the method
when it is published in SW-948. The
background document supporting the
TCLP provides more detail regarding the
content of the guidance section, along
with responses to comments addressing
technical and procedural Issues (Ref. 3).
(9) Specific wastes and compounds.
Many commenters also expressed their
concern that application of the TCLP
would be inappropriate for their specific
wastes. These commenten. however
were most concerned with inorganic
constituents and the effect of the acetic
acid (used in the TCLP) on these
constituents. These commenten
asserted that their wastes were not
managed in municipal landfills (which
the acetic acid is designed to simulate)
and thus, that the use of acetic acid
would be inappropriate. As mentioned
earilier. since today's rule applies only
to-solvents and dioxina. and since the
TCLP is only used in the rule as a
monitoring technique. EPA is not
responding to these comments at this
time.
Similar comments were received
which assert that reproducibility testing
performed on the TCLP should have
been done with "their wastes." EPA
would like to reemphasize that these
were two outside evaluations of the
TCLP (Ref. 3). Nonetheless. EPA
believes that it would be unnecessary to
conduct precision studies on all wastes
that may be subject to the TCLP. This
would be a waste of resources. Rather,
in precision studies, it is more important
to test a range of wastes, in terms of
physical and chemical characteristics.
Between all the investigations
conducted on the TCLP. a wide variety
of wastes have been tested, including
those that would sufficiently challenge
the procedure, such as oily (multi-
phasic) wastes. This is important, as
many of these commenten were
specifically referring to oily wastes. EPA
believes that the TCLP has been
sufficiently tested on a variety of
wastes.
Other commenten were concerned
that the TCLP would be inefficient at
extracting chlorinated (volatile]
compounds, as they observed that
during the research EPA conducted to
develop the TCLP. chlonnated
compounds were extracted in the
laboratory procedure at levels
significantly less than the levels
expected (Ref. 24). EPA acknowledged
the poor extraction of volatile
compounds in general during this
research. These results led EPA to the
conclusion that volatiles were being lost
to the headapace within the
conventional (bottle) extraction and as a
result of the air pressure filtration.
Consequently, the Agency determined
that a device which precludes
headspace and enables the use of piston
pressure for liquid/solid separation was
necessary, and the Zero-Headspace
Extractor was developed to minimize
the loss of volatiles.
2. Testing and Recordkeeping
Under the framework being finalized
today, determination of whether a
hazardous waste treatment residue
requires further treatment prior to land
disposal generally depends on whether
the concentration of constituents in an
extract from the waste (using the TCLP)
exceeds the applicable treatment
standards. Because this determination is
critical to the scheme. EPA is imposing
certain waste testing/analysis
requirements.
Ln the proposed rule, the Agency
solicited comments on the issue of who
should bear responsibility for testing
restricted wastes and certifying that the
wastes meet the applicable treatment
standards. The commenten were
equally divided on these issues. Sonv
commenten believed that the generator
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40597
should be responsible for testing.
certification, and recordkeeping. Others
agreed with the proposed approach
requiring the disposal facility to certify
that the wastes meet the treatment
standards.
Because the approach promulgated
today does not cap BOAT with
screening levels, more waites will
require treatment to meet the specified
treatment standards. The Agency
believes that the shift towards treatment
of restricted wastes will place an
increased responsibility on treatment
facilities to ensure that treated wastes
meet the specified treatment standard.
Although the provisions in section
3004(m)(2) place the ultimate
responsibility on the disposal facility to
ensure that only wastes which meet the
treatment standards are land disposed.
the Agency believes that testing and
certification by the treatment facility is
critical to implemention of the
regulatory program. Thus, the Agency la
requiring that the treatment facility
provide waste analysis data showing
that a waste meets the applicable
treatment standard to ensure that only
wastes which meet the standards will
be transported to disposal facilities. In
cases where the generator is shipping a
waste directly to the disposal facility
(i.e.. the waste naturally meets the
treatment standard, or has been treated
on-site), the generator is responsible for
testing and recordkeeplng. However, the
disposal facility has the ultimate
responsibility to ensure that all
restricted wastes meet applicable
treatment standard* before being land
disposed. The disposer also is required
to maintain ail records.
The rules promulgated today are not
intended to shift responsibility for
improper disposal to the generator. Of
course, nothing in these rules prevents
the generator and disposer from entering
into a private agreement to allocate
liability in the event that prohibited
wastes are land disposed.
a. Generator requirements. For
today's final rule, the generator of e
restricted waste must notify the
treatment facility in writing of the
appropriate treatment standard for the
waste. The generator may make this
determination baaed on waste analysis
data, knowledge of the waste, or both.
Where this determination Is based
solely on the generator's knowledge of
the waste, the Agency is requiring that
the generator maintain in the facility
operating record all supporting data
used to make this certification. A waste
analysis must be conducted if there is
reason to believe that the composition of
the waste has changed or if the
treatment process has changed. The
notification must specify the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number, the
applicable treatment standard, the
manifest number associated with the
shipment of waste, and the waste
analysis data (if available). The notice
must be placed in the operating record
of the treatment facility along with a
copy of the manifest. Generators who
are also treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities must place the same
information in the operating record.
although a formal notification and
manifest is not required.
According to the provisions in { 268.7.
a generator who determines that a
waste can be land disposed without
treatment must submit to the disposal
facility a certification statement and a
notice which contains the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number, the manifest
number, the applicable treatment
standard(s). and the waste analysis data
(if available) or cross references to
relevant data submitted at an earlier
time. The certification is required only in
cases when the generator is
representing that the waste meets the
treatment standard. Generators who
dispose on-site must put the same
information in the operating record
(except for toe manifest number).
b. Treatment facility requirements.
The treatment facility is responsible for
treating the restricted waste to the level
specified In the applicable treatment
standard. An off-site treatment facility
must obtain the required data from the
generator prior to treatment and place
that data fa the operating record.
Treatment residues must be tested
prior to land disposal according to the
requirements of the treatment facility's
waste analysis plan to determine if
treatment has achieved the required
level*.
For instance, if the waste analysis
plan calls for testing of each batch of
waste from an incineration process.
these data must be submitted to the land
disposal facility along with the
certification statement If a particular
generator's waate doea not vary and is
consistently treated by the same
treatment facility using the same
treatment process, the treatment
facility's waste analysis plan may
require less frequent testing of the
treatment residue. It should be
emphasized that a waste analysis must
be conducted if there is any reason to
believe that the composition of the
waste has changed or if the treatment
process has changed.
Each waste shipment most be
accompanied by a certification
statement including cross references to
any relevant data submitted at an
earlier time, and a notice which includes
the EPA Hazardous Waste Number, the
manifest number, the applicable
treatment standard(s), and waste
analysis data (if available). The disposal
facility must place the certification
notice and accompanying data in the
operating record. A treatment facility
that disposes on-site must put the same
information in the operating record
(except for the manifest number).
c. Load disposal facility requirements.
The disposal facility, which is ultimately
responsible for verifying that only
wastes meeting the treatment standards
are land disposed, must maintain all
documentation that the waste has been
treated in accordance with the
standards. If generation, treatment, and
disposal all occur at the same site, all
testing records must be placed in the
operating record. The Agency believes
that this approach will produce the
desired result—an assurance that
wastes placed in land disposal units
have met the applicable treatment
standards.
The testing and recordkeeping
requirements promulgated in today's
rule do not relieve the generator of his
responsibility under 40 CFR 262.20 to
designate a facility on the manifest
which is permitted to accept the waste
for off-site management.
d. Implementation of final rule. To
implement the additional waste testing/
analysis standards, the Agency has
in eluded a reference to the requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268 in the general waste
analysis requirements of 40 CFR 26413
(a)|l) and (b)(6) for permitted facilities.
and in 40 CFR 265.13 (a)(l) and (b)(6) for
interim status facilities. Consistent wifh
the current approach to waste analysis
requirements in Parts 264 and 265. the
Agency has added these specific waste
analysis requirements in today's final
rule that must be incorporated into the
general waste analysis as a separate
section m Part 268. The Agency has also
revised the operating record
requirements in 40 CFR 264.73 and 40
CFR 265.73 to indicate that waste
analyses conducted pursuant to such
requirements must be recorded and
maintained in the land disposal facility's
operating record.
e. Waste analysis. Wastes must be
tested in accordance with a facilities
waste analysis plan. Where treatment
standards are expressed as a
concentration in a waste extract. EPA is
requiring that the TCLP be uaed to
determine whether the waste meets the
treatment standard (see Appendix I to
Part 266). Guidance on methods for
waste sampling and analysis is provided
-------
40598 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1966 / Rules and Regulations
in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes. 2nd Edition. EPA Document
SW-846,1982. as amended. In addition,
guidance on the preparation of waste
analysis plans is provided in Waste
Analysis Plans. A Guidance Manual,
September 1984. A revised edition of
this waste analysis plan (WAP)
guidance is forthcoming.
The current WAP guidance describes
four basic components of the waste
analysis plan. It discusses how the
owner or operator of a treatment
storage, or disposal facility should
describe:
(1) Specific wastes that will be
managed:
(2) Waste-associated properties that
are of concern in ensuring safe and
effective management;
(3) Specific waste parameters that
must be quantified before waste is
accepted for treatment storage and/or
disposal:
(4) Methods and frequency of
sampling and analysis required to
obtain the data on waste
characterization and the attendant
quality control/quality assurance
procedures.
For the purposes of compliance with
the land disposal restrictions rule, a
waste analysis plan for an off-site
disposal facility must address the
procedures for screening incoming
shipments of waste to ensure that
wastes received conform to the
certification made by the generator or
treatment facility. That Is, the waste
analysis plan must address the
procedures necessary for determining
whether an extract of the waste or
treated waste meets the treatment
standards.
These testing requirements for
treatment residuals apply to generators
who treat, store, and disposa ensile.
Less frequent testing may be appropriate
when there are fewer and less variable
waste streams at combined facilities.
but waste must be tested if the
composition or treatment method
changes. In developing these waste
analysis plans, the Agency recommends
that the land disposal facilities follow
the general guidelines in the WAP
guidance.
For each waste stream, the waste
constituents regulated under the land
disposal restrictions rule must be
comprehensively analyzed. Although the
frequency of testing will depend to some
extent upon the variability of the waste
stream, the Agency recommends that a
comprehensive analysis of each waste
•tream be performed at least annually
by the generator or treater. When the
comprehensive analysis is performed.
however, it must contain data on all the
applicable constituents in Subpart 0 so
that the owner/operator will be able to
determine whether the waste meets all
applicable treatment standards. If the
owner/operator of the land disposal
facility does not receive this information
in writing from the generator or
treatment facility, he must perform the
analysis to determine whether the waste
meets the treatment standards
according to the waste analysis plan.
The test results of this comprehensive
analysis must be placed in the land
disposal facility's operating record.
The Agency believes that this
approach is consistent with existing
industry practice. Off-site land disposal
facilities already require extensive
waste analysis information from the
generator or treatment facility before
they initially accept hazardous wastes
for disposal.
Finally, by requiring that all waste
analyses be placed in the operating
record, the owners/operators will be
able to demonstrate compliance with the
waste analysis requirements In 1288.7.
Where the treatment standard for the
applicable waste is a specified method
of treatment the last facility to treat the
waste must send a certification to the
land disposal facility that the waste has
been treated using the specified
technology. The certification, which is to
be placed in the land disposal facility's
operating record, must include the
statement required under 1268.7(b)(l).
3. RCRA Facilities Operating Under a
Permit or Interim Status
These regulations, when they become
effective, will place an increased
demand on existing hazardous waste
treatment facilities, EPA believes that it
Is important for these facilities to have
the regulatory flexibility to add
restricted wastes to their treatment
Inventories quickly. This flexibility is
necessary to permit the prompt
treatment of restricted wastes.
Treatment facilities operating under
Interim status an generally provided
with the flexibility to handle new
wastes by 40 CFR 270.72. which
specifies permissible changes during
interim status. Under this section.
interim status facilities may add new
wastes, increase design capacity (if they
can demonstrate a lack of available
capacity), or make changes in treatment.
storage, or disposal processes (if the
changes are necessary to comply with
Federal regulations or State or local
laws). 40 CFR 270.72(e). however, limits
these changes to alterations and
expansions of a facility that do not
exceed 50 percent of the capital cost of a
comparable new facility. In cases where
changes exceed SO percent the changes
cannot be made until the facility
receives a RCRA permit.
In the preamble to the proposed rule.
the Agency requested comments on
whether en amendment to 40 CFR 270.72
is necessary to provide Interim status
facilities the flexibility to manage
restricted wastes. EPA received few
comments recommending such a change.
however, the commentera did not
provide data indicating that this
provision would prevent modifications
needed in order to comply with today's
rule. The Agency is reviewing this issue
and will modify 40 CFR 270.72. if
needed, by promulgating a rule at a later
date. However, at this time, we believe
that 40 CFR 270.72 allows sufficient
flexibility for interim status facilities to
readily manage restricted wastes.
Treatment facilities operating under a
permit have significantly less flexibility
to make changes than interim status
treatment facilities. Under current
regulations, these facilities may add
new wastes or change treatment.
storage, or disposal processes, usually
through major permit modifications.
Major permit modifications, which are
substantially the same as permit
issuance procedures, require a draft
permit public notice and comment, and
opportunity for a public heanng. In
many cases, these procedures can be
time-consuming and may discourage
facilities from changing permit
conditions to treat restricted wastes.
thereby limiting available treatment
capacity.
To provide greater flexibility to
permitted facilities, the Agency
proposed to allow treatment facilities to
manage restricted wastes not listed in
their permit after a minor permit
modification (51FR1692). The EPA
received several comments on this issue.
In general, industry supported the
increased flexibility provided in the
proposed rule. Environmentalists,
however, argued that permit
modifications which permit management
of new wastes should not be granted
without the opportunity for at least
abbreviated public notice and comment.
They stated, however, that certain
restrictions should be placed on new
wastes that could be added to a permit
through minor modification procedures.
After reviewing these comments the
EPA has decided to add a new section
(40 CFR 270.42(o)) to allow permit
holders greater flexibility in treating
restricted wastes. Under this new
provision, owners and operators of
treatment facilities may treat restricted
wastes not listed in their permits after
Federal or State approval of a minor
permit modification -equest However.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40599
in response to public comments and to
ensure that changes made under this
provision are in fact minor, the EPA has
restricted the scope of 40 CFR 270.42(o)
in several important respects.
First, new waste must be treated In
accordance with the treatment
standards issued under Sub-part D of
Part 261 This will ensure that the
treatment is appropriate for the
restricted waste. Second, as suggested
by the commenters. minor permit
modifications are not allowed under this
provision if treatment of the new waste
will present substantially different risks
from the risks associated with wastes
listed in the permit. For example, a
facility not already permitted to handle
acutely hazardous or reactive wastes
would not be allowed to treat such
wastes under this provision. Finally.
under this provision, treatment of the
new waste cannot involve any permit
changes other than the addition of waste
codes and administrative or technical
changes necessary to handle the waste.
such as changes in the waste analysis
plan. Changes in treatment processes or
the addition of new treatment processes
will continue to require a major permit
modification.
This amendment to the minor
modification requirements should
provide flexibility to permitted facilities
treating restricted waste*. It should be
emphasized, that the modifications
allowed under this provision an
significantly limited and they apply only
to restricted wastes ae described above.
The purpose of the amendment is to
allow the prompt treatment of restricted
wastes In accordance with the land
disposal restrictions standards and to
increase available treatment capacity.
Without these changes, the EPA
believes that the ability of permitted
facilities to treat restricted wastes
promptly will be significantly-reduced.
Because of the conditions limiting the
applicability of this provision, any
permit modifications made under It will
be minor. For this reason the EPA does
not believe that public notice and
comment procedures are necessary, just
as they are not required for other minor
permit modifications. Such procedure
would eliminate the flexibility provided
by the minor modification procedures
and could complicate or delay treatment
of restricted wastes.
The EPA acknowledges that 40 CFR
270.42(0) only partially addresses the
difficulties that will be faced by
permitted facilities seeking to treat
restricted wastes. In particular, it does
not allow the modification of existing
treatment processes or the addition of
new treatment processes to handle
restricted wastes. The Agency believes
that such changes raise more
complicated issues than does the
addition of waste codes. However, the
Agency is exploring this issue as part of
an overall review of the minor permit
modification regulations. The EPA is
now conducting regulatory negotiations
on minor modifications, announced on
July 18, 1986 in the Federal Register, (51
FR 25739), and anticipates issuing a
proposed rule revising this regulation in
1987.
D. Determination of Alternative
Capacity And Ban Effective Dates
RCRA section 3004(h)(2) states that
the Agency may grant a nationwide
variance of up to 2 years from the
statutory effective date if adequate
alternative treatment recovery, or
disposal capacity which protects human
health and the environment ia not
available. EPA will consider several
factors whan calculating alternative
capacity and when determining the
length of any variance from the effective
datea of the restrictions. These factors
are discussed below.
1. Effective Dates
EPA will develop estimates of
treatment capacity needed versus
capacity available to determine if
current capacity for alternative
treatment recovery, and disposal
technologies ia adequate to manage
restricted wastes. These estimates will
be developed from currently available
data on capacity requirements and
technology capacity.
If capacity la available, the
prohibition will go into effect
immediately. If capacity Is not available.
the Administrator may set an alternative
effective date on the basis of the earliest
date on which adequate alternative
treatment recovery, or disposal
capacity which protect* human health
and the environment becomes available.
Establishment of the effective date will
not be affected by the processing of
petitions under section 3004 (d). |e), and
(g). The relationship between the
variance to the effective data and the
caae-by-caae extension under section
3004(h)(3) is discussed later in this unit.
2. Regional and National Capacity
The Agency will determine both the
quantity of restricted waste generated
and the capacity of alternative
treatment recovery, and disposal
technologies on a nationwide basis. If
there Is a significant shortfall in
capacity to treat all of the restricted
waste, the Agency will extend the
effective date of the prohibitions. If
national capacity is only slightly
lacking. EPA may grant case-by-ease
effective date extensions while allowing
the nationwide prohibition to go into
effect immediately. If national capacity
is sufficient, the prohibition will become
effective immediately, even if. for
instance, the only capacity for a waste
generated in California is located in
Ohio.
Many commenters urged EPA to make
regional instead of national estimates of
required and available capacities.
However, the national approach is
consistent with congressional intent.
The Senate legislative history provides
that "the available capacity
determination is to be done on a
national basis" (S. Rep. No. 284.98th
Cong.. 1st Sess. 19 (1983)). That is. the
effective date of the prohibitions for a
given waste should not vary from region
to region because one region has
sufficient alternative capacity and
another does not. If land disposal were
prohibited in only a portion of the
country, it la possible that waste
generated in one region would be
transported outside of that region and
land disposed elsewhere. As the Senate
report points out those regions of the
country in which land disposal is
allowed might become the "dumping
ground" for wastes generated in regions
where land disposal is banned (S. Rep.
No. 284.98th Cong.. 1st Sess. 19 (1983)).
3. The Nationwide Variance and the
Case-By-Case Extension
In cases where EPA has not granted a
nationwide variance, it Is not precluded
from granting case-by-case effective
date extensions. It may be more
desirable to grant case-by-case
extensions to specific applicants who
lack alternative capacity than to allow
everyone, even those for whom
alternatives are available, to continue to
land dispose restricted wastes. This
approach is consistent with
congressional intent to prohibit land
disposal at the earliest possible time.
EPA also may grant variances of leas
than 2 years, even though not all
facilities under construction will be
completed. Wastes requiring the
capacity from uncompleted facilities
also could be handled by case-by-case
extensions, without allowing continued
land disposal nationwide.
If the Agency proposes an immediate
effective date, it will accept applications
for case-by-case extensions before the
final rule is promulgated so the
extensions will be effective when the
final rule is published in the Federal
Register. EPA will consider information
provided by case-by-case extension
applicants as well as comments
submitted during the public commer
-------
40600 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
period, in determining whether to grant
a nationwide variance in the final rule.
The Agency will consider the
possibility of granting a nationwide
variance after the prohibition becomes
effective if available data (including
data from case-by-case extension
applications) indicate that nationwide
capacity is inadequate. EPA also will
consider whether it should shorten the
period of a nationwide variance based
on new information showing that
nationwide capacity is adequate.
However, after EPA promulgates a
nationwide effective date, this date is
not likely to be amended because it is
unlikely that Federal rulemaking
activities could be completed in
significantly less than 2 yean.
4. Determination of Capacity
Requirements by Waste Treatability
Group
In general. EPA will develop
treatment standards for waste groups
derived from the physical/chemical
characteristics of the restricted wastes.
EPA also will determine the quantities
of wastes that require specific treatment
of recovery methods by waste
treatability group. These treatability
groups wiU enable EPA to compare
required capacity (capacity demand)
with available capacity (capacity
supply). In addition. EPA will consider
other increases in capacity demand
generated by emergency and remedial
responses, and to the extent possible;
the impact of other final rulemakuiga
that affect availability of or demand for
treatment capacity. As necessary. EPA
will set different effective dates for
different waste groups or subdivisions of
waste groups.
In some cases, the same technology
will apply to several waste groups that
must be regulated in the same or in
sequential rulemakings. However, total
capacity may not be sufficient to treat
all of these groups of wastes. In such
cases, the Agency will subdivide the
waste groups in order to use all
available treatment capacity on specific
subgroups so as to implement the
restrictions as quickly as possible.
Under this approach, as much waste aa
possible would be prohibited
immediately.
5. Definition of Available Capacity
In estimating available capacity, the
Agency will consider current on-line
facilities, which include permitted
facilities and facilities operating under
RCRA interim status, and planned
facilities and capacity extensions that
will be on-line by the effective date of a
land disposal prohibition.
Current on-line facilities consist of off-
site and on-site facilities, including both
stationary and mobile facilities which
have been approved by Federal State.
and local agencies to operate and accept
certain wastes. Facilities operating
under RCRA interim status meet these
criteria, and therefore will be included
in the capacity determination. Some
commenters disagreed with this
approach, suggesting that interim status
facilities may not receive final permits.
However, unless EPA receives
notification of intent to close an interim
status facility, the Agency will assume
continued operation of a facility
throughout the permitting process and
continued available capacity on the
effective date of a prohibition.
Planned facilities an facilities that
are under development or under
construction. Planned facilities include
new off-site and on-site treatment
recovery, and disposal facilities, as well
as planned capacity additions or
validity of including planned facilities in
estimates of available capacity. They
stated that the Agency could not make
accurate predictions about such
capacity. The Agency will consider
planned capacity only if it la reasonably
certain that the facility will be on-line
by the effective date of a prohibition. To
predict whether a facility will be on-line
In time. EPA will consider the time
needed to complete the facility,
including reasonable estimates of time
needed to site the facility, obtain
permits, construct and test. In most
cases. EPA will consider the capacity of
planned facilities only when all permits
required for construction have been
approved and sufficient additional
evidence of intent to build are available
(such as contracts issued for
construction). Planned capacity waa not
included in the estimates of available
capacity for solvent! and dioxins.
6. Definition of Alternative Treatment
Capacity
The Agency believes that treatment
technologies that will achieve the
standards established under section
3004(m) can be considered available
treatment capacity under the provision
in section 3003(h)(2).
Section 3004(m) directs EPA to
establish standards based on treatment
that will minimize long- and short-term
threats to human health and the
environment. The Agency behoves that
this provision generally will be satisfied
by technologies classified as BOAT. In
most cases, treatment levels or methods
based on BOAT an expected to fully
protect human health and the
environment. Accordingly, technologies
that form the basis for such standards
an candidates for the capacity
evaluation under section 3004(h) (2) and
(3).
In those cases where standards based
on BOAT an not deemed to be fully
protective of human health and the
environment, the Agency may. as a
matter of policy, exercise its
discretionary authority not to extend the
effective date of a prohibition in cases
when the existing capacity of fully
protective technologies, coupled with
the existing capacity of treatment
technologies that meet BDAT. is
adequate to address the restricted
wastes.
The Agency believes that this
approach is consistent with
Congressional intent. The section
3004(h) variance is intended to
encourage the development of protective
alternative treatment recovery.and
disposal capacity. (S. Rep. No. 284.98th
Cong, 1st Sess. IB (1983). H.R. Rep. No.
188.88th Cong.. 1st Sess. 37 (1983)).
However, in cases when BDAT is not
fully protective, the regulated
community will have little incentive to
develop protective alternative treatment
methods during the vanance period in
light of the fact that, at the end of any
such variance, hazardous waste may be
land disposed if the wastes comply with
less protective technology-based
standards. In such a case, the effect of
the variance would simply be to delay
compliance with BDAT and not as
Congress intended, to provide limited
additional time for the development of
protective alternative technologies.
Treatment methods that are not
identified as the basis for BDAT for the
waste group being considered also will
be included in the capacity
determination, as long as EPA Judges
that the method can achieve the
treatment standards for the wastes in
question and will pose less risk than
land disposal. EPA believes that this
approach is consistent with the
congressional intent to ban hazardous
wastes from land disposal at the earliest
possible date, as discussed earlier.
7. Definition of Alternative Recovery
and Disposal Capacity
In assessing available capacity, the
Agency will consider the capacity of all
on-line recovery and disposal facilities
that an protective of human health and
the environment These include disposal
facilities for which EPA has granted a
site-specific petition demonstrating no
migration of hazardous constituents for
as long as the wastes remain hazardous
(but not facilities when a petition is
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rulea and Regulations 40601
pending, but not granted). Planned
facilities, including expansion of
existing facilities, also will be
considered where appropriate.
However, alternative land disposal
methods (e.g.. deep well injection) will
not be considered as available capacity
for a restricted waste unless EPA has
determined that such methods of
disposal are fully protective of human
health and the environment Therefore.
EPA will not consider underground
injection to be available disposal
capacity, until the Agency has
determined whether the injection of
such wastes is fully protective of human
health and the environment. Although
EPA is not including underground
injection into deep wells in Its capacity
determinations this does not preclude its
use for disposal of these wastes before
August 1968.
& Estimation of Capacity
EPA will estimate the annual unused
or surplus capacity of alternative
treatment, recovery, and disposal
facilities that is available nationwide to
manage wastes restricted from land
disposal. The Agency will compare
nationwide capacity (capacity supply) to
the quantities of restricted waste
generated annually nationwide
(capacity demand).
Surplus capacity will be expressed as
throughput capacity. Because data on
unused throughput may be difficult to
obtain in some instances. EPA may use
other available information to calculate
capacity, such as the difference between
practical maximum design capacity and
capacity currently utilized. As discussed
earlier, when information is available.
EPA will consider both current surplus
capacity and planned capacity when
calculating surplus capacity. However,
today's final rule considers only current
surplus capacity because data on
planned capacity were not available.
Current surplus capacity is defined as
present capacity which is not being
used. Surplus capacity can be any of the
following:
(i) Commercially available.
(ii) Private capacity which can be
used to process additional waste
produced by the facility.
(lii) Private capacity, where the owner
Is willing and able to accept wastes
from other generators, i.e.. to provide
commercial services.
EPA assumes that commercial
facilities are willing to accept wastes
that they are capable of treating. In
cases where commercial capacity is
inadequate. EPA will consider the
likelihood that available private
capacity not needed to process
additional waste produced by the
facility will be converted to commercial
capacity. However, due to limited
information on the availability of private
capacity for solvents and dioxins, EPA
has considered only commercial
capacity for this rulemaking.
In today's final rule, capacity
estimates are based on currently
available information, including the
"National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment facilities
regulated under RCRA in 1981" (OSW
RIA Mail Survey. RCRA IDR-2 docket
for the proposal), a 1986 EPA study on
incinerator and cement kiln capacity
(Ref. 15). a 1984 survey of the National
Association of Solvent Recyclers (Ref.
6). and the 1968 EPA National Screening
Survey of Hazardous Waste Facilities
(Ref. 21). The Agency is developing a
new survey of commercial and private
treatment facilities which will address
the concerns of commenters who
pointed out the need for an updated
data base. EPA intends to use data from
this survey in making capacity
determinations for future rulemaktngs.
9. Applicability of the Minimum
Technological Requirements
Section 3004(h)(4) provides that during
the period of a national variance under
(h)(2) or a case-by-case extension under
jh)(4), the waste may be disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment only if
the facility ia in compliance with section
3004(0).
£ Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundment*
The Agency proposed to exempt
treatment surface impoundments from
the land disposal restrictions under the
conditions specified in section 288.4.
This exemption is authorized by
sections 3005(j)(H){A) and (B). EPA
received few comments on the proposed
Interpretation of sections 3005(j)(ll)(A)
and (B). Most commenters criticized
EPA'a general approach as being too
restrictive, though some commenters
viewed it as too lenient Some
commenters suggested that the Agency
not allow treatment of restricted wastes
in surface impoundments. After careful
review and consideration of the
comments. EPA still believes that its
proposed approach ia the most
defensible and logical reading of the
statutory language and is consistent
with congressional intent Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating exemption for
treatment in surface impoundments
essentially as proposed.
Under today's final rule, a waste that
otherwise would be prohibited from one
or more methods of land disposal may
be treated in a surface impoundment
that meets certain technological
requirements as long as treatment
residuals that do not meet the applicable
treatment standard are removed within
1 year of the entry of the waste into the
impoundment.
The provision applies only to
restricted wastes and not to wastes that
meet the treatment standards
established under section 3004(m). or
that have been exempted from the
effective dale of the prohibition by a
case-by-case extension or have been
exempted from the ban through the
petition process. Such wastes are not
considered "prohibited" wastes and.
accordingly, may be given additional
treatment in a surface impoundment
without complying with the restrictions
imposed by section 3005(j)(ll)(B). This
provision also applies to both permitted
and interim status surface
impoundments used for the treatment of
hazardous wastes. For the purpose of
this rulemaking. EPA considers the term
"surface impoundment" to include both
single units and series of surface
impoundments. The Agency believes
that Congress did not intend to preclude
the use of a senes of impoundments.
1. Sampling and Removal of Treatment
Residuals
Within 1 year after a restricted waste
is placed in an impoundment.
representative samples of the treatment
residuals must be tested to determine
whether they meet the applicable
treatment standards. Sampling
techniques are detailed in the Waste
Analysis Plans. A Guidance Manual.
September 1984 (ref. 8}. The sampling
plan must be designed such that the •
sludge and supernatant (liquid portion)
are tested separately, rather than mixed
to form a homogeneous sample. If the
treatment residuals meet the applicable
treatment standard, they remain subject
to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA
but are no longer restricted wastes and
may remain in the surface impoundment
for disposal. Treatment residuals that
exceed the treatment standards must be
removed at least annually from the time
the waste is Tint placed in the
impoundment These residuals may not
be placed in any other surface
impoundment for subsequent
management.
Treatment impoundments do not
necessarily have to be drained in order
to remove treatment residuals. (See Vol.
130. Cong, flee S13815. (daily ed.
October 5.1984)). In the case where the
treatment residual is a liquid, that
residual may be removed by pumping. If
the volume flowing annually through an
impoundment (or series of
impoundments) is greater than the
-------
40602 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 3986 / Rules and Regulations
volume of the impoundment, this flow-
through constitutes removal of the
supernatant for purposes of this
requirement. However, as stated earlier.
any treatment residual that exceeds the
applicable treatment standards and.
therefore, must be removed annually
from the impoundment or series of
impoundments, may not be placed in
any other surface impoundment Tor
subsequent management.
The two general methods available for
removing residuals with a lower water
content, such as sludges and solids, an
excavation and dredging. The technique
used depends upon such variables as
surface impoundment design
characteristics (e.g.. shape, surface area.
depth, presence of liner, type of liner),
waste characteristics and type, and
accessibility of the impoundment
One commenter argued that the
annual removal requirements does not
address the potential for damage to the
liner. The Agency recognizes that there
is a potential for liner damage during the
removal process. However, the annual
removal requirement is a statutory
standard under section 3005{j}(ll)(B).
The Agency may issue guidance at a
later date regarding removal
requirements such as testing for liner
damage and prohibiting certain types of
removal methods.
2. Applicability of Minimum
Technological Requirements
Under today's final rule, an owner/
operator operating an impoundment
under the treatment surface
impoundment exemption must certify to
the Administrator that the impoundment
meets the liner, leachate collection
system, and ground water monitoring
requirements imposed by section
3004(o)(l). unless the impoundment
qualifies for certain exemptions.* A
surface impoundment is exempted from
liner and leachate collection system
requirements if the impoundment has at
least one liner that is not leaking, is
located more than one-quarter mile from
an underground source of drinking
water, and is in compliance with certain
ground water monitoring requirements
in section 3005(j)(2). or if it is
demonstrated that there will be no
migration of any hazardous constituent
to ground water or surface water at any
future time according to section
3005(j](4). (See "Interim Status Surface
Impoundments Retrofitting Vanances
Guidance Document." EPA/S30-SW-68-
017. July 18,1986. for information
* EPA commit* i
Dn300S(i)(ll)(A|loimpOM
an additional condition on Ihe imoneal of
tuzardoiu waiict in nirfict impwuHfcuenH uidtr
laction WW(jllllHB).
concerning the requirements specified in
RCRA sections 3005(j](2) and (j|(4),) An
owner or operator of an existing surface
impoundment must apply to the
Administrator prior to November &
1986. to be considered for waivers of the
minimum technological requirements.
Several commenlers suggested that
EPA also should allow an owner/
operator to treat restricted wastes in a
surface impoundment if they are exempt
from the minimum technological
requirements under sections 3005(j)(3) or
(13). (Paragraph (j)(3) pertains to certain
wastewater treatment units: paragraph
(j)(13J pertains to certain impoundments
subject to corrective action
requirements.) However, in specifying
the requirements in section
300S(j)(ll)(A) for surface impoundments
that are used to treat restricted waste*.
Congress specifically included only the
section 300S(i)(2) and (4) exemptions to
the ™ir"pMMn technological
requirements. Therefore, only these two
exemptions an included la the final
rule. Accordingly, an impoundment that
waa granted an exemption from the
minimum technological requirements
under sections 3005(jH3) or (13).
nonetheless, would be prohibited from
treating restricted wastes.
F. Case-By-Case Extensions
According to section 3004{h)(3), in
eases where adequate alternative
treatment recovery, or disposal
capacity cannot reasonably be made
available by the effective date, any
person who generates or manages a
restricted hazardous waste may submit
an application to die Administrator for
an extension of the effective date if such
alternative capacity can be provided at
a later date. Pursuant to this provision.
the Agency proposed to allow a case-by-
case extension of the effective date if
the applicant can demonstrate that he
has entered into a binding contract to
construct or otherwise provide such
alternative treatment recovery or
disposal capacity. The applicant must
also demonstrate that, due to
circumstances beyond hie control, such
alternative capacity reasonably cannot
be made available by the applicable
effective date. In the event that an
extension is granted an applicant is
exempted from the land disposal
restrictions, including the conditional
prohibition on storage under 126UO.
Any landfill or surface impoundment
receiving waste during the extension
must comply with the ground water
monitoring, hner. and leachate
collection system requirements in
1288.4(a)(3l.
The majority of the comaenters
supported the proposed approach for
case-by-case extensions. However, the
Agency received comments requesting
modifications to several aspects of the
proposed rule. Section 266.5 of today's
final rule incorporates the procedures
for case-by-case extensions essentially
as proposed, but with modifications
based on these comments.
1. Demonstrations Included in
Applications
a. The applicant has made a good-
faith effort to locate and contract with
alternative technologies nationwide.
EPA proposed to require applicants to
make a good-faith effort to locate
available capacity before being granted
a case-by-case extension. Section
3004(h)(3) requires that the applicant
demonstrate a binding contractual
commitment to provide capacity and
show that "such" capacity (i.e.. the
capacity contracted for) cannot
reasonably be made available by the
effective data. Thus, there is no
requirement on the face of the statute
that the applicant be denied an
extension if alternate capacity is
currently available. As noted in die
proposal however, the legislative
history to the original Senate bill
suggests that requiring facilities to
investigate available capacity is
consistent with congressional intent.
Thus, the good-faith showing provided
in today's rule, though not siaiutonly
• required, is consistent with the
legislative history and is within the
Agency's authority.
The applicant may provide copies of
correspondence with commercial
facilities that leave rejected the waste
on the basis of waste composition or
capacity shortages as part of the
demonstration for 1268.5(a}(l) and
(a)(3)." EPA'i "1885 Hazardous Waste
Treatment Directory" (available at no
charge in limited quantities from the
RCRA/Superfnnd Hotline or avadable
for sale through the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) as PB88
•178431 /AS) lists commercial treatment
and recycling facilities that are
identified from the Hazardous Waste
Data Management Systems (HWDMS).
A more up-to-date list of commercial
treatment and recycling facilities is
being prepared from data gathered from
the 1986 National Screening Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities. The
new Treatment Facility Directory
10 la cues when a watit cannot ba tailed by
the BOAT «wihod or i« IB* ipeaiiad ta*l uwng
BOAT, lha generator or ownar/openlor may
petition lha Agency for a variance from ihe
treatment iiandtrd nnder 12SS.44.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7.1986 / Rulea and Regulations 40603
prepared from this screening
questionnaire is expected to be
available in November. 1988.
b. Binding contractual commitment.
One commenler argued that the use of
the case-by-case extension would be
limited to on-site alternative capacity
because of the requirement in
{ 2BS.5(a)(2) for a binding contractual
commitment. EPA disagree! with the
commenter. The Agency believes that
the requlation is consistent with the
statutory provision which requires that
the applicant enter into a binding
contractual commitment "to construct or
otherwise provide alternative. . .
capacity" (emphasis added). In other
words, a generator may enter into a
binding contractual commitment with a
commercial facility to guarantee that the
capacity to manage his waste will be
available at the commercial facility.
This demonstration requires a
commercial facility to agree that
alternative capacity under development
at the facility is set aside for the
applicant's waste. One commenter
argued that, in such situations, the
generator would not be a party to the
contractual commitment to construct the
facility. EPA agrees win the comment
but the point la not relevant since the
generator would have a contract with a
commercial facility which will provide
the needed alternative capacity.
One commenter argued that Slat* law
defines binding contractual
commitments, therefore, the Agency
does not need to judge whether the
penalties for cancelling the contract am
adequate. EPA agrees with the
commenter. Accordingly, the Agency is
amending the regulatory language by
deleting the stipulation for a
cancellation penalty clause.
c. Lack of capacity it beyond in*
applicant'* control. For technologies
under construction, the applicant may
document the completion schedule.
Including dales already passed. (e.g,
date of permit application submission}
to demonstrate that the technology
cannot be made available by the
effective date. This schedule, if
available, also will be used by the
Agency to identify key target dates that
should be discussed in progress reports.
Several conunenters stated that tin
legislative history allows EPA to
consider economic factors in evaluating
requests for casa-by-case extensions.
The Agency agrees that the statutory
language can be construed to allow aa
applicant to show that if would not be
feasible to uee existing capacity.
Although the legislation as enacted did
not include House of Representatives
language expressly providing a variaoca
based on "severe economic hardship."
the conference report did add language
allowing for a demonstration that
adequate alternative capacity cannot
"reasonably" be made available by the
effective data. Therefore, in making its
determinations concerning the
availability of such alternative capacity.
EPA will consider the feasibility of
providing alternative capacity during lha
period of the requested extension in
order to determine whether capacity
reasonably Is available. The
determination of feasibility may involve
consideration of the technical and
practical difficulties associated with
providing alternative capacity.
d. The capacity will be sufficient to
manage all of the watte covered by the
application. One commenter stated that
research and development activities
generate variable amounts of wast*, so
it may be difficult to prove that
alternative capacity wrll be sufficient Car
all the wastes covered by an extension.
EPA ncognim that the amount of
waste affected by the laad disposal
regulations may vary according to
economic conditions and unforeseen
changes in quantities of waste produced
or in eonsib'hiaats pretest in the waste.
However, the Agency expects
applicants to plan to provide adequate
capacity for all waste* expected to b*
affected by the restriction decisions.
Therefore. EPA expects applicants to
make capacity determinations on the
basis of lha maximum voiome of waste
expected to be subject to the laad
disposal restrictions.
The Agency la requiring tmder
126U(a)(4) that the applicant provide
informatioa (e.g» waste quantities and
operating capacity) to desaooatnte that
after the extension, sufficient capacity
will exist for the waste covered by the
application for extension. EPA will not
grant aBextenhnta cases when '
alternative capacity is not being
provided for the entire vohna of wast*
addressed la ae application.
The Agency will grant extensions to
applicants demonstrating planned
changes to a process that eliminate
wastes, decrease volume, or reader a
waste beatable. Any waste not
eliminated by process changes instituted
as a result of the extension moat be sent
to other specified capacity.
e. Detailed schedule for providing
capacity. The completion schedule, if
available, will be used to identify the
dales and events that should be
addressed hi die progress reports.
Progress reports should indicate either
the existence of alternate capacity mat
will be available according to the tine
uftDB OntlmOQ Off UW CeTCBQUtMlCSef
caasing delays In the schedule sad the
efforts required to compensate for the
loss of time. If capacity is not available
near the end of the first extension, the
applicant must request a renewal of the
extension, not to exceed one year. In
cases where it is obvious that the
schedule to provide capacity will exceed
one year, the request for a second
extension should be straightforward.
since the second extension was foreseen
from the start.
f. Document locations with adequate
capacity to manage waste during an
extension. The applicant must
demonstrate that sufficient capacity will
exist during the extension to store.
dispose of. or otherwise manage the
waste. This demonstration must include
the location of all off-lite waste
management facilities and a short
description of the poraceaies that will
be used for waste management during
the extension (e.g.. storage m on-site
tanks). The identification of off-site
facilities that will accept the waste
during the extension should be part of
the demonstration. This information will
be shared with the States and will be
available for inspection in the event of a
public hearing on the extension
decision.
g. Any surface impoundment or
landfill managing wastes during an
extension must meet the requirements of
S 26A9ffi}(2). During the period of a
national variance under section
30M(h)(2) or a case-by-case extension
under section 30Mfh)(4). the waste may
be managed in a landfill or a surface
impoundment in compliance with
section 300*{o). This section, enacted as
part of the 1984 amendments to RCRA.
imposes minimum technological
requirements on certain new landfill and
surface Impoundment units, and on
replacements and lateral expansions of
existing units. The proposed rule would
have construed section 30M(h] to
require the nnit to comply with the
requirements set out in section 3004(o).
Thus, the proposal would have required
existing units to comply with section
3004(o) requirements during the period
of a variance, even though the plam
language of section 30M(o) exempts
such units.
Upon reconsideration, however. EPA
behoves that the proposed interpretation
is not the appropriate reading of the
stannary language. On its face, the
statute requites the "facility" to be In
compliance with section 3004(o). The
facility memoes the area within the
property boundary and encompasses all
waste management units (both new and
existing). Accordingly, a straightforward
reading of the statute would provide
that lha facility Is m compliance with
section 30M(o) a* long as the new units.
-------
40604 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1966 / Rules and Regulations
lateral expansions and replacements
referred to in section 3004(o) are in
compliance with the requirements of
that section. Because existing units are
excluded from section 3004(o), they
would also not be required to comply
with the minimum technological
requirements under section 3004(h)(4).
Section 30M(h)(4) thus makes clear that
obtaining a variance from the effective
date of the land disposal prohibitions
does not relieve the owner or operator
of a disposal facility of the obligation to
comply with the technical requirements
independently imposed by other
statutory provisions.
In addition, this interpretation is
reasonable in view of the fact that the
alternative capacity under consideration
in today's rule includes treatment in
surface impoundments that meet the
requirements of section 3005(j)(ll).
These requirements include double
linen (with limited exceptions).
Construing section 3004(h) to require
minimum technological requirements for
all units would mean that a prohibited
waste that was granted a variance from
the effective date due. in part to a lack
of double-lined surface impoundment
capacity would nonetheless have to be
disposed of in an impoundment in
compliance with section 3004(o). EPA
believes that the statute should not be
construed to require such an illogical
result Therefore, today's rule requires
that the facility be in compliance with
the regulatory provisions that
incorporate the requirements of section
3004(o).
2. Where To Send Extension
Applications
A petitioner should submit one copy
of the application for extension to the
applicable land disposal restrictions
effective dates to:
The Administrator. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW,
Washington. DC 20480.
An additional copy marked
"Extensions" should be submitted to:
Office of Solid Waste (WH-665). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M Street. SW.. Washington, DC 20460.
Applications containing confidential
information should be sent with only the
inner envelope marked "Extensions"
and "Confidential Business Information"
and with the contents marked in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR Part 2 (41FR 36802, September 1.
1976. as amended by 43 FR 40000).
3. Review of Applications for an
Extension
Several commenters recommended
that the Agency establish regulatory
time constraints for reviewing extension
applications under 8 268.5(e). One
commenter specifically requested
deadlines similar to those for evaluation
of delisting petitions pursuant to section
3001(f)(2). In particular, they stated that
the Agency should impose internal
processing deadlines for review of
extension applications and set a limit on
the period for public comment. Although
EPA fully understands the need to grant
extensions before the effective date of
the land disposal restrictions. EPA will
not commit to establishing a set
response time for extension applications
for several reasons.
First EPA cannot anticipate the level
of resources necessary to process
applications. As of August 8.1988. three.
months before the statutory restrictions
on solvents become effective. EPA had
received only one request for an
extension, despite one comment
predicting extensive use of this
provision. Second, experience with the
permitting and delisting processes has
shown that the review process often
includes several requests for
clarification or additional information
before an application is considered
completed. Turnaround time regarding
deficiencies can vary depending on the
responsiveness of the applicants.
Finally, time required for consultation
with the affected States is difficult to
predict
While the Agency will not specifically
limit its internal review period. EPA has
recommended that applicants submit
extension requests at least six months
before an effective date (when possible)
to provide a reasonable opportunity to
process applications before the effective
dale. To further expedite the review
process, the Agency will limit the public
comment period to 30 days.
Under some circumstances, capacity
under development will not become
available until after a national variance
expires. In these situations, persons
requiring an extension should submit an
application aa soon as the capacity
shortage is identified.
4. Applicability of Case-by-Case
Extensions
One commenter stated that EPA
shoud grant case-by-case extensions
only in cases where a national capacity
shortfall exists. The Agency disagrees
with the commenter. The case-by-case
extension process was intended to cover
those rare situations when an individual
applicant can demonstrate that capacity
will not be reasonably available to him
even if national capacity is otherwise-
sufficient As stated earlier, the variance
is baaed on the "feasibility'' of providing
alternative capacity.
5. Length of the Case-by-Case Extension
and Renewals
As discussed in the proposed rule.
case-by-case extensions cannot extend
beyond 48 months from the statutory
land disposal restriction dates.
Therefore, extensions will not exceed
the following dates:
November a 1990. for certain listed
dioxin-containing and solvent wastes;
July a 1991. for wastes identified as
California list wastes;
August a 1992. for the first third of the
listed hazardous wastes:
June a 1993. for the second third of the
listed hazardous wastes; and
May a 1994. for the remaining
hazardous wastes, including
characteristic hazardous wastes.
On the applicable effective date, a
• restricted waste is subject to the
provisions of Part 268 until a case-by-
ease extension is granted. For example.
if a person requests an extension on
January a 1987. for a solvent waste
restricted from, land disposal on
November a 1986. the waste is
restricted from land disposal from
November a 1988, until the extension is
granted. The extension would not
exceed the November 8.1990. deadline.
The effective date for certain newly
listed wastes may fall after the May a
1990. date for scheduled wastes. Such
wastes may require extensions beyond
the May a 1994. date. EPA expects that
the short duration of the extensions (not
to exceed two yean) will encourage
generators of hazardous waste to
minimjM the quantity of hazardous
waste subject to the land disposal
restrictions. Generators should explore
changes in process substitution.
materials recovery, recycling and reuse.
and alternative treatment as alternative
methods of complying with the land
disposal restrictions. EPA has prepared
a report to Congress for presentation
during November 1988. on waste
minimization which identifies some
waste minimization practices.
a Consultation With Affected States
All states will be notified via Federal
Register announcement of tentative
decisions to permit extensions for
restricted wastes. States that anticipate
that they may be affected by a specific
extension should contact EPA. EPA then
consult with appropriate agencies in the
affected States aa required by section
3004(h)(3). EPA expects that states most
interested in extension decisions will be
those in which the waste was generated.
those accepting waste during the
extension period, and those with
capacity under development Applicants
-------
Federal R«gt»ter / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40605
can expedite the review process by
submitting information outlining how
the wastes will be managed in each of
the affected Stales as part of the
demonstrations under { 2615 (a)(4).
(a](6). and (a)(7).
C. Evaluation of Petitions
Demonstrating Land Disposal To Be
Protective of Human Health and the
Environment
The statutory standard for evaluation
of these petitions requires that the
applicable land disposal method be
protective of human health and the
environment. The statute further
specifies that a method of land disposal
may not be determined to be protective
unless It has been demonstrated, to a
reasonable degree of certainly, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection lone for as long aa the wastes
remain hazardous. (RCRA section
30M(d). 42 U.S.C. 2964(d)(l)).
In demonstrating "no migration." the
petitioner must take into consideration
the likely effects of long-torm geologic
processes and climatic phenomena, such
as. but not united to. earthquakes and
floods, and any other events that can be
reasonably predicted. The petitioner
should not assume that any man-made
barriers or engineered systems will
satisfy the "no migration" standard.
because artificial barriers alone cannot
be relied upon to provide the long-term
assurances that the statutory standard
requires. However, these units may
satisfy the standard when the petitioner
is requesting temporary storage of
restricted waste on the lend
The Agency has identified three
scenarios that may satisfy the
requirements of the statutory standard
of "no migration". The first involves a
situation where environmental
parameters are such that no delectable
migration of hazardous constituents
would occur from the disposal unit For
example, this scenario may occur when
a waste consisting of relatively
immobile hazardous constituents is
placed in a mono/ill located in an arid
climate with no ground water recharge.
Another example involves placement of
a small volume of compatible waste in a
massive and stable salt dome formation.
The second would rely on an active
chemical or physical process, such as
the neutralization of a corrosive wast*
in a surface Impoundment, where no
hazardous waste remains in the unit
This is especially applicable to
characteristic wastes. The third involves
the temporary storage of hazardous
waste in a land-based unit, such aa an
Indoor waste pile, where engineered
containment systems are effective over
the period the waste remains in storage.
The "no migration" standard clearly
would be violated in a situation where
unacceptable concentrations of
hazardous constituents are occurring at
the waste management boundary, even
though the concentration at a potential
receptor site some distance from the
waste management boundary is below
an applicable health-based level
The Agency, generally, will deny a
petition where there is a history of
continuing mismanagement of
hazardous waste at the disposal unit aa
evidenced by State or EPA monitoring
and on-site inspection reports.
1. Procedures for Submitting and
Reviewing Petitions
The Agency proposed that petition
review would eventually be the
responsibility of either the EPA Regional
offices or authorized State*. Upon
revaluation, the Agency believes that
there will be relatively few petitions
submitted Accordingly, the Agency is
requring that applicants submit petitions
to the Administrator.
The five general steps of the petition
review process involve the submitted of
the petition. Agency review of the
petition, notice of the Agency's tentative
decision to the Federal Register, a 30-
day public comment period and notice
of the Agency's final decision in the
Federal Register. (See 8 288.6.) Two
copies of the petition should ba
submitted (by registered mail) to the
Administrator. The Agency will initially
review a petition for completeness.
Once a petition is considered complete.
it will be reviewed on the basis of the
technical information supplied The
Agency will publish la the Federal
Register a tentative decision to grant or
deny a petition. The Agency will
consider public comments and any new
data submitted during the comment
period The Agency will then publish its
final decision in the Federal Register.
During the petition review period.
petition applicants are required to
comply with all restrictions on land
disposal of the waste. The receipt of a
petition by the Agency does not delay
the effective date of any restrictions
applicable to the waste.
H. Treatability Variance
1. Basis far Establishing a TraaUbility
Variance
Several commenters recognized that
there may be particular waste streams
that cannot be treated to the level (or by
the method) specified by the treatment
standard The Agency agrees with these
commenten, and is establishing a
procedure to evaluate petitions for a
variance from the treatment standard.
The Agency envisions that wastes
may be subject to a treatability variance
in cases where the treatment standard
for a particular waste cannot be met
because the waste does not fit into one
of the BOAT treatability groups. A
particular waste may be significantly
different from the wastes considered in
establishing treatability groups because
the waste contains a more complex
matrix which makes it more difficult to
treat For example, complex mixtures
may be formed when a restricted waste
is mixed with other waste streams by
spills or other forms of inadvertent
mixing. As a result, the treatability of
the restricted waste may be altered such
that It cannot meet the applicable
treatment standard. In such a case.
generators or owners/operators may
petition the Agency for an alternative
treatment standard.
On September 5,1988, the Agency
published a Notice of Availability of
Data in the Federal Register (51 FR
31783] outlining its authority under
section 7004(s) to act on petitions to
amend or repeal any regulation under
RCRA and requesting comments on a
procedure by which petitions for a
variance from the treatment standard
would be evaluated. Conunentero on the
Notice of Availability generally
supported the concept of a vanance
from the treatment standard. Two
commenters specifically supported
providing variances through a
rulemaking procedure, while another
commenter. though recognizing EPA's
authority to amend the treatment
standards by rulemaking. urged the
Agency to adopt a more streamlined
variance procedure similar to that used
in other EPA rales. Commenters also
suggested specific criteria to ba
considered in evaluating vanance
petitions.
EPA agrees that the Agency has the
authority to choose between a
rulemaking and a vanance procedure
when considering the unique aspects of
wastes that were not considered in
developing the treatment standards.
Nothing in the language or legislative
history of the statute suggests that
Congress intended to preclude EPA from
adopting a variance procedure once the
Agency has issued treatment regulations
under section 3004(m).
The Agency is promulgating
procedures for a variance from the
treatment standard under 8 268.44 of
today's rule. Essentially, the new
provision will allow applicants to use
procedures similar to those now used for
rulemaking petitions under 40 CFR
-------
40606 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
260.20. In light of the comments.
however. EPA intends to issue a
proposal asking for further comments on
the option of using a variance procedure
rather than a nilemaking. Because there
was insufficient time pnor to today's
rule to fully consider all issues relating
to the establishment of a variance
procedure. EPA believes il is more
appropriate to request additional
comments. Similarly. EPA will consider
additional comments on the appropriate
criteria by which to evaluate variance
requests in the context of the future
nilemaking. In the meantime, this
preamble outlines some criteria that
EPA believes should be considered by
applicants for a variance from the
treatment standard.
2. Demonstrations Included in • Petition
Variance petitions must demonstrate
that the treatment standard established
for a given waste cannot be met. This
demonstration can be made by showing
that attempts to treat the waste by
available technologies were not
successful, or through appropriate
analyses of the waste which
demonstrate that the waste cannot be
treated to the specified levels. Variances
will not be granted based on a showing
that adequate BOAT treatment capacity
is unavailable. Such demonstrations can
be made according to (he provisions in
S 268.5 for case-by-case extensions of
the effective date.
The Agency will consider granting
generic petitions provided that
representative data an submitted to
support a variance for each facility
covered by the petition.
Petitioners should submit at least one
:opy to:
The Administrator. UJ&. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street. SW«
Washington. DC 20460.
An additional copy marked
Treatability Variance" should be
submitted to:
Chief. Waste Treatment Branch. Office
of Solid Waste (WH-SW), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
Petitions containing confidential
information should be sent with only the
inner envelope marked Treatability
Variance" and "Confidential Business
Information." and the contents marked
in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR Part 2 (41FR 36902. September 1.
1976. amended by 43 FR 40000).
The petition should contain the
following information:
(1) The petitioner's name and address;
(2) A statement of the petitioner's
interest in the proposed action
(3) name, address, and EPA
identification number of the facility
generating the waste, and the name and
telephone number of the plant contact:
(4) The pracess(es) and feed materials
generating the waste and an assessment
of whether such processes) or feed
materials may produce a waste that is
not covered by the demonstration;
|5) A description of the waste
sufficient for comparison with the
wastes considered by the Agency in
developing BOAT, and an estimate of
the average and maximum monthly and
annual quantities of waste covered by
the demonstration: (Note: The petitioner
should consult the appropriate BOAT
background document for determining
the characteristics of the wastes
considered in developing treatment
standards.)
(6) If the waste has been treated.
provide a description of the system used
for treating the waste, including the
process design, operating conditions, and
an explanation of the reasons the
treatment standards an not achievable
or an based on inappropriate
technology for treating the waste: (Note:
The petitioner should refer to the
appropriate BOAT background
document as guidance for determining
the design and operating parameters
that the Agency used in developing
treatment standards.)
(7) A description of the alternative
treatment systems examined by the
petitioner (if any), a description of the
treatment system deemed appropriate
by the petitioner for the waste In
question, and. as appropriate, the
concentrations in the treatment residual
or extract of the treatment residual
(using the TCLP) that can be achieved
by applying such treatment to the waste;
(8) The dates of the sampling and
testing:
(9) A description of the methodologies
end equipment used to obtain
representative samples;
(10) A description of the sample
handling and preparation techniques.
Including techniques used for extraction.
containerizan'on, and preservation of the
samples: and
(11) A description of the tests
performed (including results).
After receiving a petition for a
variance, the Administrator may request
any additional information or waste
samples which he may require to
evaluate and process the petition.
Additionally, all petitioners must
certify that the information provided to
the Agency is accurate under 1268.4(b).
In determining whether a variance
would be granted, the Agency will first
look at the design and operation of the
treatment system being used. If EPA
determines that the technology and
operation are consistent with BOAT, the
Agency will evaluate the waste to
determine if the waste matrix and/or
physical parameters are such the BOAT
properly reflects treatment of the waste.
In cases where more than one
technology is applicable to a waste, the
petitioner would have to demonstrate
that the treatment standard cannot be
met using any of the technologies, or
that none of the technologies is
appropriate for treatment of the waste.
After the Agency has made a
determination on the petition, the
Agency's findings will be published in
the Federal Register, followed by a 30-
day penod for public comment. After
review of the public comments. EPA will
publish its final determination in the
Federal Register as an amendment to
the treatment standards in Part 268
Subpart D.
V. Treatment Standard* for Solvents
A. Introduction
On May 19.1980 (45 FR 33119). the
Agency listed 27 commonly used organic
solvents as hazardous wastes when
spent or discarded. The solvents were
listed as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
FOOT. P002. F003. F004, and F005. The
listed solvents include certain spent
halogenated and non-halogenated
solvents, and still bottoms from the
recovery of these solvents. Due to the
manner in which the FOOl-FOOS listings
wen originally structured, a major
regulatory loophole was created by the
Agency. As written, the listings only
covered the pun form or the commercial
grades of these solvents. Therefore, the
Agency amended the listing to include
mixtures containing a total of 10 percent
or mon (by volume) of one or more of
tiie listed solvents, as published in the
Federal Register. December 31.1989 (50
FR 53315).
In the proposed rule to the land
disposal restrictions, several
commenters requested that the Agency
clarify the scope of the spent solvent
listings. The conunenlers slated that
confusion exists regarding specifically
what wastes are covered by the solvent
listings. The Agency recognizes this
problem and has incuded the following
discussion in today's rule to provide
further clarification of the FOOl-FOOS
solvent listings.
The spent solvent listings cover only
those solvents that are used for their
solvent properties—that is to solubilize
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents
For example, solvents used in
degreasmg. cleaning, fabric scouring: as
diluents, extractants. reaction and
synthesis media; and similar
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40607
application* an covered under the
listing (when "spent"). A solvent Is
considered spent when it has been used
and is no longer Fit for use without being
regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise
reprocessed.
Manufacturing process wastes where
solvents were used as reactants or
ingredients in the formulation of
commercial chemical products an not
covered by the listings. The products
themselves also are not covered. See the
original solvent listing background
document (November 14,1980]
available in the RCRA docket
Today's final rule doee not include
treatment standards for the commercial
chemical products, manufacturing
chemical intermediates and off-
specification commercial chemical
products (P and U wastes) that
correspond to the FOOT-FOB spent
solvent wastes. These wastes will be
addressed according to the schedule
promulgated on May 28.1988 (31FR
19300). The final rule also doee not cover
the four newly bsted solvents in the
F001-FD03 listing: bennne. 2-
ethoxyethanoL 2-nitropropana. and
1.1,2-trichloroetham (51 FR 6537). The
Agency currently is gathering data to
fully characterize and evaluate these
wastes. We expect to make decisions oa
these additional solvents when we
address the first group of scheduled
wastes.
In today's rule, the Agency U
promulgating treatment standard! for
the following F001-FOOS solvent
constituents listed in Table CCWE:
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
methylene chloride
1.1,1-trichloroelhane
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
1.1.2-trichloro-lA2-trifluoro«thane
ortho-dichlorobenzene
trichlorofluorame thane
xylene
acetone
ethyl acetate
ethyl benzene
ethyl ether
methyl isobutyl ketone
n-butyl alcohol
cyclohexanone
methanol
cresols (eresylic acid)
toluene
isobulanol
carbon disulfide
nitrobenzene
pyndine
methyl ethyl ketone
Lab packs containing these solvents
also are subject lo the treatment
standards promulgated in today's final
rule.
The treatment standards become
effective on November 8,1988. for all
Fan through FOOS solvent wastes which
do not meet any of the criteria
established for a national two-year
variance. Solvent wastes that meet at
least one of the criteria are subject to
the variance end will be restricted from
land disposal effective November 8,
1988. The criteria are:
1. The generator of the solvent waste
Is a small quantity generator of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
month.
2, The solvent waste is generated from
any response action taken under
CERCLA or any corrective action takes
under RCRA. except where the waste is
contaminated toil or debris not anbteet
to the proviaions of thi» chapter until
November 8,1988.
3. The solvent waste n a sorwnt-
water mixture, a solvent-containing
sludge, or a solvent-contaminated eoO
(non-CERCLA or RCRA corrective
action) containing less than t percent
total F001-P005 solvent constituents
listed In Table CCWE of 8 288.41.
B. Tnataant Standard* For FOO1-FOOB
Spent Solvantt
This unit describes the industries
affected by the land disposal restrictions
for the POOV-F005 spent solvents and the
demonstrated technologies which the
Agency determined to be available. The
unit further describes how the Agency
developed treatment standards for these
waste*.
t. Industries Affected
The Agency has identified a variety of
Industries which generate waste subject
to the land disposal restrictions for
FDOl-FOOB spent solvents. Much of the
nm-FOOB spent solvents, as defined in
40 CFR 281.31. are generated from
manufacturing operations where
solvents an used as reactant carriers or
for surface preparation. Such industries
include pharmaceutical plants,
semiconductor facilities, printing plants.
and plastic and synthetic resin
manufacturers. Another large group of
spent solvent wastes is generated by
paint and ink formulating facilities when
tanks containing solvent-based
materials are cleaned. Machine shops
also generate significant amounts of
solvents from degreasing operations. A
further description of these industries
and the characteristics of the wastes
generated is presented in EPA's "BOAT
Background Document for FOOl-f 005
Spent Solvents" (Ref. 4).
2. Demonstrated Technologies for F001-
F005 Spent Solvents
As presented in the proposed rule, the
demonstrated treatment technologies for
F001-F005 spent solvents are:
(1) Batch distillation
(2) Thin film evaporation
(3) Fractionation
(4) Incineration
(5) Steam stripping
(8) Biological treatment
(?) Carbon adsorption
(8) Air stripping
(9) Wet air oxidation
All of these technologies are
demonstrated and commercially
available. EPA has determined that
none have been found to be riskier than
land disposal. (See Unit IV.B. for a
deteiled discussion.)
Below Is a brief description of each of
these technologies and their general
applicability to treatment of spent
solvents. The BOAT background
document provides a detailed discussion
of these technologies.
a. Batch distillation. Batch distillation
» used to separate various organic
compounds from a contaminated spent
solvent mixture in order to collect and
reuse the Individual compounds. The
separation is accomplished by the
addition of heat which causes the more
volatile compounds to vaporize. Batch
distillation generally Is used in cases
where the recovered solvent has
sufficient economic value to offset the
costs associated with the operation of
the distillation system. As a
consequence, batch distillation is
generally applied to spent solvent
wastes that are highly concentrated and
yield significant amounts of matena.
upon separation. This technology has
been demonstrated for F001-F005 spent
solvent wastes as well as those judged
to be similar. EPA estimates that at least
400 facilities perform full-scale batch
distillation on-sile or as commercial
treatment.
This technology yields a residue that
contains a high amount of suspended
solids, ie quite viscous, and may require
subsequent incineration. The level of
performance achieved by this
technology will depend on the
temperature and duration of the
distillation process.
b. Thin film evaporation. This
technology is also a demonstrated
distillation process. Thin film
evaporation differs from batch
distillation In that the waste stream lor
thin film evaporation must contain
considerably less suspended solids. Use
of this technology results in an overhead
stream which almost always can be
-------
40608 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
reused as a solvent and a bottom stream
which often is used as fuel for
incinerators. Depending on the
suspended solids level of the wasie.
treatment using thin film evaporation
may result in a residue that requires
land disposal. EPA has identified
several full-scale facilities using thin
film evaporation of waste solvents.
c. Fractionatton. This technology also
ia a demonstrated distillation process. It
differs from batch distillation and thin
film evaporation in that it is designed to
achieve a finer separation than these
other treatment technologies. It would
be used when there are recoverable
quantities of more than ana solvent in a
waste. Generally, fractionatton will
result in multiple product streams while
generating minimal amounts of residue
to be land disposed. Fractionation is
practiced by full scale facilities on spent
solvent wastes.
d. Incineration. Incineration is • well
demonstrated technology commonly
used to treat spent solvent wastes. The
Agency estimates that there are over 200
full-scale incinerators for hazardous '
wastes, many of which incinerate F001-
FOOS spent solvents. This technology
destroys the organic fraction of the
•pent solvents by oxidation to carbon
dioxide and water vapor. Chlorinated
organic* are converted to carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and hydrochloric
acid vapor.
Incineration generates one or two
residual wastes that need to be land
disposed depending on whether the
incinerator includes air emission
controls. The residual wastes are the
incinerator ash and the scrubber sludges
or air emission control dust. The vast
majority of incinerator residue that will
require land disposal is generated by
rotary kiln incinerators that bum spent
solvent wastes containing high
concentrations of solids.
e. Steam stripping. While steam
stripping is a distillation process, the
technology is significantly different from
the distillation processes previously
discussed both from the standpoint of
the type of wastes treated and the
design and operation of the process.
Steam stripping is used by a number of
facilities to reduce organic
concentration in dilute spent solvent
wastes containing mostly water. Aa
such, the stripped solvent is not
generally recovered in commercially
viable quantities. Data from the
Agency's screening questionnaire for
capacity showed that 17 full-scale
facilities performed steam stripping of
spent solvent wastes and that three
facilities perform steam stripping
specifically on F001-F005 spent solvents.
f. Biological treatment Biological
treatment is a demonstrated technology
which involves the use of
microorganisms to degrade spent
solvent compounds. There are a number
of different types of biological treatment
processes. These processes include
aerobic treatment such as activated
sludge systems, aerated lagoons, and
trickling filters, facultative degradation
In waste stabilization ponds, and
anaerobic digestion. In aerobic systems.
organic compounds an degraded to
carbon dioxide and water. Anaerobic
processes convert organic wastes into
methane and carbon dioxide.
Facultative systems alternate between
aerobic and anaerobic treatment.
Biological treatment residues include
treated water and a biomass sludge. The
sludge is a mixture of dead and living
microorganisms containing
nonbiodegradabla inorganic compounds.
as well as any organics that are not
degraded (l.e. refractory organics} and
an adsorbed by the biomass. Depending
on the composition of the spent solvent
wastewater. the biomass sludge may
require treatment prior to land disposal.
Treatment could consist of chemical
fixation for metals and/or incineration
for the organic compounds.
g. Carbon adsorption. Carbon
adsorption Is the use of specially
prepared carbon granules (activated
carbon) to remove contaminants from
wastewaten. Carbon adsorption Is
applicable to waatewaters containing
low concentrations of F001-F005 spent
solvent wastes. The spent solvent
wastes are removed by adsorption onto
the carbon surface. The affinity that a
particular spent solvent compound has
for carbon will depend on the type of
carbon used and the properties of the
compound. The residues from carbon
adsorption Include spent carbon and
treated wastewater. Once the quality of
the treated wastewater approaches a
predetermined level the spent carbon
can be regenerated and reused or
destroyed in an incinerator. This
technology is generally used in
combination with steam stripping or
biological treatment This technology ia
demonstrated for F001-F005 spent
solvent wastewaten as well as those
Judged to be similar.
h. Air stripping. Air stripping uses
forced air to remove low concentrations
of volatile organic compounds, such as
solvents, from wastewater. During air
stripping, air and wastewater an
brought into contact with each other for
the purpose of transferring the volatile
organic compounds from the wastewater
to the air. Transfer is caused by a
concentration gradient of the volatile
organic compounds, which tends to
move these compounds in a direction
that will equalize the concentration in
the air with that in the water. Air •
stripping has been used to treat
contaminated ground water containing
F001-FOOS spent solvent constituents.
This technology was not chosen as the
basis of any BOAT treatment standards
for nasons presented in the BDAT
background document.
I. Wet air oxidation. Wet air oxidation
utilizes elevated temperature and
pnssun to oxidize dissolved or
suspended organic contaminants in
wastewaten. The wastewater is fed to
the wet air oxidation treatment system
by a high-pressure pump. It is then
mixed with compressed air and passed
through a heat exchanger. The heated
waste-air mixture exits the exchanger
and enters a nactor where oxygen from
the compressed air nacts with organic
contaminants in the waste to form
carbon dioxide and water vapor.
This technology has full scale
applications but primarily in areas other
than treatment of spent solvent wastes.
The Agency is aware of one facility that
treats F001-F005 spent solvent
wastewater. Unlike the other
technologies discussed, this technology
was not considered a demonstrated
technology at proposal. Subsequent to
proposal, we received additional data
showing this technology to be
demonstrated for F001-F005 spent-
solvent wastes.
3. Determination of Treatment
Standards (BOAT] for Spent Solvents
a. Data base. The majority of the data
used in developing BDAT for FOOT-POOS
solvents were from full scale treatment
The Agency included some pilot- and
bench-scale data from treatment
technologies which are also
demonstrated on a full scale basis.
Below is a description of all available
treatment data by technology.
—For biological treatment, the Agency
analyzed full scale treatment data
from 28 plants in the organic
chemicals, plastics, and synthetic
fibers industries which
manufacture, in total, over 200
different products. These data were
from treatment of wastes containing
F001-F005 constituents as a result of
process contamination. While the
waste are not included in EPA's
definition of spent solvent wastes.
the Agency believes that these
wastes are similar to spent solvent
wastes. The Agency has biological
treatment data on carbon
tetrachloride, chlorobenzene.
cresols, 1.2-dichlorobenzene,
-------
Federal Register / Vol 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40609
ethylbenzene. methylene chloride.
nitrobenzene, tetrachloroethyleoe.
toluene, triehloroethylene. 1.1.1-
trichloroethane. and
tnchlorofluoramethanea.
—For steam stripping, the Agency
analyzed fall scale data from four
plant! and pilot scale data on
treatment of contaminated ground
water. The full scale data
represented treatment of F001-F005
•pent solvents at one plant the
remaining three plants wen treating
wastes containing F001-F005
conaitihients generated as process
contaminants. The Agency analyzed
steam stripping data on
ethylbenzene. methylene chloride.
methyl isobutyl ketone.
nitrobenzene, toluene. 1.1.1*
trichloraethane. and
trichloroethylen&
—For carbon adsorption. EPA
analyzed full scale data from tour
plants and pilot scale data from two
plants. At one of these full scale
plants, carbon adsorption Is nsed
after biological treatment The
Agency obtained data on
chlorebenzena. U-dichlonbenzene.
methylene chloride, nitrobenzene,
toluene, and trlchloroeUiylene from
this facility. At another full scale
plank carbon adsorption follows
steam stripping. The Agency
obtained data on nitrobenzene and
toluene from this facility. In the
third case. EPA has full scale date
from a plant in the pesticides
Industry which generates
wastewater containing cresols. EPA
has full scale data for process
wastewater containing cresol at the
fourth plant Pilot scale data for
tnchloroethylene are available on
treatment of contaminated drinking
water. Pilot scale data an also
available for methylene chloride.
toluene, and xylene on treatment el
runoff water from a waste disposal
site.
—For wet air oxidation, the Agency
analyzed pilot-sale data for
methylene chloride. methanoL
methyl ethyl ketone.
tetrachloroethylene. toluene. 1,1.1-
trichloraethane. and xylene. These
data wen submitted as part of a
comment on the proposed rule.
—For air stripping. EPA analyzed pilot
scale data from treatment of ground
water contaminated with U.1-
trichloroetbane. trichloroethylena.
methyl isobutyl ketone. toluene.
tetrachloroetbyiene, and etbyt-
—The Agency also analyzed the
extract of incinerator ash for tat
incinerators at nine facilities. All
incinerators wen operating full
scale and treating a variety of
wastes including spent solvents.
The F001-FOOS constituents for
which data wen available an
acetone, carbon disulfide.
chlorobenzene. 12-dichlorobenzene,
ethylbenzene. methylene chloride.
methyl ethyl ketone. methyl isobutyl
ketone. nitrobenzene*,
tetrachloroethylene. toluene. 1.1.1-
trichloroethane. trichloroethylene
and xylene.
b. Aaalysit of data aadmtabtithmmt
of Inatability group. The Agency
reviewed all available treatment data to
determine if any data npnsented
treatment from a system that was not
well designed or operated. Consistent
with the general framework for BDAT.
such data wen deleted (the BDAT
background document provides a
detailed analysis of the Agency's
rationale for such data editing). The
Agency men calculated average
performance values for each specific
waste treated with a particular
technology. In cases when the Agency
had data on treatment of the same or
similar wastes using more than one
technology, we performed an analysis of
variance test to determine if one of the
technologies performed significantly
better. In cases where a particular
technology performed better, the
treatment standard was based on the
best technology. If one of the
technologies did not peifuiui
significantly better, we averaged the
performance values and multiplied this
value by the highest variability factor to
derive the treatment standard
In several cases, the Agency analyzed
data from the treatment of different
wastes containing the sameconstiment
of concern but achieving significantly
different levels of performance. The
Agency established a separate
treatability group in cases when the
data and information on the waste wen
sufficient to do so. Wlthm any
Instability group, however, the Agency
used the highest treatment value
reflecting well designed and operated
treatment to establish BDAT. EPA
believes that this approach ensures that
the treatment standard can be achieved
by facilities managing F001-F005
solvents with a wide range of waste
matrices.
As proposed the. Agency established
a separate treatability group for spent
solvent wastewaten. For purposes of
defining applicability of die treatment
standards for wastewater continuing
F001-F005 spent solvents, wastewaten
an defined as solvent-water mixtures
containing total organic carbon of one
percent or less. Wilhm the general
wastewater category, available data
supported a separate treatability group
for spent methylene chloride from the
pharmaceutical industry. Far spent
solvents other than wastewaten. the
Agency was not able to identify
additional treatability groups.
& Development of the FOm-POOS spent
solvent treatment standards. The
Agency determined (hat available data
support the establishment of the final
treatment standards as shown for the
treatability groups in Table 1. Consistent
with the general framework, we believe
that each treatment standard ensures
substantial treatment of F001-FOOS spent
solvents. A discussion of our rationale
for determining substantial treatment
can be found in the BDAT background
document.
In cases where data for FOOl-FOOS
spent solvents wen not available to
establish BDAT, the Agency evaluated
the wastes to determine if treatment
values could be transferred. EPA
believes mat based on chemical
structure BDAT treatment values can be
transferred to FOOl-FOOS constituents.
except for carbon disulfide. where data
an unavailable. Chemical structure.
especially as related to functional
groups, ia used to predict how organic
compounds will react with other
compounds and under various
conditions. The structural groups
considered by the Agency for F001-P005
spent solvents an halogenated
aliphatics. halogenated alkenes.
halogenated aromatica. ketones,
alcohols non-halogenated aromatics.
ethers, eaters, phenols, and organic
sulfur compounds. In the case of carbon
disulfide, the Agency relied on Henry's
Law constants to assess transfer of
performance.
The Agency ia aware that within
similar structure groups compounds can
exhibit a range of physical and chemical
properties that affect treatability. EPA
believes, however, that structure is the
beat method available at this time for
estimating treatability. To beat account
for the range of physical and chemical
properties that affect treatment within a
structural group, the Agency will
transfer treatment performance from the
highest treatment value observed within
the structural group.
In some instances, treatment
standards were derived using analytical
quantification levels that the Agency
believes may not represent
quantification levels over the entire
range of FOOl-FOOS spent solvents
subject to today's final rule. In sach
instances. EPA increased the treatment
standard to a level reflective of the
level which we bettew
-------
40610 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
can be achieved for all POOl-POOS spent
solvents. Any changes made to the
treatment standards as a result of
quantification levels can be found in the
BOAT development document.
The Agency proposed treatment
standards for each of the F001-F005
constituents listed in Table CCYVE of
Subpart D in the proposed rule. During
the comment period, the Agency
obtained additional data which were
summarized in the Notice of Availability
of Data (31FR 31783. September 5,1986).
EPA also reevaluated existing data
using a number of statistical methods.
These methods were also outlined in the
Notice of Availability. Finally, the
Agency revised the proposed data
editing procedure which excluded data
when the influent value less than the
screening level (generally 2.0 ppm). In
today's final rule all data are used
provided influent concentrations are
above quantification levels.
The departure from the proposed rule
which most affected the final treatment
standards is the incorporation of a
variability factor. The BOAT
background document contains all data
used to develop the treatment standards
and a discussion of procedures used to
evaluate these data in determining
BOAT for each constituent of concern
within a treatabillty group.
TABU 1.— TRCATMMT STANDARDS
(As COMCSNTMATONS M TM TMAnawr RBSVUAL
EXTRACT)
•oenol.
CMC
OwroM
u-o*
En* i
Em.
in* CM
MM* Iff* I
To
11 i.Tn
(HMO*
l.1.2.TncMoro-t.U.-*Ai
•O.OS
UP
108
•US
ais
HI
0«
«oos
•8.00
•006
US
1.1*
IIS
t«
1.08
ss.
ss.
O.SS
•5.00
441
us
• 008
o.n
an
•am
o.n
an
•100
on
ON
o,n
on
«ai»s
OJ9
•ON
oua
041
OM
0.091
OJS
0,18
oti»
C. Comparative Risk Assessment
Determinations for POO1-FOO5 Spent
Solvents
As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule, the Initial comparative
risk studies of solvent wastes using
EPA's RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis (WET)
Model indicated that the best
demonstrated treatment technologies do
not pose total risks to human health and
the environment greater than those
posed by the direct land disposal for
most categories of solvent wastes
subject to today's rulenuking (i.e., all
solvent wastes except metal-beanng
solvents). Results of the analysis are
lummanzed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (See 51 FR 1720). More
detailed information is available in the
Background Document for the
Comparative Risk Assessment (Ref. 5).
Because results of the WET model
analysis indicated that incineration of
metal-beanng solvent wastes in some - .
situations may lead to increased risks to
human health or the environment, the
Agency has conducted a detailed
analysis of these risks. Results of the
detailed analysis (Ref. 5) indicate that in
most cases direct land disposal of metal-
bearing wastes is more risky than
incineration. These risks, however, are
not expected to occur for thousands, and
in some cases, millions of yean. The
detailed enalysis also demonstrates that
in some cases incineration of these
wastes is more risky than land disposal
when compared to the performance of a
well-operated and engineered unit
located in a geographical area that
provides optimal containment (e.g..
compacted clay).
The Agency stated in the proposed
rule that whenever it is uncertain that a
technology is riskier than land disposal.
the Agency will consider the treatment
"available" for determining BOAT and
will develop data to support additional
regulatory controls. Therefore, because
the risk assessment does not indicate
that incineration generally is more risky
than direct land disposal the Agency is
classifying Incineration as available far
the purpose of establishing the
treatment standard for metal-bearing
solvent wastes. It is not possible for the
Agency to establish additional
regulatory requirements on metals
emissions from incineration of metal-
bearing solvent wastes within the
statutory deadline for solvents waste.
because the Agency lacks sufficient data
on the feasibility of reducing metals
emissions by waste pretreatment or
incinerator controls.
However, the Agency has initiated a
program under the authority of section
30M(n) (42 U.S.C. 8924(n)) to develop
regulatory controls for metal emissions
from incineration of hazardous wastes.
including solvent wastes. EPA plans to
publish a proposed rule by 1987 end a
final rule by 1988. The Agency believes
that development and implementation of
this regulatory program will ensure thai
incineration of metal-beanng solvent
wastes will be protective of human
health and the environment.
D. Treatment and Recycling Capacity
for Solvents
1. Quantity of Wastes Land Disposed
EPA estimates that 2.859 million
gallons per year of solvent wastes are
managed in units defined as land
disposal under today's rule. This
represents a significant increase over
the 1.210 million gal/yr estimated in the
proposed rule. In the proposed rule.
EPA's estimate included all wastes
.designated as FOCI. F002. F003. F004,
FOQ& the corresponding commercial
-------
Federal Register / Vol. SI. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40611
chemical product*, off-specification
products (P and U wastes), mixtures of
these waste codes, and spent solvents
bom small quantity generators.
For today's rale. EPA has made
suveral modifications to Its estimate.
First as explained previously, the
Agency decided not to promulgate the
land disposal restrictions for those
wastes designated as P and U wastes.
The estimate of the total quantity of
solvent wastes covered under today's
rule, therefore, does not include the 11.2
million gal/yr of P and U wastes which
previously wen included in the
proposed rule.
A second modification la more
significant. The quantity estimate in the
proposed rule included wastes oat were
mixtures of PD01.FD02. FOB. POM. FOBS,
and P and U wastes, but did not include
those wastes that were reported aa
mixtures of FOOl-RnS with other
nonsolvent waste codes. These waste
quantities wen not included in the
proposed rule because EPA believed
that a relatively small solvent portion of
these mixtures could be segregated from
a much larger component of the
nonsolvent wastes. This assumption
was baaed on limited descriptions of
these wastes provided by some
generators Indicating that these wastes
primarily wen dilute solvent-water
mixtures. In the proposal. EPA also
determined that the resultant quantity of
concentrated segregated solvent wastes
could not be estimated properly due to
the lack of concentration date for these
particular solvent waste mixtures prior
to segregation. Although EPA has not
changed its position that the quantity of
segregable solvent wastes cannot be*
accurately estimated. It is assuming that
the entire quantity of these mixtures
would require alternative treatment
capacity. This is consistent with several
comments tn«i
-------
40612 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7.1986 / Rules and Regulations
disposed annually. As explained earlier.
EPA agrees that the quantity of solvent
wastes identified as solvent-water
mixtures was underestimated. Inclusion
of the additional mixed solvent wastes
has increased the lolal quantity of
solvent-water mixtures to 2.652 million
gal/yr. Nevertheless. EPA believes that
the ISBl data is currently the only
readily available source for estimating
the quantities based on the physical/
chemical characteristics that influence
the selection of applicable treatment
technologies.
Several commenlera suggested that
EPA use other data sources such as Part
A applications. Part B applications,
RCRA Biennial reports, and various
state and regional reports. EPA agrees
with the commenters that the data
contained in these sources an more
recent, than the 1881 data. However.
none of the sources provide data that
readily allow EPA to estimate national
quantity of solvent wastes land
disposed by individual management
units and by physical/chemical forms.
One commenter also contended that
EPA's 1981 data grossly underestimated
the quantities of hazardous waste which
were being land disposed: this statement
was based on privately collected data
from 725 facilities in standard industrial
classification (SIC) code 2800
(Chemicals and Allied Products
Manufacturers}. The data indicated that
this industry treated and disposed of
approximately 202 million tons of
hazardous waste per year. Since EPA
estimated only 240 million tone per year
for all hazardous waate facilities, the
commenter believes that EPA
underestimated the total quantity of
hazardous waste. However, the same
commenter acknowleged that EPA
estimated that this same industry
managed 68 percent of the total These
figures, when multiplied together, yield •
total quantity of 158 million tons per
year for this particular industry (SIC
2800). EPA does not believe that 1S8
million tons per year is a gross
underestimation of 202 million tons per
year. EPA's estimate was lower than the
commenter's quantity estimate, but by
only 2>percent
However, the comroenter did not
indicate whether the privately collected
quantity figures were for RCRA
hazardous wastes or all wastes
considered hazardous by state and local
authorities. EPA's estimates of waste
quantities specifically exclude
hazardous wastewaters which are
exempt from RCRA (such as those
treated solely in tanks and subsequently
discharged under NPDES permits). It
was not clear that the commenter's
estimate of 202 million tons per year of
wastes treated and disposed includes or
excludes these wastewaters. The same
commenter provided more recent data,
also based on an independent survey of
this industry, that indicated the total
amount of hazardous waste treated and
disposed by responding plants in 1985
was 2784 million tons per year (27M
million tons per year of wastewater and
1.7 million tons per year of solid waste).
Of the solid wastes treated and
disposed, 0£7 million tons per year were
landfilled. 0.52 million tons per year
were incinerated. 0.48 million tons per
year were disposed in surface
Impoundments, and 0.18 million tons per
year were treated by other methods. The
corresponding 1981 EPA estimates for
ail hazardous waate were, 341 •din«««
tons per year of hazardous waste
landfilled. 1.7 million tons par year
incinerated, 19 million tons per year
disposed in surface impoundments, and
17 million tons per year treated by other
means. EPA believes that these data,
which represent significantly larger
quantities of solid waste being land
disposed further indicate that EPA
estimates of quantities of wastes being
land disposed are reasonable and are
not grossly underestimated.
4. Summary of Quantities Requiring
Capacity
Based oa the 1981RIA Mail Survey
quantity data presented in the previous
section. EPA estimates that a total of
IftO million gal/yr of pumpable organic
solvent wastes will require incineration
capacity, 3.4 million gal/yr will require
distillation capacity, and 1SJ million
gal/yr will require fuel substitution
capactity.
EPA also estimates that 21.7 million
gal/yrof solvent-containing sludge
mixtures will require sonn form of high
solids combustion treatment such aa
rotary Hi" incineration.
A total quantity of 2.481 million gal/yr
of solvent wastes described as solvent-
watar mixtures also will require some
form of wastewater treatment The
following table summarizes this
Information.
include the 20.2 million gal/yr increase
in solvent wastes anticipated to be
generated from remedial and removal
actions taken under CERCLA and RCRA
correction action. The waste
characterization data which would be
necessary to assign treatment
technologies for these two waste
sources are very limited. Although it is
possible that all small quantity
generator wastes may have to go to
incineration. EPA believes that a more
reasonable approach is to extrapolate
the waate characterization data from the
1981 survey to the total quantity by
applying the ratio of quantities which
wen directed to each technology. Since
the solvent wastes from small quantity
generators an not anticipated to include
solvent-water mixtures nor any solvent-
inorganic sludge mixtures, the ratio
developed from the distillation, fuel
substitution, and incineration quantities
have been applied:
_ _
CfMMir
ngmtf
(TMMngM/
It
oa
j»
4.4
no
n.T
1.4810
These quantities do not include the 8.7
million gal/yr of solvent wastes from
small quantity generators, nor do they
All 18.1 million gal/yr of increased
capacity needed for RCRA corrective
action and the 4.1 million gal/yr for
CERCLA responses has been assigned
to incineration based on studies of
current projects.
5. Comments on Types of Treatment
Required
Solvent wastes Identified as FQ01,
FOOZ POOS. F004. and F005 typically are
described as spent solvents or still
bottoms as specifically identified in the
lilting for these waste codes. However.
these waste code designations an used
to Identify wastes which an regulated
as FOOl-FOOS wastes as a result of the
mixture rule (in 40 CFR 281.3). Le.. a spill
residue or combination of solvent
wastea with other wastes or materials,
such as wastewater, soil, organic or
inorganic sludges.
In the preamble to the proposed rule.
EPA made clear its assumption that
those wastes that an solvent-water
mixtures an indeed F001-F005 wastes
that an derived from the mixture rule In
40 CFR 281J. The Agency also assumed
that these wastes contain less than 1.0
percent total organic carbon and
approximately 99 percent water. This is
consistent with EPA's guidance in
defining wastewater as a waate with
primarily water and a small amount of
contaminants. In addition, several of the
large volume, solvent-water mixtures
-------
Federal Register / VoL 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1966 / Rules and Regulations 40613
identified In the TSDF mail survey
gpeciflcally described their wastes as
containing 89 percent water.
Several commenten suggested that
defining solvent-water mixtures as those
wastes containing less than 1.0 percent
total organics would exclude many non-
hazardous wastewaten which they
indicate typically can contain greater
than 1.0 percent tola) organic*. One
commenter suggested that the level be
raised lo 1.0 percent total organic*.
However, none of these commenten
submitted any data substantiating these
comments.
Another commenter stated that EPA
had overestimated the concentrations of
solvents in wastes identified as
wastewaten. The commenter supplied
data on wastes containing put per
million levels of inojvtdnsi solvent
constituents. EPA believes that the
commenter had misinterpreted EPA's
Intended use of these data. EPA
recognises that then an many
wssteweten that contain only pasts par
million or even parts per billion level* of
individual solvent consntutents.
However. EPA used a tummstlon of the
Individual solvent concentrations to
arrive at the estimations of total solvent
concentrations in wastewatara
classified as FODl-FOOS. EPA has
established a definition of solvent-water
mixtures based on this maximum
solvent concentration that It believes la
representative of this type of waste. Aa
explained in the proposed nth. the
Agency believes this assumption Is
corroborated by data that indicate that
the majority of wastewaten bom the
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry being treated in surface
impoundments contains less than LO
percent total solvents.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
selected the analysis of total organic
carbon
the tola
TOG) as a surrogate analyst* for
solvent concentration. Several
commenten objected to the use of the
TOG test because it measures both
hazardous and nonhazardous organic*
and is nol appropriate for nonliquids.
While the Agency recognizes that there
is no standard method which
specifically defines a total solvent
concentration in wastewater. there do
exist several standard methods for the
individual solvent constitutents for
which the F001-FD03 solvent wastes an
listed (40 CFR 261 Appendix VH). These
Individual solvent concentrations then
can be summed to yield a total solvent
concentration for a parbcalar waste.
The Agency never intended to include
nonhazardous wastes or wastewaten in
this rule, and the Agency agrees with
the commenten that then may exist
nonhazardous wastes and wastewaten.
with greater than 1.0 percent total
organic carbon. Therefore, the Agency
has nevaluated its position on the
method for determining that an F001.
F002. FOB. FOW. end FOB waste is
considered a solvent-water mixture
(wastewater). For the purposes of
today's rule, the Agency is defining an
aqueous solvent waate aa any F001.
FOOZ F009. F004. and FOOS solvent waate
that ts primarily water and contains
either (1) leas than 1J> percent total
organic carbon or (2) less than LO
percent total solvents (defined as the
arithmetic summation of the individual
solvent concentntions for those
constituents for which ell of these waste
codes era listed in 40 CFR 281 Appendix
Vtt aa determined by GC or CC/MS
methods In accordance with the
appropirata standard methods for those
constitutents and waste type). The
Agency still believes thai the total
organic carbon anarysia provides an
inexpensive screening technique fot
Identifying some F001 through FOOS
wastes as solvent-water mixtures.
However, those facilities that have
wastes that exceed e total organic
carbon content of LO percent can elect
to utilize the more rigorous
measurement of less than LO percent
total solvent fffnflTi^fJint This choice
of methods is intended for use aa a
screening procedure only to Identify
those FD01. FOOZ, FOOL F004. end FOOS
solvent wastes that an to be designated
as a solvent-water mixture. For the
purposes of today's rule, the Agency
does not intend *hi« definition to be
used to classify e wastewater as a
hazardous solvent weate.However, this
does nol preclude the Agency from
modifying or clarifying ^^ definition in
the future.
In a similar manner, the Agency
believes that the LO percent total
solvent concentration can be extended
to define the solvent wastes that an.
primarily inorganic sludges or soils. The
Agency recognises that then is no
standard method for the analysis of tolal
organic carbon in inorganic solids and
thus, is establishing the use of the
analysis for the individual solvent
constituents in inorganic sludges end
soils for the determination of 1.0 percent
total solvents. For the purposes of
today's rule, the Agency therefore, is
defining solvent-inorganic sludge
mixtures and solvent-contaminated soil
as any FOOL FD02. F003, FD04 and/or
FOOS solvent waste which is primarily .
inorganic and contains no greater than
LO percent total organic carbon or no
greater than LO percent total solvents
(defined as the arithmetic summation of
the individual solvent concentrations for
those constituents for which ati of these
waste codes are listed in 40 CFR 261
Appendix VU. as determined by CC or
CC/MS methods in accordance with the
appropriate standard methods for those
constituents and waste type). The
Agency believes that this is consistent
with congressional intent to ban high
concentration wastes, whenever
capacity shortfalls are demonstrated to
All other FOOL F002, F003. F004, and/
or FOOS solvent wastes by nature of
these definitions exceed either LO
percent total solvent concentration or
exceed LO percent total organic carbon
and an. therefore, not considered to be
solvent-water mixtures, solvent-
inorganic sludges mixtures, or solvent-
contamiBated soils.
£ Unused Capacity of Solvent
Treatment and Recycling Facilities
EPA estimated that solvent wastes
restricted from land disposal as a result
of today's final rule will be directed to
Incineration and wastewater treatment
methods that can achieve the treatment
standards. Some solvent wastes will
also be directed to recycling methods,
including distillation and blending as
fuel to this unit. EPA estimates the
unused capacity that is currently
available to treat or recycle solvent
wastes.
As explained In Unit V.. private
treatment recycling, and disposal
capacity will be considered in two
circumstances: (1) If a privets owner or
operator plena to accept restricted
waste commercially on or before the
effective date of the restrictions; or (2)
when a private owner or operator has
excess capacity. At this time, EPA does
not have complete information on the
extent to which these circumstance* will
occur. The Agency plans to conduct a
treatment storage, and disposal facility
(TSDF) survey in the near future which
it hopes will provide comprehensive
data on the availability of private
capacity to manage hazardous wastes
that are prohibited from land disposal.
However, for the purposes of this
nilemaking. the determinations of the
capacity to treat and recycle solvent
wastes will be based on unused
capacity at facilities that are or will be
offering commercial services by
November 1B88.
L Capacity for Wastewater Treatment
BOAT wastewater treatment methods
for solvent-water mixtures are biological
degradation, steam stripping, and
carbon adsorption In addition, other
technologies, such as resin adsorption.
-------
40614 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
although not BOAT, may be capable of
meeting the treatment standard* for
some wastes. All of the treatment
methods are referred to as tank
treatment under the RCRA TSOF
regulations.
For the proposed rule, the OSW RIA
Mail Survey was EPA's only source of
information concerning the unused
capacity at tank treatment facilities.
However, the RIA Mail Survey was not
designed to evaluate capacity of specific
tank treatment systems. It requested
information on total tank treatment
capacity, but did not request
information for specific tank treatment
systems. Thus, within the time
constraints for the proposed rule, the
Agency was unable to determine
available capacity for each treatment
system. Accordingly, to prepare the
proposed rule, the Agency estimated the
total unused treatment tank capacity at
commercial facilities that managed
solvents. This unused capacity was
estimated to be 112 million gallons. In
the proposed rule. EPA stated that these
commercial facilities managed other
hazardous wastes, and that the Agency
could not determine the portion of the
112 million gallons of unused treatment
capacity that was available to treat
solvent wastes.
EPA. however, recently has completed
a comprehensive analysis of additional
data from the RIA data base for these
commercial facilities and has Identified
the specific types of tank treatment. This
new analysis of the RIA Mail Survey
data indicates that very little of the tank
system capacity at the survey facilities
was designed for treatment of solvent
wastes. Because of the very United data
on treatment capacity for solvents in the
RIA Mail Survey data base. EPA
decided to use the 1966 National
Screening Survey, which contains data
on all facUitiea. to identify facilities that
manage solvents. These facilities were
contacted in the August 1986
"Telephone Verification Survey of
Commercial Facilities That Manage
Solvents" (51FR 31786). This new data
base reveals that then ia one extremely
large commercial facility that offers
biological treatment for solvents, at an
available capacity of about 2 billion
gallons/yr. In addition, one commercial
facility that offers steam stripping for
solvents, and two commercial facilities
offer carbon adsorption for solvents.
These four facilities represent the entire
capacity available for wastewater
treatment for solvents.
2. Capacity for Incineration
For the proposed rule. EPA estimated
that unused commercial incineration
capacity is less than 25.6 million gallons
per year. This calculation was based on
the maximum design capacity of
operational commercial incinerators and
a utilization rate of 80 percent (Ref. 2].
Some eommenters stated that
incineration capacity was limited to a
very few commercial facilities, and that
available capacity would not be
adequate for the restricted solvent
wastes. In response to these concerns,
EPA used the results of the 1986
National Screening Survey to verify the
commercial status of incinerator
facilities and reevaluate the capacity at
commercial facilities. Of the 14
commercial Incinerators included in the
incinerator capacity analysis for the
proposed rule, three no longer offer
commercial incinerator services.
However, one other facility now offers
addition, four of these facilities plan to
have a new commercial incinerator
operating in 1987. and another company
plans to complete a large new
incinerator facility in 1987. None of the
facilities indicated that they planned to
close In 1987. Based on die new data,
EPA concludes that then an currently
12 commercial incinerator facilities, and
that the number of commercial
incinerator facilities will remain fairly
constant or increase over the next two
yean. Even if an existing commercial
incinerator facility doses. EPA believes,
based on the pattern of construction
Indicated by the data, that it I*
reasonable to assume that another
facility will begin operation of a new
incinerator.
In addition to verifying the status of
the commercial incinerator facilities,
EPA obtained some additional data on
design capacity and utilization. Using
the available data for each facility. EPA
estimates that the available incineration
capacity at these faciiities la
approximately 28 million gallons per
year. This estimate is slightly more than
the estimate used for the proposed rule.
When information was not available on
the utilization rate, the calculation waa
based on a utilization rale of 80%.
Because then will be an increased
demand for incineration capacity for
CERCLA wastes that are not covered by
this rule (i.e, wastes other than FDOl-
F005). not all of thia 28 million gallons
per year capacity will be available for
the restricted solvent wastes. Data from
site analyses conducted by EPA show
that the increased demand for off-site
commercial Incineration of non-solvent
CERCLA wastes that will require
capacity is 5.4 million gallons per year.
Therefore, the available incineration
capacity for the restricted solvent
wastes is 22.6 million gallons per year.
3. Capacity for Fuel Substitution
Commenters expressed concern that
in the proposal rule. EPA did not include
capacity estimates for fuel substitution.
A commenier stated that fuel
substitution is a potentially very large
source of alternative capacity and
should be included in the capacity
estimates for the final rule. EPA
recognizes the importance of fuel
substitution but did not have a sufficient
data base to develop estimates for the
proposed rule. Since the proposal. EPA
has developed a new data base from the
1986 National Screening Survey. This
Information was included in the Notice
of Availability on September 5.1968.
The new data base shows that at least
20 hazardous waste management
facilities use hazardous waste as fuel.
The available capacity for fuel
substitution at these facilities is
approximately 24 million gallons.
Because many facilities that are not
regulated hazardous waste management
facUitiea recycle hazardous waste as
fuel the available capacity for fuel
substitution is greater than 24 million
gallons.
4. Capacity for Distillation
In the proposed rule. EPA estimated
that the unused capacity for distillation
is 2Z5 million gallons per year. Several
commenters questioned the applicability
of some distillation systems to the
restricted solvent wates. EPA recognizes
that not all waste may be acceptable for
all systems. However, the additional
distillation capacity needed for the
restricted solvent wastes is only 4
percent of the available capacity.
Therefore, EPA assumes that itis
reasonable to expect that there ia
adequate distillation capacity for the
restricted solvents.
F. Determination of the Effective Date
Comparison of the data developed in
Sections D and E above results in the
demand and capacity estimates in the
following table:
ESTIMATES or DEMAND AND AVAILABLE
CAMCrrr
CiMOK
flMOTOl
GwmP*
J.1WO
Cuncrty
(toui)
34810
653
tea
tt
Analysis of the demand and capacity
shows that available wastewater
treatment and incineration capacity for
solvent wastes wUl be exhausted by this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rulea and Regulations 40615
regulation but capacity for fuel
substitution and distillation will remain.
As explained previously, the capacity
required for small quantity generator
wastes cannot be determined precisely.
therefore, the Agency has distributed
the capacity demand for these wastes
between incineration, distillation and
fuel substitution based on the relative
demand projected for those
technologies. EPA has assigned the
entire capacity demand for CERCLA
response action and RCRA corrective
action wastes to incineration because
this technology is currently projected to
be the alternative technology used
during the next year for the majority of
these wastes. As a result of this
analysis. EPA has clearly Identified the
basis for extension of the effective dale
for at least some wastes requiring
incineration and wastewater treatment
In order to address the shortage of
incineration capacity. EPA Is granting a
two year national variance to CERCLA
response action and RCRA corrective
action wastes (20.2 million gal/year).
solvent-containing sludges and solids
(21.7 million gal/year} and small
quantity generator wastes (4.4 million
gal/year) requiring incineration. This
combination of variances should
provide full utilization of available
incineration capacity. The demand for
wastewater treatment capacity cannot
be similarly segregated because of
EPA's limited data base. Therefore. EPA
will grant a variance to all solvent
wastewaters because of the significant
capacity deficiency identified.
VI. Treatment Standards for Dtada-
Containing Wastes
A. Introduction
Today's final rule for dioxins adopts
most of the provisions of the proposed
rule and outlines EPA's response to
major comments received on the
proposal.
Under today's rule, wastea Identified
by the hazardous waste codes F020.
F021. F022. F023. F026. F027. and F028
must be treated to a level below l ppb in
the waste extract for each* of the
following specific categories of CODs
andCDFs":
1' The following acmnymi ind definition! w
u»d PCDDi—*ll itoncn ol ill chlotiiuted
dibenxo-p-diouna. PCDFe—ill l*omm of ill
dilonnilcd dibenufurani. CDDt—and CDPk—
iiomen of latre-. pcnti-. «Jid baxacblondibenio-p-
dionni ind -dibeniofurana. raipccuvely. TCOD*
ind TCOF*—ill uonwf* of iht tetraeblofodlbeniQ.
HxCDD—hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
HxCDF—hexachlorodibenzorurans
PeCDD—pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
PeCDF—pentachlorodibenzofurans
TCDD—tetrachlorodibenzeno-p-dioxins
TCDF— letrachlorodlbenzonirans
One ppb ia the routinely achievable
detection limit using method 6280 of
SW-648 »• (40 CFR 261 Appendix X).
These listed wastes also must be
treated below the detection limits for
2.4.5-trichlorophenol. 2.4.6-
trichtorophenoL 2.3.4.8-
letrachtorophenol. and
pentachlorophenol. The detection limits
for these constituents are 50.50. toa and
10 ppb. respectively in the waste
extracts using method 3510/8270
Identified in the SW-848.
Wastes that meet the applicable
treatment standards may be disposed ia
e RCRA Subtitle C land disposal facility
which has been fully permitted and has
an approved waste management plan, in
accordance with the dioxin-listing rale
(90 FR1878). Oioxin-containing wastea
at or exceeding the detection limit for
these constituents of concern in the
waste extracts using the TOP must be
treated in accordance with the
requirements specified ia the dioxin-
listing rule, specifically Incineration (40
CFR 2B4J43 and 40 CFR 285.352) or
thermal treatment (40 CFR 265.383) to
six 9s destruction and removal
efficiency (ORE), or tank treatment (40
CFR 264.200) (if such treatment can
achieve concentrations of CDDs. CDFs
end certain chlorophenols to below
detection in the extracts from the
treatment residuals).
EPA Is also granting the maximum
two-year variance to the effective date
of (he land disposal restrictions for
dioxin-containiog wastes because of a
finding that there is a lack of capacity to
treat and dispose of these wastes. Thus.
the effective date of this final rule Is
November 8,1888, These wastea ere
subject to all special management
requirements specified in the dioxin-
listing rule and the minimum
technological requirements of section
3004(o).
In the proposed rule, the Agency did
not set treatment standards for EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F028 (residuals
resulting bom incineration or thermal
treatment of soil CTn**"1*'""*^ with
p-dioxun and •dibeniohirana. iiipK.fliily.TCDD
ind TCOF—the mpeclnre UJ-S-iiontn. Thi
predict Tr. T. ft. and Hx dtnoit tfat UK leu*.
penta-. tnd hexachlorodioxia and -dibeniofunn
congener*, rcipeenvely
" la uti mtiBod SZS9L iha prepotid
quantification level for dioxm IB water la 10 ppt.
However, due to ibe Interforincw inherent in
leachate eemplei end Ibe vutatalitj of weite
matncea. the Agency caniidere thai generally.
dioxm wailei lubiect lo today'i nib will have a
detection bait erf 1 ppb. It ihooid be noted that
becauM iha treatment iiandard for dioxioa la Mt at
"no detection" il la Important to calibrate to the
leveli ipecifled in S2aa
F02a F021, F022. F023. F028. and F027). Il
was stated in the proposal that F028 is a
treatment residual from incineration or
thermal treatment of dioxin-containing
soil to six 9s ORE. Because incineration
Is the best technology identified to treat
dioxin-containing wastes, the Agency
concluded, that in most cases, the FOZ8
waste would meet the treatment
standard. The Agency recognizes that
there may be instances in which this is
not the case. Accordingly. EPA now
believes that it erred in concluding that
all F028 wastes would meet the
designated treatment standard of no
detection. Instead, it is appropriate to
require that F028 wastes, like other
dioxin-containing wastes, be tested to
determine whether detectable levels of
specific categories of CODs and CDFs
and certain chlorophenols are present in
the extracts from the waste or treatment
residuals. The final rule has been
modified to reflect this change.
B. Summary of Regulations Affecting
Land Disposal ofDioxtn-Contatnuig
Wastes
In the dioxin-listing rule. EPA also
specified additional management
standards relating to land disposal of
these wastes. Specifically, the Agency
prohibited the management of the listed
dioxin-containing wastes at interim
status land disposal facilities. There are
exceptions for interim status surface
impoundments holding wastewater
treatment sludges that are created in the
impoundment* as part of the plant's
wastewater treatment system and
interim status waste piles that meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 264.250(c)).
The dioxin-listing rule also establishes
special management standards for
dioxin-containing wastes in permitted
land disposal facilities intending to
manage these wastes. These facilities
are required to submit a waste
management plan to address the
additional design and operating
measures over and above those in Part
284 which the facility intends lo adopt to
prevent migration of the waste. The plan
is to be submitted by the owner or
operator of the disposal facility as part
of the Part 284 permit application (see SO
FR 1979 for additional information).
The Agency believes that such a
waste management plan will help
provide assurance that these wastes are
properly managed in a land disposal
situation. It should be noted, however.
that under today's rule, these
requirements apply only to the land
disposal of dioxin-containing wastes
that meet the treatment standard. Also.
these standards do not supersede the
minimum technology requirements
-------
40616 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1886 / Rules and Regulations
imposed by section 3004[o). All the
prohibitions established under the
dioxin-listing rule remain in effect even
if the wastes meet the treatment
standard.
C. Analysis of Treatment Technologies
for Dioxin-Containing Wattes and
Determination of BOAT
1. Applicable Treatment Technologies
The dioxin-listing rule establishes
standards for incineration and certain
thermal treatment It states that
incinerators burning the listed COO/
CDF-containing waste* must achieve •
destruction and removal efficiency of
six 9s. in addition to the other standard*
contained in 40 CFR 264343 and MS?8?L
In the dioxnv4i*ting rule, the Agency
acknowledged that then en presently •
number of emerging thermal treatment
technologies that may be applicable for
the treatment of dloxin-contaming
wastes in order to render them
nonhazardous (or at least less
hazardous J. no woven in the absence of
performance standards, such treatment
unite would not be allowed, and this
would stifle and discourage the
development of new treatment
alternative* for these very toxic wastes.
Accordingly, the Agency revised the
dioxin-listing nil* to allow for interim
status thermal treatment units to treat
the dioxin-containing wastes if it haa
been certified that the unite meet in*
applicable performance standards in 40
CFR 264.383 (Including six 9s DUE for
principal organic hazardous constitueBt*
(POHCs)).
The dioxin-listing rule also require*
special management practices for the
treatment and storage of dtoxia-
containing waatea in tanks. Secondary
containment will be required as a permit
condition for all tanks that treat or store
COD- and CDF-containing wastes.
Specifically, the dioxin-listing rule
requires the owners/operators of tank
facilities storing or treating CDD- end
CDF-containing wastes to provide EPA
with the following information in its
permit application specifying: die
precise design of the secondary
containment system and its
accompanying leak detection method:
the choice of construction material and
specifications; and whether additional
run-on or precipitation controls are
needed to preserve the system's
integrity. These technical requirements
are specified in 40 CFR 270.1B(g) and
currently
and evaluate treatment technologies
applicable to dioxin-containing waste*.
In the proposal the Agency presented a
list of treatment technologies that were
in one of three stages of development or
consideration. Recently available
information and data have allowed the
Agency to revise this list Additional
information on the technologies under
evaluation for the treatment of these
waste* is available In the background
docket for today's rula
The Agency will continue to gather
data and information on these and other
emerging technologies in order to
evaluate their future potential aa
applicable technologies for the
treatment of dioxin-containing waste*.
Aa stated la today's rula however, any
technology for the treatment of dioxin-
containing waste must be done in
accordance with the dioxin-listing rule*
Many of the technologies being
analyzed an thermal treatment*, or can
be conducted in tank*, including
infrared heeling and chemical
detoxification.
2. Comparative- Riak Aaaaaanenr
facility m its. RCRA permit application.
This information wiD be evaluated by
the EPA before a permit ia issued*
As was stated in the proposal, the
Agency is aware of much research
Waste
In support of today1* rale. the Agency
conducted a more detailed comparative
risk analysiroR soil*- eontamaialed win
2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, still bottoms
contaminated wrth dioximr and toluene,
and uinsed forararathm* of
pentacUorophenol contaminated with
dioxins. A detailed dnti Bitei iiation of
each waste stream h available fat the
regulatory Impact arralymt for dioxta-
conteining waste (Ref. 9).
The analysis of the comparative risk*
of land disposal and incineration to six
9s DRE mdteate* that both technologiev
potentieOy reedt m fasignifieanr risks to-
human hearth Land disposal presents-
very low risk* provided diet run-off or
wind dispersal of contaminated
parUclee is prevented* and dloxnv-
contataing wastes an not co-disposed
with other materials mat nay mobilize
the dioxin* (e.g.. solvents). Regulation*
previously established (50 FR 1979)
governing the management of dfoxin-
coniaming wastes an likely to prevent
such releases. Similarly, incineration to
six Bs DRE is likely to destroy all of the
consrJtutenrs of concern in these waste*
and is also not predicted to present
significant riaka.
It is possible that In some cases,
incineration may nsnlt in greater risk*
than land disposal This could occur if
Incinerator scnibbei water* flnatainmg;
undetectafale level* of dioxins wan
discharged untreated to surface wuteis.
However. EPA believes this is unlikely
because facilities incinerating dioxin-
containing waste* will Itkely be required
under the Clean Water Act to treat the
scrubber water prior to discharge, and
because treatment of scrubber water by
carbon absorption should be effective in
preventing releases of dioxm
contaminant*.
Provided that the discharge of
untreated scrubber water is prohibited.
restricting land disposal of
contaminated Mils will likely result in
Increases m total population risks and
decreases in risk to the moit exposed
individuals. (ME1). Under the same
condition* (La. incineration to six 9s
ORE and prohibitions on untreated
scrubber water discharge), restricting
the land disposal of still bottom* may
result in an increase in total population
risk*, but would significantly reduce the
ma v< mi mi MEI rUk. FflT Unused
formulation* of penlachloraphenoL both
the total population and health risk
would be significantly reduced by
incineration at six 9* ORE.
It should be noted that the greatest
risk* to human health resulting from the
land disposal restriction are likely to be
caused by changes in the extent of
transportation and handling of dioxin-
containing waste*. The comparative nsk
analysis shows that risk* from
transportation and handling of dioxin-
containing waste* an typically much
greater than the risk posed from land
disposal or incineration. The Agency
however, la not able to predict whether
transportation distances and the extent
of handling will increase or decrease as
a result of this rule.
Because the nsk assessment does not
indicate that incineration is clearly more
risky than direct land disposal, the
Agency is classifying Incineration at six
9s DRE a* available for the purpose of
establishing the tnatment standard for
dioxin-contaiiuni waste.
3. Demonstrated Technologies and
Determination of BDAT
The only sufficiently demoiu.*:rated
technology lor the treatment of dioxin-
containing wastes u incineration. Data
from the field demonstration of EPA'i
Mobile Incineration System (MIS) on
F020. F022. F023. F026. and F027 wastes
at the Denney Farm site in McDowell.
Missouri indicate that an incineration
unit operating at six 9i DRE is capable
of treating dioxin-contaunng wastes and
the constituents of concern subject to
this nde to non-detectable levels.
Although the field demonstration at
Denney Fans did aot include the
burning ef FD21 wastes, the Agency
believes that the existing data from the
MIS field demonstration and other
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40617
available data show that similar non-
delectable levels of CDDs. CDFs and
pentachlorophenol would occur as the
result of incineration at six 9s ORE. As
stated in the proposed rule, aix 9s ORE
for dioxin-containing waste is
determined using a POHC with a lower
heat of combustion than the CDDs and
CDFs contained in the waste. The more
difficult a waste is to incinerate, the
lower its heat of combustion.
Conversely, a constituent with a high
heat of combustion is easier to
incinerate. In the case of the F021 waste.
the Agency believes that six 9s ORE con
be achieved for the CDDs and CDFs in
these wastes, since F021 wastes and
CDDs and CDFs have similar degrees of
Incinerability (heats of combustion).
The Agency has also determined that
incinerators operating in accordance
with the performance standards
specified in 40 CFR 761.70 for PCS
wastes, namely six 9s destruction, also
meet the demonstrated component of
the BOAT standard. For more
information on this determinatioa the
reader is referred to the preamble
discussion in the proposed rule (51 PR
1730-1735).
Incineration to six 9s DRE achieve*
lower concentrations of CDDS. CDFs
and certain chlorophenola in the
treatment residuals than incineration to
four 9s DRE (current standard for all
RCRA hazardous waste except dioxin-
containing wastes). The efficiency of
Incineration has been demonstrated by
the successful dioxin burn at six 9s DRE
in the EPA MIS at the Denney Farm Site
in McDowell, Missouri and the
incineration of PCB wastes at six 9s
destruction at a number of facilities.
Data indicate that residuals resulting
from the incineration of CDDs and CDFs
at six 9s DRE contain these toxicants at
concentrations about five to seven
orders of magnitude less than those in
the starting material. For example, solid
residues resulting from the Incineration
at six 9s DRE of dioxin wastes
containing 10 ppm TCDD may be
expected to contain less than .1 ppb
TCDD. Additional data from the
incineration of dioxin-containing wastes
at six 9s DRE show no detectable levels
of CDDs/CDFs or the chlorophenols in
the residuals. Most of the analysis was
conducted in accordance with the
methods specified in SW-846 (method
8260). (40 CFR 261. Appendix X)
Additional data indicate that
incinerators operating as six 9s DRE
achieved extremely low concentrations
of CDDs. CDFs. and PCBs in the
treatment residuals, in most cases, far
beluw those levels measured with
standard analytical techniques. Detailed
information on the determination of
BOAT is available in the preamble
discussion in the proposed rule.
D. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates
1. Required Alternative Treatment
Capacity for Dioxin-Containing Wastes
Approximately 14.7 million pounds
(6.650 metric tons) of dioxin-containing
wastes are presently covered by the
dioxin-listing rule. (Ref. 9). These wastes
are primarily associated with the past
production and manufacturing use of bl-
and tetrachlorophenol and current
manufacturing uses of
pentachloraphenoL The Agency believes
that the quantity of dioxin-containing
wastm currently generated and subject
to today's land disposal restriction rale
amounts to 3 million pounds annually
(1.390 metric tons). For the purposes of
this rulemaking. the Agency estimates
that approximately 1 billion pounds
(500.000 metric tons) is dioxin-
contaminated soil This assessment is
taken from an estimate that 1.1 billion
pounds of dfoxuvcontaminated soil
exist in the State of Missouri See the
background docket for additional
Information. The Agency is continuing to
evaluate the universe of these wastes.
As better Information becomes
available, the Agency will revise its
estimates accordingly. Additional
Information on the quantity estimates of
dioxin-containing wastes subject to the
land disnasal restriction can be found la
the
rule.
lory impact analysis for mis
2. Treatment Disposal and Recovery
Capacity Currently Available
Under the dioxin-listing rule, facilities
which intend to treat or dispose of
dioftlfl^^^^ninft waste must do so in
accordance with the special
management standard specified m the
rule (50 FR1978). Currently. Agency
Information on die activities of
generators and treatment storage, and
disposal facilities indicate that there is
no available disposal or recovery
capacity for dioxin-containing wastes.
In addition, there an no Agency
approved incinerators or other thermal
treatment units to treat dioxin-
containing wastes. Although several
petitions have been received by the
Agency, no incineration or thermal
treatment units have been certified/
permitted as required in the dioxin-
listing rule.
Owners/operatorsof incinerators
approved to burn PCB's pursuant to the
provisions of the Toxic Substances
Control Act may wish to apply for
certification. As pointed out earlier. PCB
incinerators are a logical choice to burn
these wastes because they are required
to meet the same performance standard
(six 9s DRE) required under the dioxin-
listing rule. There are currently three
commercial incinerators approved under
TSCA to burn PCBs. In addition to these
units, several other incinerators under
development may be available
(contingent on certification) for treating
CDD- and dioxin-containing wastes.
However, the Agency has no indication
whether or when any of these or any
other facility will be able to treat dioxin-
containing wastes.
The Agency has full confidence in the
safeguards provided by the required
management standards. EPA is
committed to move rapidly to assure
that approved capacity is available to
properly manage the listed dioxin-
containing wastes. Agency efforts in this
ana include Identifying facilities that
can properly manage dioxin-containing
wastes, and encouraging owners and
operators to apply far the necessary
Federal. State, and local permits. The
EPA Regional offices will work closely
with these facilities to expedite their
permit applications.
VTL State Authority
A. Applicability ofRuiet in Authorized
State*
Under section 3006, EPA may
authorize qualified States to administer
and enforce die RCRA program within
the State. Following authorization. EPA
retains enforcement authority under
sections 3008.3013. and 7003 although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility. The
standards and nquiremants for
authorization an found in 40 CFR Part
271.
Before the November 8,1984. RCRA
amendments, 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 Stale.
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit When new. more stringent
Federal requirements wen 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) (42
U.S.C. 6926(g)). new requirements and
prohibitions imposed under RCRA take
effect in authorized Stales at the same
time that they take effect in
-------
40618 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rule« and Regulations
nonauthnrized States. EPA is directed to
carry out these requirements and
prohibitions in authorized States.
including the issuance of permits, until
the Stale is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt the
newly enacted RCRA provisions as
State law to retain final authorization.
these provisions an effective in
authorized Stales in the interim.
Today's rule is promulgated pursuant
to sections 30M (d) through (k). and (m).
of RCRA (42 U.S.C 6924). Therefore, it is
being added to Table I in 40 CTR
zn.lfj). which identifies the Federal
program requirements that are
promulgated pmnant to the newly *
enacted RCRA provisions and take
effect In all State*, regarding of their
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim of final authorization
for the provisions in Table 1. as
discussed In the following section. Table
2 in 40 CFH m.lfjj is being modified
also to indicate that this rule is a self-
implementing provision of the RCRA
amendments.
A Effect on State Autharuatian*
As noted above. EPA will Implement
today's rule in authorised Slate* until
their programs are modified to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the nrie is
promulgated pursuant to the RCRA
amendments, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3000{g)(2) or
3006{b). respectrvefr. 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 the
interim authorization will expire on
January 1.1993 (see 40 CTR 271 M(c)}.
40 CFR mJl(eHZ) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes, and must
subsequently submit the nuxDficaticn to
EPA for approval The deadhne far Slate
program modification* for today's final
rule is July 1.1969. if regulatory changes
are necessary, or July 1.1990.3
statutory changes are necessary. These
deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases (see 40 CFR
271.21(e)(3J). Once EPA approve* the.
modification, the State requirement*
become Subtitle C RCRA requiiements.
States with authorised RCRA
programs may have requirements
similar to those in today's rule. These
State reguhrtiona have not been
assessed against the Federal regulation*
being promulgated today to delenmn*
whether they meet the tests for
authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
Slate program modification is approved.
Of course. States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. la Implementing the
Federal program EPA will work with
Slates under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts: In many cases.
EPA will be able to defer to the Slates In
their efforts to implement their
programs, rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States thai submit official applications
for final authorization fess than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations may be approved without
including equivalent standards.
However, once authorized, a State must
modify Its program to Include standards
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's within the time periods discussed
above.
C. Stats tatpluaattatiaa
There an three unique aspects of
today's rule which affect Slate
implementation and Impact State
actions on the regulated community:
l. Under Pert 288. Subpart C. EPA ts
promulating land disposal restrictions
for all generators and disposers of
certain types of hazardous waste, m
order to retain* authorization. States
must adopt the regulations under this
Subpart since Stale requirements can be
no less stringent man Federal
requirements.
2. Also eadsr Part 288, EPA mey great
• national variance from the effective
dale of land disposal prohibitions for up
to Z yean If it is found that there is
insuffidsflt altsrnstivtt capacity to land
disposal Under I ZUA case-by-case
extensions of up to 1 year (renewable
for an additional year) may be granted
for specific applicants ^"^'"j adequate-
capacity.
The Admiaistzator of EPA is solely
responsible for granting variances to the
effective date because these
determinations must be made on a
national basis. In addition, it is dear
that section 300*(hH3) intends for the
Administrator to grant case-bypass
extensions after consulting the affected
States, oa the basts of national concerns
which only the Administrator can
evaluate. Therefore. States cannot be
authorized for this aspect of the
». EPA may giant petitions of specific
duration to allow land disposal of
certain hazardous waste when it can be
demonstrated thai mem will be no-
migration of hazardous constituents for
as long as the waste remains hazardous.
Slates which have the authority to
impose prohibitions may be authorized
under section 3006 to grant petitions for
exemptions from bans. Decisions on
site-specific petitions do not require the
national perspective required to prohibit
waste or grant extensions. In
accordance with section 30M(i). EPA
will publish notice of the State's final
decision on petitions in the Federal
Register.
One commenter argued thai EPA
should publish all petition* submitted by
authorized States, as well as publish
final decisions. EPA does not believe
that section 3004fi) mandates this result.
In order to be authorized to administer
the petition process, a Slate will have to
adopt notice and comment requirements
equivalent to those in today's rules.
Publication of the final decision in the
Federal Register will satisfy the need to
inform the general public by informing
the public of which facilities are allowed
to receive prohibited waste, and by
informing other applicants as to the
types of petitions that have been
accepted.
State* are free to impose their own
dispose) prohibitions if such actions are
more stringent or broader in scope than
Federal program* (RCRA section 3008
and 40 CFR 271.1(1)* When States
impose bans which contravene an EPA
action, such as granting a case-by-case
extension or pert Won. the mon stringent
Stale prohibitions governs and EPA's
action Is without meaning in the State.
VOL Effects of the Land Disposal
Restrictiaaa Profcsna on Other
Environmental Programs
A. Discharger Rfgvtatsd Under tin
CJfm Water Act
Compliance with land disposal
restriction requirements does not relieve
facility owners of the obligation to
comply with all other Federal. Slate, and
local environmental requirements.
Including the requirements of the Clean
Water Act Under the Clean Water Act.
facility owners must comply with all
applicable; pretnatment requirement*
(for discharges to a publicly owned
treatment works) and all requirements
of an NPDES permit {for discharges to
surface water).
The Agency recognize* that
generators and treaters of hazardous
wastes-may choose to dispose of
restricted wastes using oon-RCRA
disposal option*.
Two disposal options regulated under
the Clean Water Act an dine*
discharge to surface waters and indirect
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40619
discharge to publicly owned sewage
treatment works (POTWs). Decisions to
discharge restricted solvent wastes
using these options will depend upon a
number of factors including the physical
form of the waste, the degree of
pretreatment required prior lo discharge.
State and local regulations, and the cost
of disposal. The Agency conducted an
analysis to determine the impact of the
land disposal restrictions on these
alternative disposal methods (Ref. 10).
The analysis focused primarily on the
discharge of solvent wastes to POTWs
because the Agency lacked data to
analyze the impacts from spent solvent
wastes discharged directly to receiving
waters. However, inadequate data on
these above mentioned factors
precluded the Agency from conducting a
quantitative assessment of the potential
effect of the land disposal restrictions
on increased demand for disposal to
POTWs.
The result! of the analysis radicated
that the quantity of FD91-FD05 solvents
discharged to POTWs could potentially
increase as much as five times, although
it is likely that the actual increase will
be much Jess. The analysis also
demonstrated that the discharge of
solvent conititutenU to POTWs will
probably result in some exposure lo
humans. However, the risks to public
nealth and the environment from these
discharges could not be determined.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the
Marine Protection. Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
Two options regulated under the
Marine Protection. Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) (33 U.S.C.
1401 el seq.] are ocean dumping and
ocean-based incineration. EPA Is in the
process of revising the MPRSA
regulations. If the Agency were to relax
the current regulations, there could be
increased demand for ocean-based
waste management due to the impact of
the land disposal restrictions. If. for
example, the regulations were revised to
allow the issuance of permits lo
applicants whose wastes fail to comply
with one or more of the MPRSA
environmental criteria but who
successfully demonstrate a need for the
permit, the demand for ocean disposal
could increase substantially.
The Agency conducted an analysis of
the potential shift in demand for ocean
disposal (ocean dumping or ocean-based
incineration) resulting from the
restrictions on land disposal of solvent
dioxin. and California list wastes. The
results are described in "Assessment of
Impacts of Land Disposal Restrictions
on Ocean Dumping and Ocean
Incineration of Solvents. Dioxins. and
California List Wastes" (Ref. 12). This
assessment is based on a methodology
to score end rank waste streams for
relative acceptability for ocean disposal.
supplemented with an analysis of coat
factors and capacity constraints.
The scoring/ranking methodology is
based on technical requirements (e.g..
physical form and heating value) and
MPRSA environmental criteria (e.&,
constituent concentrations, toxicity.
solubility, density, and persistence of
the waste) associated with ocean
disposal of hazardous waste. The
capacity analysia assumes that those
wastes least acceptable for ocean
disposal will be treated or disposed of
by land-based method*. The cost
analysis assumes that additional land-
based treatment capacity would be built
to treat waste streams for which the
costs of land-based treatment would be
leas than the coats of ocean disposal
(including on land transportation to a
port located on the East Coast).
The results of the cost/eapadty
analysis indicates that as a result of the
land disposal restrictions,
approximately &2 million gsllons per
year of solvent wastes and 1.2 million
gallons per year of dioxin wastes
potentially could create demand for
ocean dumping and ocean-based
incineration. Such demands result from
capacity short-falls of land-based
incineration and the relatively lower
cost of ocean dumping and ocean-based
incineration, taking into account the
cosla of transportation on land. These
results estimate the demand that may be
created if the ocean dumping regulations
are revised to allow the issuance of
permits for wastes that do not comply
with MPRSA environmental criteria.
because the analysis did not take into
account technical requirements or
environmental criteria.
The Agency expanded the cost/
capacity analysia to eliminate those
wastes that do not meet technical
requirements or MPRSA criteria. The
results of that analysis indicated that
none of the solvent and dioxin waste
streams identified as likely to create
potential demand for ocean disposal In
the cost/capacity analysis would be
acceptable for ocean dumping, based on
existing ocean dumping regulations.
Conversely, all the waste streams
identified by the cost/capacity analysis
would be acceptable for ocean-based
incineration, based on technical
requirements and die proposed ocean
incineration regulations.
C. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Water Act
Many of the technologies capable of
achieving the treatment standard for a
restricted waste may result tn cross-
media transfer of hazardous
constituents Into the air. Examples
would be air-stnpping of volatile
organics from wastewater and
Incineration of melal-bearing spent
solvents. Unless air controls are added.
these technologies may result in transfer
of organics and metals, respectively, to
the atmosphere.
The Agency has undertaken several
efforts to address the potential problem.
as discussed In the comparative risk
assessment section. The Agency has
initiated a program to address metal
emissions from incinerators. EPA also
has initiated two programs under
section 30M(n) to address air emissions
from other sources. The first program
will •ddren leak* from equipment, such
aa pumps, valves, and vents from units
processing concentrated organics waste
streams. Several units identified as
BOAT In this rulemaking, batch
distillation, thin film evaporation.
fractionation. and incineration, would
process waste streams with greater than
ten percent organics and would be
covered by this rulemaking. The Agency
expects to propose these standards in
November 1980. The second program
under section 3004(n) will address all
remaining sources of air emissions, such
aa residual air emissions from land
disposal units and non-land disposal
sources (e-g.. tanks and waste transfer
and handling). These standards are
scheduled to be proposed in November
1987, and promulgated in November
1988.
IX. Implementation of the Part 288 Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
As a result of the regulations being
promulgated today under Part 288.
several options will be available to the
generator or owner/operator of a
treatment storage, and disposal facility
for the management of restricted
hazardous wastes. In order to provide
direction to those who manage
restricted hazardous wastes, the
following decision-making sequences
are offend for determining appropriate
waste management procedures. This
unit provides references to applicable 40
CFR Parts 284 and 285 requirements as
well as Part 288 requirements for
implementation of the various waste
management options. The Agency
expects to produce an expanded version
of this section as guidance to the
regulated community.
All of the sequences in the generator'a
decision-making process must
commence with a determination as to
whether the hazardous waste is listed in
Part 268 Subpart C If the hazardous
-------
40620 Federal Register / Vol 51, No. ad / Friday. November 7, 1988 / Rules and Regulation*
waste If not a restricted waste. It i» not
subject to land disposal restrictions
under Part 268. It must, nevertheless, be
managed in accordance Parts 284 and
265.
Sequence 1: W
Sequence 1 In the generator's
decision-making process commences
with a determination of the appropriate
treatabiiity group and corresponding
Part 268 Subpart D treatment standard
[Jj 268.41.268.42. or 26t«). The Agency
Is requiring that applicable Part 286
Subpart D treatment standards foi •
restricted waste be determined at the
point of generation. To require
otherwise would allow the generator to
dilute weste in order to circumvent an
effective dele or otherwise alter the
applicable treatment standard The Part
268 Subpart 0 treatment standards are>
expressed either as performance)
standards in the waste extract in
1288.41. as required treatment method*
in 8 268.42. or as concentration* torn*
waste m| 268,43. After tb* generator
establishes the applicable Part 268
Subpart D treatment standard, the next
step in the sequence M lo determine the
effective data of the applicable
treatment standard. EPA has the
discretionary authority to delay the
effective data* of the Part 26ft treatment
standards on the basic of available
national treatment capacity.
Determinations as to the adequacy of
treatment capacity for restricted wattes
are based on the quantity of restricted
wastes generated end the available
capacity of alternative treatment
recovery, and disposal technologies. For
those wastes where EPA determines
that alternative capacity is adequate.
the treatment standards will take effect
the Part 288 Snbpart D treatment
standards are expressed as
concentrations IB the waste extract
(1 26O41). the need for treatment
depends upon the nature and
consti tuenUv This witt be determined
either through analysis of constituents •
the waste extract specified in 1 288J.
using the Toxidty Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (Appendix 1 to Pert
286) or through knowledge of the
extract based on the materials and the
manufacturing processes generating the
waste. Whoa the Part 2BB Sabpert O
treatment standards ere specified as a
required method (f 2BBV42), fl ie not
necessary for the generator t» determine-
tflA CODOtt&BV flOV Iff *Va% BBaesWBOtW
COBaVtfltWtBtB ID tfa0 WntB OF WUftB
6xttvcCk WHS tbff Put 2BB Souptut O
SVCReaUBl aVUBQaVQaT UV flQCpHMOd ftef
IB 100 WsUtV f * 2B8L49|i
ifcy>niijh nul^sift of thd hu&rdouei
conifRoonti in tht waste; u •pedfied la
g ttu
WUtaV
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40621
Sequence 2: Waste* That Naturally Meet Part 268 Subpart D Treatment Standard
c
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Don the
Want Meet (lit
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co 10
Sequence 3.
Sequence 5.
Sequence 6.
Sequence 8 or
Sequence 10
• aci|uvmv D
Lamf DnpoMl Subtitle C
1 1 I i
Deep Well
Injection
1 Surface
Impoundment
Landfill
\\asie Pit*
• I
Land Treatment
Suhpart .\
Sequence 2 in trie generator*!
decision-making proceia commencea
with the determination that the
concentration of hazardous constituent*
In the waste is lower than the applicable
Part 268 Subpart D treatment standard.
Therefore, the waste is exempt from the
statutory prohibition on land disposal
The generator must submit a notice
(i 2e&7(a)(Z)(i]] and include: (1) EPA
Hazardous Waste Number: (2) the
applicable treatment standard: (3) the
manifest number associated with the.
shipment of waste: and (4) waste
analysis data, where available. The
generator must also submit a
certification statement to the land
disposal facility as required under
f268.7(a)(2)(ii). The land disposal
facility must verify the records
submitted by the generator in
accordance with the facility's waste
analysis plan. A generator thai also
operates an on-site land disposal facility
must put the same information (except
for the manifest number) as would be in
the notice (§ 268.7(a)(2)(i}) in the
operating record of the land disposal
facility.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 51. No. 218 / Friday. Norembet 7. 1986 / RnJe» and Regulations
Saqueaca ft Tnatmeat of Rettrictad Wwtoa
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Don the
Wane Meet the
Part 268 Subpart D
Triatmant
Standard
Co 10 I
1 Sequence* 1
On-SiU
Trt*tm*nt
.__ i
™
Nolle*
of Applicable
Treatment
Standard
Part 268
Subpari D
JlMpaMaiaf
Wa«a
*
OIT-SIU
TnaMMOt
I
Ten Aecortflnf to
Watte Analysis
Plan
Wane
CharactcnuliOH
Throoth Kno«led|e
of TrealoiatN Proceii
I Vn
(Treatment 1
Certification i
1
I Co 10
I Sequence 8
iTandOispoial Subtitle C | «l|*»^Jx'
* _
1 1 J I 1 1
Deep Well Surface 1 Landfill
Injection Impoundment |
Weite Pile Land Trealment I Subpart X
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 40623
Sequence 3 in Ihe generator's
decision-making process commences
with one of the following
determinations: (l)The concentration of
hazardous constituents in the waste
extract exceeds the applicable { 268.41
treatment standard: (2) the waste must
be treated in accordance with the
treatment method required under
J 268.42: or (3) Ihe concentration of
hazardous constituents in the waste
exceeds the applicable { 268.43
treatment standard. In each case.
continued placement of the restricted
waste in land disposal units as of the
applicable effective date specified in
Part 268 Subpart C is prohibited.
Generators may store restricted
wastes on site in containers and tanks
according to the provisions in section
268.50 pnor to treatment. This storage is
solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as is necessary to
facilitate proper, recovery, treatment, or
disposal.
The generator must treat the restricted
waste in either an on-site or off-site
treatment facility with interim status or
a RCRA permit that if allowed to accept
the restricted waste (as specified in 40
CFR Part 270).
An off-site treatment facility must
obtain a notice from the generator
specifying the EPA Hazardous Waste
Number, the applicable treatment
standard, and the manifest number
associated with the shipment of waste
i 288.7(a)(l)). This notice must be placed
in the operating record of the treatment
facility along with a copy of the
manifest. Generators who are also
treatment storage, or disposal facilities
must place the same Information In the
operating record of the facility, although
a formal notice and manifest are not
required. The testing and reeordkeeping
requirements promulgated in today's
rule do not relieve Ihe generator of his
responsibilities under 40 CFR 262.20 to
designate a facility on Ihe manifest
which is permitted lo accept the waste
for off-site management.
The determination that the treatment
residue meets the applicable ( 268.41
treatment standard can be made through
knowledge of the hazardous
constituents in the waste extract based
on the processes used in the treatment
of the waste or by analyzing the
treatment residuals according to the
waste analysis plan using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (Part
268. Appendix I). The determination that
Ihe treatment residue meets the
applicable 1266.43 performance
standard can be made through
knowledge of the hazardous
constituents In the waate based on Ihe
processes used In the treatment of the
water or by analyzing the treatment
residuals according to the waste
analysis plan. In either case, if the
concentration of hazardous constituents
in the treatment residual extract
exceeds f 268.41 treatment performance
standards, or the concentration of
hazardous constituents in the residual
exceeds 1268.43 treatment standards,
additional treatment must be performed
before land disposal is permitted.
Generators, transporters, handlers.
storage facilities, or treatment facilities
may not dilute restricted wastes as a
substitute for adequate treatment to
meet SI 266.41 or268.43 treatment
standards. Such actions will be
considered a violation of the dilution
prohibition. In particular, wastes
meeting Part 268 Subpart D treatment
standards must not be mixed with
wastes that do not meet such standards
in order to achieve the treatment
standard for the mixture (t 2684). EPA
does not Intend to disrupt or alter the
normal and customary practices of
properly operated treatment facilities.
Treatment facilities can mix compatible
wastes in order to treat at capacity
levels. However, the concentration of a
hazardous constituent in the treatment
residual must not exceed Ihe
concentration of the most stringent
applicable §t 268.41 or 268.43 treatment
standard for any given constituent.
When shipping the treatment residue
to an interim status or RCRA permitted
land disposal facility, the treatment
facility must certify (as specified in
ft26&7(b)(2)) that the treatment residue
meets the applicable treatment
standards in H 268.41. or 288.43. or has
been treated using the required method
in f 268.42 and. therefore, is no longer a
restricted waste. The treater must also
send a notice to the land disposal
facility and Include the EPA Hazardous
Waste Number, the applicable treatment
standard, the manifest number
associated with the shipment of waste.
and waate analysis data from treatment
residues where available as specified in
|288.7(b)(l).
If the treatment residuals meet the
debating criteria, the generator or
treatment facility may petition the
Agency for a site-specific delisting
pursuant to the provisions in 40 CFR
28022. Delisted residuals can be
managed in subtitle D facilities.
In some cases. Ihe generator or
treatment facility may conclude that it is
technically infeasible to meet the
IB 268.41 or 268.43 treatment
performance standards established for
the waste. If a waste cannot meet the
applicable treatment standards, the
generator may petition EPA for a
treatability variance under 1268.44 (See
Sequence 7: Variance From a Treatment
Standard, for a detailed discussion.
-------
Generator of Restricted Waste |
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA) I
line
Treatment
Standard Effective
Immediate!
Delay Effective
Dale Up lo 2
Years
Does the
Waste Meet
the Part 268
Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 2, or
Sequence 8
Co to
Sequence Ji
Sequence 5,
iequence 6.
Sequence 7,
Sequences, or
Sequence 10
Nolle*
Land DUposal Subtitle C
t ***""""
Deep Well
Injection
Surface
Impoundment
Landfill
Waste Pile
Land Treatment
Subpart X
•OUNO MM MM-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 218 / Friday. November 7, 1966 / Rules and Regulations 40625
Sequence 4 ID the generator'!
decision-making pneeu commence! for
those waites when the Agency has
made the determination that capacity is
not adequate on a nationwide basis. The
Agency will exercise the discretion
granted to it under Section 3004(h)(2)
and authorize a nationwide variance of
up to two yeara from the statutory
effective date. The purpose of granting «
national variance is to provide time for
development of additional treatment.
recovery or disposal capacity. Those
wastes that EPA determines are eligible
for nationwide variances are specified
in Part 268 Subpart C.
During the national variance, the
generator must send a notice (as
specified in { 26B7fa)(3)) to the land
disposal facility Indicating that EPA has
granted an extension of time in which to
comply with the applicable Part 268
Subpart D treatment standard. At the
end of the national variance, the Part
288 Subpart D treatment standards takes
effect and the generator must follow any
of the following sequences: Sequence 3:
Treatment of a Restricted Waste.
Sequence 5: Case-by-Case Extensions.
Sequence fc No Migration Petition.
Sequence 8: Deliaimg. or Sequence 1ft
Change Production Process. Recycle or
Don't Produce Waste.
-------
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Does the
Waste Meet the
Part 268 Subparl D
Treatment
Standard
*
Co to
Sequence 2 or
Sequence 8
Case-by-Case
Exlention
Up to I Yean
Co to
Sequence 3.
Sequence 6.
Sequence 8. or
.Sequence 10 '
| Land Disposal Subtitle C 1
*
Deep Well
Injection
1
Surface
Impoundment
I
Landfill
J
1 1 1
Waste Pile Land Treatment Subparl X
f
3!
8
I
»
i
I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40627
Sequence 5 in the generator's
decision-making process commences
with a determination that the restricted
waste does not comply with the
applicable SS 268.41 or 268.43 treatment
standards or that the waste must be
treated in accordance with the
treatment method required under
{ 268.42. Continued placement of the
restricted waste in land disposal units
as of the applicable effective date, aa
specified in Part 268 Subpart C. is
prohibited. The generator may submit an
application to EPA. as specified in
5 268.5. for an extension of time in
which to comply with the Part 268
Subpart D treatment standards by
demonstrating binding contractual
commitments to construct or otherwise
obtain access to alternative treatment.
recovery or disposal capacity and that
such capacity is not available by the
date that the Subpart D treatment
standards take effect due to
circumstances beyond his control Case-
by-case extensions may be granted by
EPA for two l-year periods. The
extension doe* not become effective
until the notice of approval appears in
the Federal Register aa specified in
§ 288J(e). The generator must forward a
notice, as specified in f 268.7(a)(3],
stating that the waste is exempt from
the land disposal restrictions to the
Subtitle C load disposal facility
receiving the restricted waste.
If the generator is denied a case-by-
case extension, the next step in thu
sequence is the consideration of the
following waste management options:
the generator must successfully find
available treatment capacity (Sequence
3), submit a no migration petition
(Sequence 6). submit a delisting petition
(Sequence 8), change his production
processes, or recycle so that restricted
wastes are no longer generated
(Sequence 10).
Sequent* fc No Migration Petition
C
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrccuvt Action and CERCLA)
YM
Co 10
Sequence 3.
Sequence S,
Sequence 7.
Sequence 8. or
Sequence 10
Notice
Land Diipoul Subtitle C
*
Deep Well
Injection
*
Surface
Impoundment
111;
Landfill
Waste Pile
1 Land Treatment
Subpart X
-------
40628 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
Sequence 8 of the generator's
decision-making process commences
with a determination that the waste
does nol meet the Si 268.41 of 288.43
treatment standards or that the waste
must be treated by the method required
in { 268.42 Wastes that do not comply
with applicable S§ 268.41 or 268.43
treatment standards or are not treated
by the method required in 8 268.42 will
be prohibited from continued placement
in land disposal units as of the
applicable effective date, unless the
generator in conjunction with a
Treatment. Storage, and Disposal
Facility (TSDF) or a TSDF submits a no
migration petition. The petition as
specified in S 268.8 must demonstrate
that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents from the
continued land disposal of particular
restricted hazardous wastes at a specific
land disposal unit for as long as the
waste remains hazardous. The land
disposal facility must have either
interim status or a RCRA permit as
required In 40 CFR Part 270. to manage
the waste. The no migration petition will
be a difficult demonstration, but the
Agency has identified the following
three scenarios that may satisfy the
requirements of the statutory standard
of "no migration": (1) A situation where
environmental parameters are such that
no detectable migration of hazardous
constituents would occur from the
disposal unit: (2) a situation where an
active process is taking place rendering
the waste non-hazardous; or (3) a
situation where hazardous waste is
being stored temporarily in a waste pile
where engineered controls are sufficient
to prevent migration in the short term.
Although the Agency is not providing
guidance on the no migration petition at
this time. It is, however, offering the
opportunity for preapplication meetings
as assistance in preparing a no
migration petition. As a result of such a
meeting both the Agency and the
petitioner will gain a better
understanding of what must be included
In the petition and the probability of
developing a successful petition. An
approved petition allows the land
disposal of specific restricted wastes at
a specific site. A facility must observe
approval in the Federal Register
(I 266.6(g)) before it can land dispose a
restricted waste. The generator must
forward a notice as specified in
{ 26B.7(a)(3) staring that the waste is
exempt from the land disposal
restrictions to the Subtitle C facility
receiving the restricted waste.
Where a no migration petition is not
granted, the generator may follow
courses of action in accordance with the
following sequences: Sequence 3:
Treatment of a Restricted Waste.
Sequence 5: Case-By-Case Extensions,
Sequence 7: Variance From a Treatment
Standard. Sequence 8: Debating, or
Sequence 1ft Change Production
Process. Recycle, or Don't Pnduce the
Waste.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 218 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 4Q629
Sequence 7: Variance From a Treatment Standard
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Identify Applicable
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 4
Can the
Waste Meet the
Applicable Part 268
Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 3
Variance
from the Part 268
Subpart D
Treatment
tandard
Is
Treatment
Standard Effective
Immediately
No
Co to
Sequence 3.
Sequence 6.
Sequence 8. or
N^Sequence 10 ^
Co 10
Sequence 4
Sequence 7 of the generator'*
decision-making procesi begin* when a
generator determines that he cannot
treat the waste to the Part Z88 Subpart D
treatment standard as specified in
{{ 268.41.268.42. or 268.48. The
generator may submit a petition for a
variance from the treatment standard as
specified under I 268.44. The Agency
envisions that wastes may be subject to
a treatability variance in cases where a
waste is not treatable to the level or by
the method specified in the treatment
standard. This may occur when a waste
is significantly different from the wastes
considered in establishing the treatment
standard either because the waste
matrix is complex and more difficult to
treat or the waste containa higher
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents. The Information as
specified in 1] 268.44 must be included
in the petition for a variance from a Part
268 Subpart D treatment standard.
When the Agency grants a variance
from a treatment standard, it must
subsequently make a national capacity
determination regarding the availability
of appropriate treatment capacity for
that waste. For those wastes where EPA
determines that capacity for the
appropriate treatment technology is
adequate, the performance standard set
as a result of the variance from the
treatment standard will take effect
immediately upon promulgation.
Co to
Sequence 3
Otherwise, the Agency will grant a
national capacity variance (Sequence 4]
of up to two yean during which time the
continued placement of untreated waste
in land disposal facilities regulated
under Subtitle C of RCRA will be
allowed.
Where a variance from a treatment
standard is not granted, the waste may
be managed in accordance with
Sequence 3: Treatment of Restricted
Wastes. Sequence 5: Case-By-Case
Extension. Sequence 6: No Migration
Petition. Sequence 8: Delisting. and
Sequence 10: Change Production
Process, Recycle, or Don't Produce the
Waste.
-------
40630 Federal Register / Vol St No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
Sequence fc Debating
Sequence 8 commence! with the
generator'* determination that the waete
ii restricted (40 CFR Part 286 Subpart Q.
Upon evaluation of the available waata
management option*, and possibly after
treatment (including treatment not
meeting the treatment standards of
{1288.41-288.43) the generator may
dedde to submit a petition to EPA for a
•lie-specific delating, pursuant to the
provision* in 40 CFR 28O2Z Delieted
wastes an no longer considered
hazardous mr"^ may be disposed In a
Subtitle D facility.
The generator may choose to submit a
debating petition to the Agency after the
restricted waste has been treated to the
Part 288 Subpart D treatment ctaadard
as well es after the denial of any of the
exceptions to achieving the Part 288
Supart O treatment standard.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40631
Sequence) ft Surface Impoundment Exemption
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
lithe
asle Amenable
to Treatment in
a Surface
mpoundment
Co to
Sequence 3
Does the
Surface
mpoundment Meet
the Minimum
Technology
ulrements
CO tO
Sequence 3
Identify Applicable
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 7
Test lo Determine If
the Waste Meets
the Applicable
§§ 268.41 or 268.43
Standard
*
Treat Using the
Method Specified
In § 268.42
,
Does the
Waste Meet the
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 3. or
Sequence 8
Co to
Sequence 2. or
Sequence 8
-------
40632 Federal RegjgUi / Vol. .51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
Sequence 9 in the generator's
decision-making process commences
with a determination by the generator
that the restncted waste does not
comply with the applicable Part 268
Subpart 0 treatment standard and will
be prohibited from continued placement
In land disposal units as of the
applicable effective date. The generator
may treat in an interim status or RCRA
permitted surface impoundment meeting
the minimum technology requirements in
accordance with 40 CFR 2M.221(c) and
265.221(a) and that is in compliance with
40 CFR Part 284 or 265 Subpart F as
applicable (i.e., it has been constructed
with two or more liners, and a leachate
collection system, and is in compliance
with ground water monitoring
requirements). On an annual basis, the
facility must identify the treatability
group and Part 268 Subpart D treatment
standard applicable to the contents of
the surface impoundment If the
applicable Part 268 Subpart D treatment
standard ia specified in I 268.4Z the
contents of the surface impoundment
must be treated using the required
method.
A request for a variance from the
treatment standards, (as specified in
1 268.44). set under Part 268 Subpart D
may be submitted if in the identification
of an applicable Part 268 Subpart 0
treatability group the response is
negative.
The need for treatment depends on
the concentration of the hazardous
constituents in the waste extract as
specified in { 268.41 or on the
concentration of the hazardous
constituents in the waste itself as
specified in S 268.43. Therefore, the
facility must analyze the contents of the
surface impoundment annually in
accordance with § 268.4(a](2).
Impoundment residues that do not meat
the applicable Part 268 Subpart 0
treatment standards (Si 268.41 or 268.43)
must be removed and managed aa a
restricted waste, and cannot be further
treated in a surface impoundment The
options available for management of the
restncted waste are as discussed ia
Sequence 3: Treatment of Restricted
Wastes. Sequence 6: No Migration
Petition, and Sequence 8: Delisting.
Surface impoundment residues that
meet the applicable Part 268 Subpart D
treatment standard are exempt from the
statutory prohibitions on land disposal
The residue may remain in the
impoundment or may be otherwise land
disposed in a Subtitle C facility. If the
residue remains in the surface
impoundment certification that the
hazardous waste complies with the
treatment standard must be put in the
operating record of the land disposal
unit. Residues that are removed and
land disposed off-site must be
accompanied with the notice and
certification as specified in i 26B.7(a)(2).
Sequence 10: Change Production
Process. Recycle or Don't Produce the
Waste
C
Generator of Restricted Waste
Chtait
Don I
Produce
\v«si«
Sequence 10 of the generator's
decision-making process represents an
opportunity that always presents itself
to any generator of hazardous wastes;
the decision to change production
processes or to recycle wastes so that
restricted hazardous waste* an no
longer produced Waste minimization Is
strongly encouraged.
X. Regulatory lUqnirwnaaei
A. Regulatory Impact Analyii*
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
to assess the effect of contemplated
Agency actions during the development
of regulations. Such an assessment
consist* of a OMatification of the
potential benefits end cests of the rale.
at well ee e description of any
beneficial or adverse effects that cannot
be quantified In monetary terms.
In addition. Executive Order 12281
requires that regulatory agencies
prepare an analysis of the regulatory
impact of major rules. Major rules are
defined as those likely to result in:
1. An annual coal to the economy of
$100 million or more: or
2. A major increase in costs or price*
for consumers or individual Industries:
or
3. Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment.
productivity, innovation, or
international trade.
The Agency has performed an
analysis of the rule to assess the
economic effect of associated
compliance costs. Based on this
analysis. EPA has determined that
restricting the land disposal of solvent
and dioxin wastes will constitute a
major rule as defined by Executive
Order 12291. because the total
annualized cost of this rule is SI52.4
million. In consequence. EPA has
prepared a regulatory impact analysis of
this rule.
The remainder of Unit X describes the
economic analysis performed by EPA in
support of today's final rule.
1. Cost and Economic Impact
Methodology
EPA has assessed the cost and
potential economic effects of today's
rule and of the major regulatory
alternatives. For its analysis of solvent
wastes. EPA has examined two
alternatives to today's final rule. The
first alternative is to codify the statutory
prohibition on land disposal of affected
wastes. This approach would prohibit
the land disposal of all solvent wastes
at any concentration. The second
approach is to use risk-based screening
levels in the development of treatment
standards. Costs and benefits of both
these alternatives are described in more
detail in the regulatory impact analysis
of restricting solvents from land
disposal.
For dioxin wastes, no less stringent
alternative could be examined, because
the dioxin listing requires incineration to
six 9s ORE or the application of a
thermal technology of equivalent
performance.
The methodology for establishing total
costs and impacts involves three steps.
First EPA estimates the population of
facilities and waste management
practices which will be affected. Next.
total sodal costs of the regulation are
derived by adding costs lor individual
facilities. Finally, economic impacts on
affected facilities are assessed.
a. Affected population and practices.
The affected population is the total
number of hazardous waste treatment
storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
and generators land disposing of
affected wastes either directly at the
generation site or indirectly through the
purchase of commercial land disposal
services. This group's waste
management practices are assessed to
identify costs of managing wastes and
incremental coat increases attributable
to today's rule.
The number of facilities that land
dispose of affected wastes was
determined using the EPA's 1981 RIA
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 40633
Mat! Survey.11 Waste quantities and
management practices for facilities
responding to the Mail Survey are
scaled up to represent the national
population by means of weighting
factors developed for the Survey. EPA
estimates that 7-t facilities comprise the
total national population of commercial
and noncommercial facilities land
disposing of affected wastes on-site.
EPA estimates that generators sending
more than 1.000 kilograms per month of
waste off-site for management add an
additional S.S11 plants. Generators of
less than 1.000 kilograms per month
were not included in the 1981 Survey
because they were considered exempt at
that time.
Because the 1984 RCRA amendment!
direct EPA to lower the exemption for
small quantity generators (SQCs) from
1.000 to 100 kilograms per month by
March 31.1986. SQCs generating
between 100 and 1.000 kilograms of
waste per month for off-site dispoaal are
also included in the affected population.
The Agency estimates that SQGs add
14.400 plants to the affected population.
Plant and waste specific data on this
group are denved from EPA's Smell
Quantity Generator Survey.
Current management practices for
these groups include the cost of
compliance with regulations which have
taken effect since 1981. In particular.
EPA adjusted waste management
practices as reported in 1981 to reflect
compliance with the provisions of 40
CFR Part 284 of RCRA. In making this
adjustment, the Agency assumes
facilities elect the least costly legal
methods of compliance.
b. Development of costs. Once waste
quantity, type and method of treatment
are known for the affected population.
EPA estimates costs of compliance for
individual facilities. The Agency
developed facility-specific coats in two
components, which are weighted and
then summed to estimate total national
costs of the rule. The first component of
the total compliance cost is incurred
annually for operation and maintenance
(O&M) of alternative modes of waste
treatment and disposal. The second
component of the compliance cost is a
capital cost, which is an initial outlay
incurred for construction and
>• EPA conducted the MA Mill Survey of
luiardnue »••(• generator! tndTSDFi le
determine waate management pnelien in 1881. TTiej
survry included both generator! of hexerdoue
wniei end ficUitui Ireilinf. alarms, or diipoiing
of oiitet. Fecihtin that handled leie then 1000
kilogrami ot waale per month were nol regulated in
I9MI end ihua. am nol included IB the dilt. For
mare information ice ihe ' National Survey of
Haurdoua Waate Cenerelora and Treatment.
Storage end DiapaMl Facilitiat Regulated under
RCRA in 1WI.' (April 1984).
depreciable assets. Capital costs are
restated as annual values using a capital
recovery factor based on a real cost of
capital of 7 percent. These annualized
costs are then added to yearly O&M
costs to derive an annual equivalent
cost. This is EPA's estimate of the
impact of the regulation on annual firm
cashflow.
c. Economic Impact Analysis. \\] Non-
Commercial TSDFi and SQGs.
Economic impacta on non-commercial
facilities and SQCs are assessed in
several steps. First a general screening
analysis compares facility-specific
incremental costs to financial
information about firms, disaggregated
by Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) and number of employees per
facility. This comparison generates two
ratios, which are used to identify
facilities likely to expenence adverse
economic effects. The first is a ratio of
individual facility compliance coats to
costs of production. A change exceeding
five percent la considered to imply a
substantial advene economic effect on a
facility. The second Is a "coverage"
ratio, relating cash from operations to
cost of compliance. For this ratio, a
value of less than 20 is considered to
represent a significant advene impact
Once facilities experiencing advene
impacts are identified using the two
screening ratios, more detailed financial
analysis is performed to verify the
results and focus mora closely on
affected firms. For this subset of
facilities. Ihe coverage ratio is adjusted
to allow • portion of costs to be passed
through. Economic effects on facilities
are examined assuming product price
increases of one and five percent are
possible. Those facilities for.which the
coverage ratio is less than two an
considered likely to dose.
(2) Commercial TSDFs. Commercial
TSDFs are defined here as those
faculties which accept feea in exchange
for managing wastes generated
elsewhere. For this group of facilities.
there exists no Census SIC from which
to draw financial information. Two SICs
which we might use as proxies. 4953 and
4959. do not distinguish between
financial data for hazardous waste
treatment firms and for firms managing
municipal wastes. Consequently, our
analysis of economic effects on
commercial facilities is qualitative.
(3) Generaton of large quantities of
wastes. EPA's analysis of the effects of
this rule on generating plants disposing
of large quantities of affected wastes
off-site assumes that commercial
facilities can entirely pass on to them
the costs of compliance with this
regulation in Ihe form of higher prices
for waste management services.
Because of data limitations m the Mail
Survey. EPA has not developed plant-
specific waste characterization.
treatment methods, and compliance
costs for generators, as it has for TSDFs.
Our analysis of the economic effects of
the rule on this group uses Survey data
to develop model plants generating
average, maximum and minimum waste
quantities. This allows EPA to assess
Ihe range of possible effects on
generating plants.
2. Costs and Economic Impacts
a. Total costs and economic impacts
for solvent wastes. Total annualized
compliance costs for facilities currently
land disposing of solvent wastes are
$147 million. Commercial TSDFs
account for 02 percent of this total.
while non-commercial TSDFs account
for the balance. Although SQGs
constitute 72 percent of the total
population of TSDFs and generators of
solvent waste, they account for only 12
percent of the total costs. These costs
are not adjusted for the effect of
taxation, which is merely a transfer
from one sector of Ihe economy to
another Costs are stated in 1985 dollars.
Economic effects have been assessed
for both non-commercial and
commercial facilities. Non-commercial
facilities are those which do not accept
fees in exchange for management and
dispoaal of wastes generated by other
plants. Among the 48 non-commercial
facilities, twelve appear likely to be
significantly affected because of
compliance costs imposed by this rule.
Based on further analysis, three of these
twelve facilities seem likely to close.
Employment effects associated with
these potential closures amount to 224
jobs lost
Among commercial facilities (i.e..
those which manage the wastes of other
firms for a fee) direct effects were
impossible to assess due to the lack of
any appropriate Standard Industrial
Classification code (SIC) from which to
draw Census financial data. Therefore.
EPA's analysis has assumed thai
commercial facilities will be able to
pasa the increased costs of regulatory
compliance on lo their customers in the
form of higher prices. The cost of
compliance with today's rule is thu»
assumed to fall on consumers of
commercial hazardous waste
management services, and a qualitative
assessment of economic effects on
commercial facilities is performed.
We estimate that 26 commercial
facilities will incur incremental costs as
a result of today's final rule. Forty
percent of these commercial facilities
-------
40634 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 198B / Rules and Regulations
offer a range of hazardous waste
management services, including land-
based disposal, storage and treatment.
For these facilities, the increased
demand this rule will create for more
highly-pnce treatment services may
actually increase firm financial viability.
For the 27 percent of commercial
facilities which offer solely land-based
management of restricted wastes, on the
other hand, the increased emphasis on
treatment prior to land disposal may
reduce demand for these services. It was
not possible to characterize the
remaining 33 percent of commercial
facilities based on services offered.
Based on RIA Mail Survey data, the
five industrial sectors which send the
majority of the solvent waste to each
commercial facility have been identified.
Actual plants generating these wastes
cannot be identified using Mall Survey
data. Therefore. EPA examines
economic effects on generating plants
using model plants generating minimum.
maximum and average quantities for
each sector identified in the RIA Mail
Survey. Ratios of the compliance costs
to costs of production, and gross margin
to compliance costs are examined for
each of the five sectors which sends
affected waste to each of these 28
facilities. This procedure is intended to
bound the range of economic effects
likely to occur among generating plants.
Economic effects presented in this unit
are based on average waste quantities.
This analysis identifies 98 industrial
sectors, representing 5.511 plants.
generating solvent waste for off-site
commercial management. Of these 5.511
plants. 1.004 may experience significant
economic impacts. Among the most
adversely affected plants are
manufacturers of fabricated metals
products (SIC 34). This sector includes
718 significantly affected facilities.
Other affected sectors include SIC 33.
primary metals products, in which 167
plants may close, and SIC 28, the
chemical industry, in which 42 plants
may close. Based on further analysis. 79
of these facilities appear likely to close.
Job loss associated with these closures
amounts to 5.240 jobs in the plating and
polishing industry and 187 in the
industrial inorganic chemicals industry.
Total annualized costs for the 14.400
small quantity generators of solvent
wastes are $18 million. Based on the
estimated cost for off-site incineration.
maximum incremental compliance
charges for any individual SQC will not
exceed $13.200 annually. Economic
ratios were examined for all SQGs in
each sector identified in the EPA survey
as generating solvent wastes. Based on
this examination. EPA identified 975
facilities which may be significantly
affected by compliance costs of this
rule. On closer examination, no SQGs
appeared likely to close as a result of
costs imposed by this rule.
o Total costs and economic impacts
far dioxin wastes. Total annualized
compliance costs for the approximately
47 non-soil sources of dioxin wastes are
$3.2 million. Costs for managing that
portion of the estimated 1.1 billion
pounds of existing dioxin-contaminated
soil for which this regulation will require
BOAT treatment are $2.2 million. A
preliminary study of dioxin-
contammated soils suggests that only 5
percent of the total quantity will require
incineration, and the coats reflect this
finding. Ninety-five percent of these
soils. EPA estimates, will not be subject
to restrictions on land disposal because
they will meet the treatment standard.
Economic effects appear most
significant for plants in SIC 2889 as •
result of the restriction of dioxin wastes.
This sector manufactures industrial
organic chemicals, with major products
such aa solvents, ooncydic organic*.
and polyhydric alcohols. One plant may
close as a result of restrictions in this
group. Other affected SIC sectors
include 2879. in which one plant may
close. SIC 2879 includes planta
manufacturing pesticides and
agricultural chemicals for household and
farm use.
3. Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of the
Restrictions Rule
a. Benefit* and cost-effectivenott of
restricting had disposal of solvent-
containing wastes. The Agency
performed a benefits analysis that
assessed the incremental reductions la
human health effects taking into account
net changes in risk molting from the
use of alternative solvent waste
management practices. Based on this
analysis of relative risks. It was
determined that substantial reductions
In both average and maximum health
risks are possible when alternative
technologies to land disposing solvent
wastes are used. Incineration and
distillation of halogenated (F001 and
F002) solvent wastes result in
substantial reductions in human health
risk when compared to disposal of such
wastes in land disposal units.
Incineration reduces average risks by a
minimum of four orders of magnitude
from the levels for landfills, a factor that
is similarly reflected by the reductions
in risk to the most exposed individual
(MET). Risk reductions for halogenated
solvent wastes disposed in surface
impoundments an also substantial For
the non-halogenated wastes, although
risk levels were substantially reduced.
the reduction in human health risk were
less significant, since initial levels were
often below (he Acceptable Daily Intake
(ADI).
Benefits attributable to the
restrictions on solvent wastes have also
been assessed by the Agency in another
regulatory impact analysis prepared in
support of the overall land disposal
restrictions program (see "Draft
Regulatory Analysis of Proposal
Restrictions on Land Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes" in the RCRA docket
entitled LDR-2). Relevant data on the
restricted F001-FOOS wastes provided in
this analysis may be summed to obtain
a total incremental benefit (number of
cases of cancer or cancer-equivalence
avoided) of 118 cases avoided or
annualized benefits for solvents equal to
l.aa cases avoided. Division of the total
annualized cost of the solvents land
disposal restrictions. $147 million, by the
annualized cases avoided. 1.66.
determines that the cost of the
regulation is $88.7 million per cancer
case avoided.
The benefits in both RIA documents
discussed above may be underestimated
in this analysis because the estimates
are based solely on the advene human
health effects resulting from exposure to
the solvent constituents in these wastes.
Other benefit considerations.
specifically environmental benefits.
nska from minimization of liner
degradation, and risks attributable to
mobilization of other toxic constituents
land disposed with solvents, were not
evaluated. Since the benefits analysis is
based only on the toxicity of the
solvents themselves, the benefits of the
land disposal restrictions for spent
solvent wastes may be significantly
underestimated.
b. Benefits and cost-effectiveness of
restricting land disposal of dioxin-
containing wastes. The assessment of
risk associated with today's rule
depends to a significant degree on
assumptions regarding baseline disposal
practices end on the population exposed
to releases from land disposal. These
assumptions and their effect on the
benefit estimates are discussed in detail
in the supporting RIA (Ref. 9).
Based on the assumptions regarding
incineration performances and baseline
practices that effectively minimize risks.
it appears that reductions in expected
health effects would be insignificant for
many of the affected dioxin wastes.
Baseline MEI risks for some dioxin
wastes were high and would be reduced
significantly by incineration. The
benefits of the rule depend strongly on
whether discharge of untreated scrubber
water (with undetpctable levels of
-------
Federal Regjater / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
40635
dioxin) from incinerator* are likely to
occur and whether spills and run-off
from landfill or incineration facilities are
likely to result in contamination of
surface waters. Such surface water
contamination, however, is not expected
to occur, Although the rule may not
reduce expected levels of health effects
for many types of dioxin wastes, it may
reduce the uncertainty about potential
risks associated with the current
regulatory status for dioxms.
Quantification of the incremental
benefits for restricting land disposal of
dioxin wastes results in a calculated
annualized dioxin benefit value of zero
cases avoided, though as noted above,
this risk estimate is very dependent on
assumptions about population exposed
and treatment of scrubber waters from
incinerators (of which then are
currently none), and may significantly
underestimate actual risk reductions.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act S U.S.C. 601 et seq.. whenever an
agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a regulatory
flexibility analysis which describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (I.e..
imall businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions).
This analysis is unnecessary, however,
if the Administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities.
EPA has examined the rule's potential
effect on small business as required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and has
concluded that this regulation will not
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities. Aa a result of
this finding, EPA has not prepand a
formal Regulatory Flexibility Analyst* in
support of this rule. The following
discussion summarizes the methodology
used in the small business analysis and
the findings on which the conclusion*
above are based. Mora detailed
information is available in the
documents assembled in the record
prepared in support of this ruleraaking.
1. Economic Impact on Small Businesses
EPA evaluated the economic effect of
today's rule on small businesses, which
are defined as those facilities employing
fewer than 50 persons. Because! of data
limitations, this small business analysis
excludes generators of large quantities
of affected wastes. The universe of
small businesses that were examined in
the analysis here includes two groups:
all TSDFs employing fewer than 50
people, and all SQCs which are also
small businesses. Eleven TSDFs are
small businesses. None of these exceed
threshold values on the cost of
production ratio. Twenty-five percent
(twelve out of 48) of all non-commercial
facilities are expected to experience
adverse economic effects.
Of the total of 14.400 small quantity
generators examined in this analysis.
the vast majority [10,395 or 72 percent)
are also small businesses. A total of SB
SQCs (or .6 percent of small businesses
SQCs) exceeded threshold values on the
cost of production ratio. For the
population of small businesses as a
whole, less than one percent are likely
to be affected.
The small business analysis
performed for sources of dioxin wastes
revealed that no plants employing fewer
than 50 persons experience significant
economic effects as a result of costs
imposed by this regulation.
2. Certification of Finding Thai No
Regulatory Flexibility Analyst* Is
Required
This role was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by Executive Order
12291 EPA performed an analysis.
described above, to determine whether
this rule would impose significant costs
on small entities (SM U.S. EPA. 1985).
Results of the analysis indicate chat this
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Accordingly. 1 hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
impact on a substantial nwnber of small
entities. Therefore, this regulation does
not require a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysts.
C. Review ofSuppartmg Document* and
Response to Public Comment
1. Review of Supporting Documents
The primary source of informanon on
current land disposal practices and
industries affected by restrictions on
solvent waste is EPA's 1981 National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
and Treatment Storage and Disposal
Facilities (referred to in this preamble as
the "R1A Mail Survey"). Waste stream
characterization data and engineering
costs of waste management are based
on the Mail Survey and on reports by
the Mitre Corporation "Composition of
Hazardous Waste Streams Currently
Incinerated/' (April 1863). and U.S. EPA
"The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model"
(March 1984). The survey of Small
Quantity Generators has been the major
source of data on this group. EPA's
Office of Research and Development
developed estimates of the type and
quantity of wastes containing dioxins
and meeting the listing definitions for
these wastes.
For financial and value of shipment
information for the general screening
analysis. 1982 Census data was used.
adjusted by 1983 Annual Census of
Manufactures data. Producer price
indices were also used to restate 1983
dollars in 1985 terms.
2. Response to Comments
Several commenters contend that EPA
has grossly understated the total costs
of this rule because the Agency failed to
consider product substitution. In
particular, commenters were concerned
that some producers of certain inputs to
other end products may suffer as
downstream manufacturers switch to
inputs which generate less hazardous
waste.
EPA disagrees with the commenlers'
statement that the total cost of the rule
is understated. In fact because EPA's
analysis does not allow for longer term
market adjustments such as product
substitution, it overstates total costs.
The switch to products and inputs which
generate less hazardous waste will
undoubtedly cause short-term
dislocation and economic hardship, both
to the suppliers of highly polluting inputs
and to the manufacturers forced by
higher waste treatment coats to switch
to higher cost inputs.
Other commenters argue that the
Agency has not sufficiently balanced
cost and risk in designing regulations
restricting land disposal. EPA believes
that its consideration of costs and
benefits has been comprehensive and
consistent with Executive Order 12291.
One commenter stated the EPA's
assessment that land disposal
restrictions on solvent wastes did not
constitute a major rule was incorrect.
EPA agrees with the commenter. Based
oa the Agency's reassessment of
treatment costs. EPA now considers this
final rule to be major by the criteria
given in Executive Order 12291.
Another eommenter expressed
concern that restricted wastes will
compete with noo-restnctive wastes for
alternative capacity. Given the cost
differential between direct land
disposal, which EPA is prescribing for
regulated waste, and treatment through
incineration or other treatment
technology, it is likely that restricted
wastes will use what limited
incineration capacity exists.
The commenter correctly points out
that the increased demand for waste
treatment services may have the effect
of driving up the price of these services.
thus making it uneconomic for non-
-------
40036 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 218 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
restricted wastes to be treated in BOAT
treatments. EPA also believes it likely
that alternative capacity will be
rationed through the medium of price.
and that producers of non-restncted
wastes may find the new price
prohibitive. This effect of establishing
treatment priorities is expected to
prevent the use of limited incineration
capacity on non-restricted wastes which
do not present the environmental
dangers associated with restricted
wastes.
Finally, some commenters objected
that EPA did not consider economic
achievability in setting treatment
standards. Economic achievability is not
a consideration for rulemaking under
RCRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 198ft
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.. requires that the
information collection requirements of
proposed and final rules be submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for approval. OMB has approved
the information collection requirements
contained in this rule and assigned the
OMB Control Number 2030-0062
This rule modifies another information
collection requirement that has been
approved by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act and given the number
2050-0012. The appropriate changes to
these requirements have been approved
by OMB.
XI. References
Background Document*
(1) U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
Solvents, to Support Land Oitpofal
Restrictions. Vol. L" U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1969.
(2) U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
Sulventi. to Support Land Disposal
Restrictions. Vol. II." U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1989.
(3) U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Final TCLP Response to Technical and
Procedural Comments Pursuant to the Final
Land Disposal Restrictions Rule for Solvents
and Diouns." U S EPA. OSW. Washington.
DC. 1988.
(4) U S. EPA. "BOAT Background
Document for FOOl-FOOS Speni Solvents."
LI S EPA. OSW. Washington. DC 1966.
(S) U.S. EPA. "Comparative Risk Case
Study (or Metal-Beanng Solvent Waste*."
U S. EPA. OSW. Washington. DC 1988.
(6) U.S. EPA. "Thermal Treatment
Background Information, to Support Land
Disposal Restrictions." U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1968.
Guidance Document*
(7) U.S. EPA. "Interim Status Surface
Impoundments Retrofitting Variances
Guidance Document" U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC EPA/530-SW-46-017.1966.
(61 U.S. EPA "Waste Analysis Plan*. A
Guidance Manual." US. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1984.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
(9) U.S. EPA. "Regulatory Analysis of
Restrictions on Land Disposal of Certain
Dioxin-Conlammg Wastes." U S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1986.
(10) U.S. EPA. "Regulatory Analysis of
Restrictions on Land Disposal of Certain
Solvent Wastes." U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1988.
Other Reference*
(11) Acurex Carp. "Characterization of
Kaiardous Watte Incineration Residual*."
US. EPA. Contract No. 68-41-3241.1986.
(12) ICF. Inc. "Assessment of Inpacta of
LDR on Ocean Disposal of Solvent*. Dioxine.
and California List Waste*." U.S. EPA. OSW.
EPA Contract No. 66-01-7239.1966.
(13) ICF. Inc. "Scoping Analysis for RCRA
Section MOS(JHll)." U.S. EPA. OSW. EPA
Contract No. 66-01-6621.1969.
(14) Industrial Economic*. "Regulatory
Analysis of Wa«t*-Aa-Fu*l Technical
Standards." Prepared for U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1986.
(19) Mitre Corp. "Incineration and Cement
Kiln Capacity for Hazardous Waste
Treatment" U.S. EPA. OSW. Washington,
DC 1989.
(16) NATO Committee. "NATO-CCMS
Pilot Study on Disposal of Hazardous
Waste*." Anon V. NATO Committee on the
Challenge* of Modem Society. Brunei*.
Belgium. 1381.
(17) Radian Corp; "Follow-Up Survey of
Selected Facilities.- UA EPA. Washington.
DC 1988.
(18) Reed. R.J. North American Combuilion
Handbook, tan.
(19) U.S. EPA. "Analysis of the Quantity of
Watt* from CEXCLA Action*." Raw Data.
U.S. EPA. OERR. Washington, DC 1986.
(20) US. EPA. "Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guideline* *nd
Standard* for the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Point Source Category." U A.
EPA. OW. Washington. DC EPA/440-1-83/
064. pp. 120-130,19831
(21) U.S EPA. Telephone Verification
Survey of Commercial Facilities That Manage
Solvent*." Compiled by Pope-Reid A*soc.
and Radian Corp. U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1986.
(22) UA EPA "RCRA Method 8260 for the
Analysis of Polychlormated Dibenio-A
Dioxin* and Polychlonnated Dibenzorurana."
US. EPA. OSW. Washington. DC September
IS. 1968.
(23| Friedman. Paul (U S. EPA. Office of
Solid Waste). Memorandum entitled
••Detection Limit of 6260 in TCLP Laachale."
September 26.1986.
(24) U.S. EPA "Background Document for
Proposed Toxleity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure." U.S. EPA. OSW. Washmgtoa
DC March 10.1966.
Uat of Subjects In 40 CFR Parts 260,281.
262.264.265.268. 270. and 271
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Environmental protection,
Hazardous materials. Hazardous
materials transportation. Hazardous
waste. Imports. Indian lands. Insurance.
Intergovernmental relations. Labeling.
Packaging and containers. Penalties.
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Security measures. Surety
bonds. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control. Water supply.
U*M. Thomas.
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble.
Chapter I of Title 40 is amended as
follows:
PART 260— HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
L In Part 260:
1. The authority citation for Part 280
continue* to read as follow*:
Authority? Sec*. 1008. 2002(a|. 3001 through
3007. 3010. 3014. 3013, 3017. 3018. and 3019.
Solid Watte Disposal Act. as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976. as amended (42 U S.C 690S. 6912(8).
9921 through 8927. 8930. 6934. 6939. 6837. 9938.
and 9939).
99 260.1. 260J, 2604, 260.10. 26&20
(Amended)
2. By inserting in the first sentence
"and 206" after the phrase "Part* 260
through 269" in the following places:
a. 40 CFR 260.1 (a) and (b)(l) through
H).
b. 40 CFR 260.2(8).
c. 40 CFR 280.3 introductory text.
d. 40 CFR 200.10 introductory text.
e. 40 CFR 280.20(a).
(Amended)
3. In | 260.2. paragraph (b) is amended
by inserting "and 288" after the phrase
"Parts 260 through 268".
PART 281— IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OP HAZARDOUS WASTE
n. la Part 281:
1. The authonty citation for Part 261
continues to read as follow*:
Authority: Sec*. 1008. 2002(a|. 3001. and
3002 of the Solid Waate Disposal Acl. a*
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Acl of 1978. aa amended (42 U.S.C
6909. 6912(a). 6921. and 6922).
H 261.1, 26 1.4. 261 JO. 261.30 (Amended)
2. By adding the Part number "268."
after the phrase "Parts 262 through 265"
in the following places:
a. 40 CFR 281.1U) introductory text:
b.40CFR261.4(c);
c. 40 CFR 281.20(b): and
d. 40 CFR 2B1.30(C).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations 40637
5261.1 [Amtnded]
3. In } 261.1. paragraph (a)(l) is
amended by inserting ". 268" after the
phrase "Parts 282 through 266".
5 261.4 [Amended)
4. By removing From paragraph (d)(l)
introductory text of 9 261.4 the Part
number "267" and inserting the Part
number "268" m its place.
9261.5 [Amended]
5. In i 281.5 paragraphs (b). (c). (e)
introductory text and (f)(2) are amended
by inserting ". 288." after the phrase
"Parts 262 through 266".
a In 1281.5 paragraph fg)(2J is
amended by inserting ". 261" after the
phrase "Parts 283 through 208".
$261.6 [Amended]
7. In S 281.8 paragraph (a)(3)
introductory text is amended by
inserting Part number "268." after the
phrase "Part 282 throogh 288 or Parts".
8. By revising paragraph (c)(l) of
{ 281.8 to read as follows:
§ 261.6 RajcjuUfSjnieiits tar pecydable>
matawtstau
• • • • •
(c)(l) Owners or operators of facilities
that store recyclable materials before
they are recycled are regulated under all
applicable provisions of Subparta A
through L of Parts 264 and 255. and
under Parts 124.288. 288. and 270 of this
Chapter and the notification
requirements under section 3010 of
RCRA. except as provided in paragraph
(a) of this section. (The recycling
process itself is exempt from regulation.)
9261,7 [Amended!
9. In 9 281.7 paragraphs (a) (l)(ii) and
(2)(n) are amended by adding the Part
number "288." after the phrase "Parts
261 through 265. or Part".
PART 2W—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OP HAZARDOUS
WASTE
HI. In Part 262:
1. The authority citation for Part 262
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006.2002.3001.3002,3003.
3004.3005. sod 3017 of the Solid Waste
DIspCMl Act. a* amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as
amended [42 U.S.C 0906.6912.6922 through
6923. and 6937).
Subpart A—General
2. In 5 282.11. paragraph (d) is added
to read as follows:
} 26111 Hszardoua waste dttermmatJon.
(d) If the waste is determined to be
hazardous, the generator must refer to
Parts 264.265.268 of this chapter for
possible exclusions or restrictions
pertaining to management of his specific
waste.
PART 263—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
IV. In Part 283:
1. The authority citation for Part 283 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 2002(a|. 3002,3003. 30M
and 300S of the Solid Waste Disposal Act u
amended by Ihe Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 and as amended by the
Quiet Communities Act of 197B, (42 U.S.C.
6912a. 6922,6923,6924.8925).
Subport A Oanaral
9263.12 [Amended)
2, By inserting ". 288" after the phrase
"Parts 270.264. and 269".
PART 284—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OP
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT.
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
V. In Part 284:
1. The authority citation for Part 284
continues to read as follows?
Authority. Sees. 1006.2032.3001 and 3005
at Ihe Solid Waal* DUpOMl Act a* amended
by the Rasouice Conservation and Recovery
Act of 197B. aa sanded (42 U.S.C. 8005.6912.
6924. end 8925).
Subpart B—GaiMral Facility Standards
2. In 9 284.13. by revising paragraphs
(a)(l) and (b)(8) and adding paragraph
(bj(7J to read as follows:
{264.13 Oenenlwaateianalyele.
(a)(l) Before) an owner ot operator
treats, stores, or disposes of any
hazardous waste, he must obtain •
detailed chemical and physical analysis
of a representative sample of the waste.
At s """'""""i this analysis oust
contain all the info""***1* which must
be known to treat store, or dispose of
the waste in accordance with the
requirements of this part of Part 288 of
this chapter or with the conditions of •
permit isssed under Pen 270 aad Part
124 of this chapter.
• • • • •
(b) * *'
(6) Where applicable the methods
which will be used to meet the
additional waste analysis requirements
for specific waste management methods
as specified in 9 f 284.17.264.314. 264.341
and 268.7 of this chapter.
[7] For surface? impoundments
exempted from land disposal
restrictions under S 268.4(a|. (he
procedures and schedules for:
(i) The sampling of impoundment
contents;
(li) The analysis of test data: and.
(lit) The annual removal of residue
which does not meet the standards of
Part 268 Subpart D of this chapter.
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Racordkeaping, and Reporting
3. In 9 284.73, by revising paragraph
(b)(3) and adding paragraphs (b)(10J
through (b)(14) to read as follows:
} 264.71 Operating record.
(b)' • •
(3) Records and results of waste
analyses performed as specified in
99 264.13, 284.17. 264.314.264.341.
268.4(a). and 268.7 of this chapter.
(10) Records of the quantities (and
date of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to 9 268.5 or a petition
pursuant to 9 268.6, and the notice
required by a generator under
9 268.7(a)(3):
(11) For an off-si re treatment facility, a
copy of the notice required by a
generator under 9 2fla.7(a)(l);
(12) For an on-site treatment facility.
the information contained in the notice
required by a generator under
9 2B8.7(a)(l). except for the manifest
number;
(13) For an off-site land disposal
facility, a copy of the notice and
certification required by the owner or
operator of a treatment facility under
9 2B8.7(b) (1) and (2), or a copy of the
notice and certification required by the
generator under 9 288J(a)(2). whichever
is applicable: and
(14) For an on-site land disposal
facility, the information contained in the
notice required undeer 9 268.7(a)(2).
except for the manifest number, or the
information contained in the notice
required by a treater under 9 26&7(b)(l}.
except for the manifest number.
whichever la applicable.
(Approved by Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0012)
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT STORAGE AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
VI. In Part 285:
-------
40638 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
1. The authority citation for Part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a). 3004. 3005
and 3015 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended by the Resource Conservation a.id
Recovery Act of 1976 as amended (42 U S C
fi90S 6912 (a). 6924. 6925. «ind 6935)
Subpart B— General Facility Standards
2. In 9 265.13. paragraphs (a)(l) and
(h)(6) are revised and paragraph (b)(7) is
ddded to read as follows:
§285.13 Central waste analysis.
(a)(l) Before an owner or operator
treats, stores, or disposes of any
hazardous waste, he must obtain a
detailed chemical and physical analysis
of a representative sample of the waste.
At a minimum, this analysis must
contain all the information which must
be known to treat, store, or dispose of
the waste in accordance with the
requirements of this part and Part 268 of
this chapter.
• ••••)
(b) ' • '
(6) Where applicable, the methods
which will be used to meet the
additional waste analysis requirements
for specific waste management methods
as specified in } } 265.193. 265.225.
Z65.2S2. 265.273. 265.314. 265.341. 265.375.
265 402 and 268.7 of this chapter.
(7) For surface impoundments
exempted from land disposal
restrictions under 1 26B.4(a) of this
chapter, the procedures and schedule
for:
(i) The sampling of impoundment
contents:
(n) The analysis of test data: and.
(in) The annual removal of residue
which does not meet the standards of
Pdrt 268 Subpart O of this chapter.
Subpart E— Manifest System.
Recordkeeplng, and Reporting
3. In i 265.73. by revising paragraph
(b](3) and adding paragraphs (b)(B)
through (b)(12) to read as follows:
9265.73 Operating record.
(3) Records and results of waste
analysis and trial tests performed as
specified in 99 265.13. 265.193. 265.225.
265.252. 265.273. 265.314. 265.341. 285J75.
265.402. 268.4(a) and 268.7 of this
chapter.
• • • • •
(8) Records of the quantities (and dale
of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to 9 268.5. or a petition
pursuant to 9 268.8 and the notice
required by a generator under
9 268.7(a)(3).
(9) For an off-site treatment facility.
the notice required by a generator under
9 268.7(a)(l):
(10) For an on-site treatment facility
the information contained in the notice
required by a generator under
9 268.7(a)(l). except for the manifest
number.
(11) For an off-site land disposal
facility, the notice and certification
required by the owner or operator of a
treatment facility under i 268.7(b) or the
certification required by the generator
under § 288.7(a)(2). whichever is
applicable:
(12) For an on-site land disposal
facility, the Information contained in the
notice required by a generator under
9 26&7(a)(2). except for the manifest
number, or the information contained in
the notice required by the treatment
facility under 9 268.7(b)(2). except for
the manifest number, whichever Is
applicable.
(Approved by Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0012)
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
VII. In Part 268:
1. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1008.2002(a). 3001. and
3004 of the Solid Waale Dlaposa! Act aa
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978. as amended (42 U.S.C
6903.6912(a). 6921. and 6824).
2. By adding Subparts A. C 0. and E
to Part 268 to read as follows:
Subpart A General
288.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
26U Definitions applicable to this part
2B&I Dilution prohibited a«a substitute for
treatment.
288.4 Treatment surface impoundment
exemption.
26U Procedure* for case-by-case
extensions to an effecuve date.
268.6 Petitions to allow land disposal of a
waste prohibited under Subpart C of Part
268.
288.7 Waste analysis.
Subpart C-ProMMttons on Land Disposal
288.30 Waste specific prohibitions—Solvent
wastes.
2BU1 Waste specific prohibitions—Dloxm-
containing waste*.
288.40 Applicability of treatment standard*.
288.41 Treatment standards expressed aa
concentration* in waste extract
268,42 Treatment standards expressed a*
specified technologies.
268.43 Treatment standards expressed as
waste concentrations. (Reserved]
268.44 Variance from a treatment standard
Subpart E—Prohibitions on Storage
268 50 Prohibitions on storage of restricted
wastes.
Appendix 1 to Prfrt 268—Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TOP)
Appendix II to Part 258—Treatment
Standards (As Concentrations in the
Treatment Residual Extract)
Subpart A—General
9 268.1 Purpose), ecopo and applicability.
(a) This part identifies hazardous
wastes that are restricted from land
disposal and defines those limited
circumstances under which an
otherwise prohibited waste may
continue to be land disposed.
(b) Except as specifically provided
otherwise in this part or Part 261 of this
chapter, the requirements of this part
apply to persons who generate or
transport hazardous waste and owners
and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
(c) Prohibited wastes may continue to
be land disposed as follows:
(1) Persons have been granted an
extension from the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to 9 268.5. with
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension:
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under 9 268.6. with respect
to those wastes and units covered by
the petition: or
(3) Until November a 1988. land
disposal of contaminated soil or debris
resulting from a response action taken
under section 104 or 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 or a corrective action
required under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
(4) Small quantity generators of less
than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste
per month, as defined in 9 261.5 of this
chapter.
9268.2 Defmttlww applicable to mis part
(a) When used m this part the
following terms have the meanings given
below:
"Hazardous constituent or
constituents" means (hose constituents
listed in Appendix VIII to Part 261 of
this chapter.
"Land disposal" means placement in
or on the land and includes, but is not
limited to. placement in a landfill.
surface impoundment waste pile.
injection well land treatment facility.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40639
sail dome formation, salt bed formation.
underground mine or cave, concrete
vault or bunker intended for disposal
purposes, and placement m or on the
land by means of open detonation and
open burning where the residues
continue to exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. The
terra "land disposal" does no!
encompass ocean disposal.
(b) All other terms have the meanings
given under J§ 280.10. 261.2. 281.3. or
270.2 of this chapter.
{268.3 OKuttoflpranUMtedasaauoatmite
lor treatment
No generator, transporter, handler, or
owner or operator of a treatment.
storage, or disposal facility shall in any
way dilute a restricted waste or the
residual from treatment of a restricted
waste at a substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with
Subpart D of this part.
Treatment surface impoundment
exemption.
[a] The requirements of this part do
not apply to persons treating hazardous
wastes in a surface impoundment or
series of impoundments provided that:
(l] Treatment of such wastes occurs in
the impoundment;
(2) The residues of the treatment an
analyzed, as specified In 1 268,7, to
determine if they meet the applicable
treatment standard* in S 268.41. The
sampling method, specified in the waste
analysis plan under f 294.13 or 9 285.13.
must be designed such that
representative samples of the sludge
and the supernatant are tested •
separately rather than mixed to form
homogeneous samples. The treatment
residues (including any liquid waste)
that do not meet the treatment
standards promulgated under Subpart D
of this part, or are not delisted under
3 260.22 of this chapter, must be
removed at least annually. These
residues may not be placed in any other
surface impoundment for subsequent
management. If the volume of liquid
flowing through the impoundment or
series of impoundments annually is
greater than the volume of the
impoundment or impoundments, this
flow-through constitutes removal of the
supernatant for the purpose of this
requirement. The procedures and
schedule for the sampling of
impoundment contents, the analysis of
test data, and the annual removal of
residue which does not meet the Subpart
D treatment standards must be specified
in the facility's waste analysis plan as
required under S J 254.13 or 285.13 of this
chapter
(3] The impoundment must meet the
design requirements of f 264.221(c) or
\ 26S.221(a) of this chapter, regardless
that the unit may not be new. expanded.
or a replacement, and be in compliance
with applicable ground water
monitoring requirements of Subpart F of
Part 264 or Part 264 of this chapter
unless:
(i) Exempted pursuant to \ 264.221 (d)
or (e) of this chapter, or to ] 265.221 (c)
or (d) of this chapter or.
(ii) Upon application by the owner or
operator, the Administrator has granted
a waiver of the requirements on the
basis that the surface impoundment:
(A) Has at least one liner, for which
there is no evidence that such liner ia
leaking:
(B) Is located more than one-quarter
mile from an underground source of
drinking water and
(C) ta In compliance with generally
applicable ground water monitoring
requirements for facilities with permits;
or.
(iii) Upon application by the owner or
operator, the Administrator has granted
a modification to the requirements on
the baaia of a demonstration that the
surface impoundment U located.
designed, and operated ao as to assure
that there will be no migration of any
hazardous constituent into ground water
or surface water at any future time.
(4) The owner or operator must submit
to trie Regional Administrator a written
certification that the requirements of
B 26a4(a)(3) have bean met and submits
a copy of the wasta analysis plan
required under f 266.4(a)(2). The
following certification is required:
I certify under penalty of lew that Iks
requirement* of 40 CTR MMUIP) have been
met for all surface impoundments being used
to treat restricted waitea. I believe thai the
submitted Information is true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there an
significant penaldea for nibmitiuig fake
Information, Including the possibility of fine
J2SAJ Procedure* (or case by case
extension* to an etlscthrei date*
(a] Any person who generates, treats.
stores, or disposes of a hazardous waste
may submit an application to the
Administrator for an extension to the
effective date of any applicable
restriction established under Subpart C
of this Part. The applicant must
demonstrate the following:
(1) He has made a good-faith effort to
locate and contract with treatment.
recovery, or disposal facilities
nationwide to manage his waste in
accordance with the effective dale of the
applicable restriction established under
Subparl C of this Part,
(2) He has entered into a binding
contractual commitment to construct or
otherwise provide alternative treatment.
recovery (e g.. recycling), or disposal
capacity that meets the treatment
standards specified in Subpart D;
(3) Due to circumstances beyond the
applicant's control, such alternative
capacity cannot reasonably be made
available by the applicable effective
date. This demonstration may include a
showing that the technical and practical
difficulties associated with providing the
alternative capacity will result in the
capacity not being available by the
applicable effective date:
[4} The capacity being constructed or
otherwise provided by the applicant will
be sufficient to manage the entire
quantity of waste that ia the subject of
the application:
(SJ He provides a detailed schedule
for obtaining required operating and
construction permits on an outline of
how and when alternative capacity will
be available;
(8) He has arranged for adequate
capacity to manage his waste during an
extension and has documented tn the
application the location of alt sites at
which the waste will be managed: and
(7) Any waste managed in a surface
impoundment or landfill dunng the
extension period will meet the
requirements of paragraph (h)(2| of this
section.
(b] An authorized representative
signing an application described under
paragraph (aj of this section shall make
the following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that I have
penonaDy examined and that I am familiar
with the information submitted in ihu
document and all attachments and thai.
baaed on my inquiry of those individuals
Immediately reiponaible for obtaining the
Information. 1 behave that the information is
true, accurate, and complete, t am aware that
then are significant penalties for submitting
falsa information, including the possibility of
fine end imprisonment
(c) After receiving an application For
an extension, the Administrator may
request any additional information
which he deems as necessary to
evaluate the application.
(d) An extension will apply only to the
waste generated at the individual
facility covered by the application and
will not apply to restricted waste from
any other facility.
(e) On the basis of the information
referred to in paragraph (a) of this
section, after notice and opportunity tor
comment, and after consultation wtth
appropriate State agencies in all
affected States, the Administrator may
grant an extension of up to 1 year from
-------
40640 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
the effective date. The Administrator
may review this extension for up to 1
additional year upon the request of the
dpolicdnt if the demonstration required
ir. paragraph (.1) of this section can still
be "i
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 4Q641
(j) The petition granted by the
Administrator does not reliveve the
petitioner of his responsibilities in the
management of hazardous waste under
40 CFR Part 260 through Par) 271.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
fludflPt under cunirul nuirbfr 4150-0042)
§268.7 Waitt analysis.
(a) The generator must lest his waste
or an extract developed using (he IPS!
method described in Appendix I of this
part, or using knowledge of the waste to
determine if the waste is restricted from
land disposal under this part.
(1) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part and the waste requires treatment
prior to land disposal, for each shipment
of waste the generator must notify the
treatment facility in writing of the
appropriate treatment standard set forth
in Subpart 0 of this part. The notice
must include the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standard:
(in) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste andlysis data, where
available.
(2) If a'genera tor determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part, and determines that the waste can
be land disposed without further
treatment, for each shipment of waste
he must submit, to the land disposal
facility, a notice and a certification
stating (hat the waste meets applicable
treatment standards.
(i) The notice must include the
following information:
(A) EPA Hazardous Waste Number
(B) The corresponding treatment
standard:
(C) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste:
(D) Waste analysis data, where
available.
(n) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the following:
1 e*r»:fy under penalty of law that 1
personally ruve eiamined and am familiar
with the wan* through analysis and letting
or through knowledge of the waste to support
this certification thai the waste complies with
the treatment standards specified in 40 CFR
Part 288 Subparl D I beleive that the
Information I submitted is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that then am
atgniflcanl penalties tot submitting a falte
certtflcatloa including (he poMibilily of a
fine and imprisonment.
(3) If a generator's waste is subject to
a case-by-case extension under 1268.5,
a petition under 1288-6. or a nationwide
variance under Subpart C he must
forward a notice to the land disposal
facility receiving his waste, stating (hat
the waste is exempt from the land
disposal restrictions.
(b) Kor wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extrdct (§ 268 41), the
owner or operator of the treatment
facility must test the treatment residues
according to the waste analysis plan
under 55 264.13 or 265.13. or an extract
development using the test method
described in Appendix I of this part to
assure that the treatment residues
extract meet the applicable treatment
standards.
(10) A notice must be sent to the land
disposal facility which includes the
following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standard:
(iiij The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste: and
(iv) Waste analysis data, where
available.
(2) The treatment facility must submit
a certification for each shipment of
waste or treatment residue of a
restricted waste to the land disposal
facility staling that the waste or
treatment residue has been treated to
the performance standards specificed in
Subpart D.
(i) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extract or in the waste
(59 268.41 or 268.43). the certification
must be signed by an authorized
representative and must stale the
following:
I certify under penalty ol law thai I have
personally examined and am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the
treatment process used to support this
certification and that. ba*»d on my inquiry of
thoie individuals Immediately responsible for
obtaining this information. I believe (hat the
treatment proceea hat been operated and
maintained properly so as to achieve the
performance levels specified in 40 CFR Part
2B8 Subpart 0 without dilution of the
prohibited waste. I am aware that (hen are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including in? possibility of Tine
and imprisonment
(ii) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as technologies
(8 268.42). the certification must be
signed by an authorized representative
and must stale the following:
I certify under penalty of law (hat the
waste has been treated in accordance wiih
the requirement* of 40 CFR 264.42.1 am
aware that there are signflcanl penalties for
submitting • false certification, including the
possibility of fine and Imprisonment.
(c) The owner or operator of any land
disposal facility accepting any waste
subject to restrictions under this part
must have records of the notice and
certification specified in either pargraph
(a] or(b) of this section and obidin
waste analysis data through testing of
the waste to determine that the wastes
are in compliance with the applicable
treatment standards in 5 268.41
(Approved b> the Office of Management *r.*\
Budget under control number 2050-WM2)
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
} 268.30 Waste specific prohibitions-
Solvent waste*.
(a) Effective November 8.1SS6 the
spent solvent wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
FOOT. F002. F003. F004. and FOOS, are
prohibited from land disposal (except in
an injection well) unless one or more of
the following conditions apply:
(1) The generator of the solvent waste
is a small quantity generator of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
month: or
(2) The solvent waste is generated
from any response action taken under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or any corrective
action taken under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), except where the waste is
contaminated soil or debris not subject
to the provisions of this chapter until
November & 1988: or
(3) The solvent waste is a solvent-
water mixture, solvent-containing
sludge, or solvent-contaminated soil
(non-CERCLA or RCRA corrective
action) containing less than 1 percent
total FOOT-FOGS soUent constituents
listed in Table CCW E of J 263.41 of th.s
part.
(b) Effective November 8.W08. the
F001-F003 solvent wastes listed in
paragraphs (a) (1). (2). and (3) of this
section are prohibited from land
disposal. Between November 8.1988.
and November a 1988. wastes included
in paragraphs (a) (l). (2). and f3( of this
section may be disposed of in a landfill
or surface impoundment only if the
facility is in compliance with the
requirements specified in } 268.5[h)(2).
(c) The requirements of paragraphs \
-------
40642 Federal Register / Vo'. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
§26131 Waste specific prohibition
Dlorin—containing waste*.
(a) Effective November 8.1988 the
dioxm-containmg wastes specified in 40
CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. FOM. F021. F023. F026. F027, and
F028. are prohibited from land disposal.
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section do not apply if:
(1) The wastes are treated to meet the
standards of Subpart D of this part: or.
(2) The wastes are disposed at a
facility that has been granted a petition
under ] 268.8: or
(3) An extension has been granted
under } 268.5.
(c) Between November 8.1988. and
November 8.1988. wastes included in
paragraph (a) of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if the facility is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in i 268.5(h](2).
Subpart D—Treatment Standards
9 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standard*.
A restricted waste identified in this
subpart may be land disposed without
further treatment only if an extract of
the waste or of the treatment residual of
the waste developed using the test
method of Appendix 1 of this part does
not exceed the value shown in Table
CCWE of { 268.41 for any hazardous
constituent listed in Table CCWE for •
that waste. A restricted waste for which
a treatment technology is specified
under } 268.42(a) may be land disposed
after it is treated using that specified
technology or an equivalent treatment
method approved by the Administrator
under the procedures set forth in
8 268.42(b).
S 268.41 Treatment Standard* easressesl
as concentrations In waste extract
(a) Table CCWE identifies the
restricted wastes and the concentrations
of their associated hazardous
constituents which may not be exceeded
by the extract of a waste treatment
residual developed using the test
method in Appendix I of this part for the
allowable land disposal of such waste.
(Appendix II of this part provides
Agency guidance on treatment methods
that have been shown to achieve the
Table CCWE levels for the respective
wastes. Appendix II is not a regulatory
requirement but is provided to assist
generators and owners/operators in
their selection of appropriate treatment
methods.)
ABLE CCWE—CONSTITUENT IN WAST*
EXTRACT
FM1-FOM WM MMnta
Action*
n But*
C*eon itvacraono*. .
CfMOll (iVd CFwV|AC BOd) «
TMN
i.i.i-To
CaretKaitan (to ng/l)
Con Ui rang
009
so
105
01
11
1st
12S
81
09
09
09
90
29
X
oos
001
oaa
MI
0079
1 12
109
10S
0.001
oos
oos
098
90
• 81
M
OS
7S
n
129
n
093
79
90
79
0.79
oa
012S
9.13
OOS
033
0,41
ote
0.001
O.M
0.18
(b) When wastes with differing
treatment standards for a constituent of
concern are combined for purposes of
treatment the treatment residue must
meet the lowest treatment standard for
the constituent of concern.
• 26&4I
(a) The following wastes must be
treated using the identified technology
or technologies, or an equivalent method
approved by the Administrator.
(1) [Reserved]
(b) Any person may submit an
application to the Administrator
demonstrating that an alternative
treatment method can achieve a level of
performance equivalent to that achieved
by methods specified in paragraph (a) of
this section. The applicant must submit
information demonstrating that his
treatment method will not present an
unreasonable risk to human health or
the environment On the basis of such
information and any other available
information, the Administrator may
approve the use of the alternative
treatment method if he finds that the
alternative treatment method provides a
level of performance equivalent to that
achieved by methods specified in
paragraph (a) of this section. Any
approval must be stated in writing and
may contain such provisions and
conditions as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The person to whom such
certification is issued must comply with
all limitations contained in such
determination.
$ 268.43 Treatment standards eipreased
a* wast* concentrations. (Reserved!
{268.44 Variance from s treatment
standard.
(a) Where the treatment standard is
expressed as a concentration in a waste
or waste extract and a waste cannot be
treated to the specified level, or where
the treatment technology is not
appropriate to the waste, the generator
or treatment facility may petition the
Administrator for a vanance from the
treatment standard. The petitioner must
demonstrate that because the physical
or chemical properties of the waste
differs significantly from wastes
analyzed in developing the treatment
standard, the waste cannot be treated to
specified levels or by the specified
methods.
(b) Each petition must be submitted in
accordance with the procedures in
8260.20.
(c) After receiving a petition for
variance from a treatment standard, the
Administrator may request any
additional information or samples which
he may require to evaluate the petition.
Additional copies of the complete
petition may be requested as needed to
send to affected states and Regional
Offices.
(e) The Administrator will giv« public
notice in the Federal Register of the
intent to approve or deny a petition and
provide an opportunity for public
comment The final decision on a
variance from a treatment standard will
be published in the Federal Register.
(f) A generator, treatment facility, or
disposal facility that is managing a
waste covered by a vanance from the
treatment standards must comply with
the waste analysis requirements for
restricted wastes bund under 8 268.7.
(g) During the petition review process.
the applicant is required to comply with
all restrictions on land disposal under
this part once the effective date for the
waste has been reached.
Subpart E—Prohibition* on Storage
{168.50 Prohibition* on storage o»
restricted waste*.
(a) Except as provided for in
paragraph (b) of this section, the storage
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1936 / RuJes and Regulations 40643
of hazardous wastes restricted from
land disposal under Subpart C of this
Part is prohibited, unless the following
conditions are met:
(1) A generator stores such wastes on-
site solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or
disposal and the generator complies
with the requirements in S 262.34 of this
chapter. (A generator who is in
existence on the effective date of a
regulation under this part and who must
store hazardous wastes for longer than
90 days due to the regulations under this
Part becomes an owner/operator of a
storage facility and must obtain a RCRA
permit. Such a facility may qualify for
interim status upon compliance with the
regulations governing interim statin
under 40 CFR 270.70).
(2) An owner operator of a hazardous
waste treatment storage, or disposal
facility stores such wastes solely for the
purpose of the accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste ae
necessary to facilitate proper recovery.
treatment, or disposal provided that
each container or tank is clearly marked
to identify its contents and the cate it
entered storage.
(3) A transporter may store
manifested shipments of such wastes at
a transfer facility for 10 days or less.
(b) An owner/operator of a treatment,
storage or disposal facility may store
such wastes for up to one year unless
the Agency can demonstrate that such
storage was not solely for the purpose of
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal.
(c) A owner/operator of a treatment
storage or disposal facility may store
such wastes beyond one year however..
the owner/operator bears the burden of
proving that such storage was solely for
the purpose of accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as an
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal.
(d) The prohibition in pangraph (a) of
this section does not apply to the wastes
which are the subject of an approved
petition under i 268.5 or an approved
case-by-case extension under i 268.9.
(e) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of
this section does uot apply to hazardous
wastes that meet the treatment
standards speofied under |{ 288.41.
268.42 and 2B8A3 or the treatment
standards specified under the variance
in j 268.44.
Appendix I to Part 288— Toxiciry
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
fTCLP)
1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The TCLP is designed to determine the
mobility of both organic and inorganic
contaminants present in liquid, solid, and
muluphasic wastes.
1.2 If a total analysis of the waste
demonstrates that individual contaminants
are not present in the wsste. or that they are
present but at such low concentrations that
the appropriate regulatory thresholds could
not possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not
be run.
2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD (see Figure 1)
Z.1 For liquid wastes {I.e.. those
containing insignificant solid material), the
waste, after filtration through a at- to O.s-um
glass fiber filter, is defined as Ihs TCLP
extract.
i2 For wastes comprised of solids or for
wastes containing significant amounts of
solid material the paitida-iiie of the wast*
is reduced (if necessary), ths liquid phase, if
any. is separated from the solid phase and
stored for later analysts. The solid phase is
extracted with an amount of extraction fluid
equal to 20 ttmes the weight ef the solid
phase. The extraction fluid employed Is a
function of UM alkalinity of the solid phase of
the waste. A special extractor vessel Is wad
wnen testing for volaUlas (See Table 1L
Following extraction, the liquid extract la
separated from the solid phase bjr 0* to Oa>
urn giaaa fiber filter filtration.
2J If compatible (I.e. multiple pbaeas will
not form on combination}, the Initial liquid
phase of the wast* Is added to the liquid
extract and thessj liquids are aaalysad
together. If Incompatible, the liquid* sra
analysed separately aad the mulls are
mathematically combined to ylald e voluane*
weighted average eoaesuMMHoav
M INTERFERENCES
XI. Potential urteifarences that may be
encountered during analysis are discussed In
the Individual analytical •
44 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS
4,1 Aff«sd«n appofata* An acceptable
agitation apparatoe to on» which Is capable
of rotating the extraction vesaei In en end*
over-end faaUoa (See Kg»r» I) at 30 ± X
rpm. Srttafate devices known to EM are
Identified ta Tables.
4.2
Vewa£
4.2.1 Zet^eadepan Extraction Vassal
(ZHE). Thla device la for us* only whan the
wwUUbcug toted &r the mobility of
volatile coasotueats (see Teats H The ZHB
is an extraction vessel that allows for uqtbd/
solid separation within the device, and which
effectively precludes beedepaea (ae depicted
in Figure 9). This type of vessel allows for
initial liquid/solid separation, extraction, and
final extract filtration without having to open
the vessel (see Step 4.3.1). These vessels shall
have aa internal volume of 900 to 009 mi and
be equipped to accommodate a 90-oua filter.
Suitable ZHE devices known to EPA are
identified in Table 3. These devices contain
viton 0-rings which ihould be replaced
frequently.
For the ZHE to be acceptable for we. the
piston within the ZHE ihould be able to be
moved with approximately IS psi or leas. If it
takes more pressure to move the puton. the
O-nngs in the device should be replaced. If
this does not solve the problem, the ZHE is
unacceptable for TCLP analyses and the
manufacturer should be contacted.
The ZHE should be checked after every
extraction. If the device contains a built-in
pressure gauge, pressurize (he device to SO
psi. allow it to if d unattended for 1 hour.
and recheck the pleasure If the dev -e does
not have a built-in presi«re gauge. prc»ur -•
the device to SO psi. sub. .e.ae it in water
check for the presence of air bubbles
escaping tram any of the fittings, if K,L.*ura
is lost check all fittings and inspect and
replace O-nngs. if necessary. Reiesi the
device. If leakage problems cannot be solved.
the manufacturer should be contacted.
4^2 When the waste 11 being evaluated
for other than volatile contaminants, an
extraction vessel that doee not preclude
headspace (e*. a 2-liter bottle) is used.
Suitable extraction veasela include bottle*
made from venous materials, depending on
the conlaminanta lo be analyzed and the
nature of the waste (see Step 4 JJ). II is
recommended that boroailicate glass bottles
b« used over other types of glass, especially
when inorganics ere of concern. Plastic
bonles may be used only if inorganics are to
be investigated. Bottles an available from a
number of laboratory supplier*. When this
type of extraction vessel is used, the filtration
device discussed in Step 4.3 2 is used for
Initial liquid/solid separation and final
extract nitration.
4JJ Borne ZHEa ose gas pressure to
actuate the ZHB piston, while others use
merhsnlral piesauia (see Table 3). Whereas
die velaMlaa procedure (sew Section 9 0)
refers to poands-per-iqaere inch (pn), for the
mechanically actuated piston, the pressure
applied Is measured in torque-inch-pounds.
Refer to the manafactam'a instructions as lo
UM proper cotrversfam.
4J Flftntim Dorics*.- It Is recommended
met all fiUrsiKnis be performed m s bood.
4J.1 Zero-Headipaca Extractor Vessel
(see Klgore 3): When the waste I. being
evehated for volatile* die zero-headtpece
extraction vessel is used for filtration. The
device shall be capable of supporting and
keeping la place the glass fiber filter, and be
able to withstand the pressure needed to
accomplish separation (M pai).
Netsv—When it Is suspected thai the glass
fiber filter has been ruptured, an in-line glass
fiber filter may be used to filter the material
within the ZHE.
4JJ Filter Holder When the waste Is
being evaluated for other than volatile
compounds, e filler holder capable of
supporting a glaas fiber filter and able to
withstand the pressure needed to accomplish
separation Is used. Suitable filter holders
range from simple vacuum unit* to relatively
complex systeas capable of exerting
pressures of up to SO psi or more. The type of
filter holder used depends on the properties
of the material to be filtered (see Step 4.3 3)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
40644
These device! shall have a minimum internal
volume of 300 mL and be equipped to
accommodate a minimum filter size of 47 mm
(Filter holders having an internal capacity of
1 S L or greater and equipped to
accommodate a 142 mm diameter filter are
recommended). Vaccum filtration is only
recommended for wastes with low solids
content (<10>| and for highly granular
(liquid-containing) wastes. All other types of
wastes should be filtered using positive
pressure filtration Filler holders known to
EPA to be suitable for use are shown in Table
4.
433 Materials of Construction:
Extraction vessels and filtration devices shall
be made of men materials which will not
leach or absorb waste components. Class.
polytetrafluoroethylem (PTFE). or type 316
stainless steel equipment may be used when
evaluating the mobility of both organic and
inorganic component*. Devices made of high-
density polyethylene (HOPE), polypropylene.
or polyvinyl chloride may be used only when
evaluating the mobility of metala. Borosilicate
glass bottles are recommended for use over
other types of glass bottles, especially when
inorganics an constituents of concern.
4.4 Filters: Filters shall be made of
borosilicale glass fiber, shall contain no
binder materials, and shall have an effective
pore site of 0.8- to 0.8-um. or equivalent
Fillers known to EPA to meet these
specifications are identified in Table S. Pro-
filters must not be used. When evaluating the
mobility of metals, filters shall be acid-
washed prior to use by nnsing with 1.0 N
nitric acid followed by three consecutive
nnscs with deionized distilled water (•
minimum of l-L per nnse it recommended).
Class fiber filters are fragile and should be
handled with care.
4.S pH meter*: Any of the commonly
available pH meters are acceptable.
4.8 ZHE extract collection device*
TEDLAR1 bags or glass, stainless Heel or
PTFE gas tight syringes are used to collect the
initial liquid phase and the final extract of the
waste when using the ZHE device. The
devices listed are recommended for uae
under the following conditions.
4 6.1 If a waste contains on aqueous
liquid phase or if a waste does not conUia •
significant amount of non-aqueous liquid (La.
< 1% of total waste), the TEDLAR* bag
should be used to collect and combine the
initial liquid and solid extract The syringe I*
not recommended in these case*.
4.6.2 If a waste contains a significant
amount of non-aqueous initial liquid phase
(i e. >l* of total waste), the synnge or the
TEDLAR1 bag may be used for both the
initial solid/liquid separation and the final
extract filtration. However, analysts should
use one or the other, not both.
463 If the waste contains no initial liquid
phase (Is 100* solid) or ha* no significant
solid phase (is 100% liquid), either the
TEDLAR' bag or the synnge may be used. If
the synnge is used, discard the first S mL of
liquid expressed from the device. The
remaining ahquots are used for analysis.
4.7 ZHE extraction fluid transfer device*
Any device capable of transferring the
extraction fluid into the ZHE without
changing the nature of the extraction fluid is
acceptable (e g.. a constant displacement
pump, a gas light sjnnge. pressure filtration
unit (See Step 4 3 2). or another ZHE device).
4 8 Laboratory balance- Any laboratory
balance accurate to within ±0.01 grams may
be used (all weight measurements are to be
within ±01 grams).
SO REAGENTS
5.1 Reagent water Reagent water is
defined as water in which an interferent is
not observed at or above the method
detection limit of the analyte(s) of interest.
For non-volatile extractions. ASTM Type II
water, or equivalent meets the definition of
reagent water. For volatile extractions, it is
recommended that reagent water be
generated by any of the following method*.
Reagent water should be monitored
periodically for impurities.
3.1.1 Reagent water for volatile
extraction* may be generated by passing tap
water through a carbon filter bed containing
about 500 grams of activated carbon (Calgon
Corp.. Fillrasorb-300 or equivalent).
3.1.2 Aw aler purification system
(Millipore Super-Q or equivalent) may also be
used to generate reagent water for volatile
extraction*.
3.1.3 Reagent water for volatile
extraction* may also be prepared by boiling
water for IS minute*. Subsequently, while
maintaining the water temperature at 90±
S'C. bubble a contaminant-free inert gas (e g..
nitrogen) through the water for 1 hour. While
still hot transfer the water to a narrow-
mouth screw-cap bottle under tero-
headipace and seal with a Teflon-lined
septum and cap.
5.2 1.0 N Hydrochloric add (HO) made
from ACS reagent grade.
5.3 1.0 N Nitric acid (HNOi) made from
ACS reagent grade.
5.4 1.0 N Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) made
from ACS reagent grade.
5.5 Glacial acetic add (HOAc) ACS
reagent grade.
5.6 Extraction fluid-
5.6.1 Extraction fluid «1: This fluid i*
made by adding 5.7 mL glacial HOAc to 500
mL of the appropriate water (see Step 5.1).
adding 64.3 mL of 1.0 N NaOH. and diluting to
a volume of 1 liter. When correctly prepared.
the pH of this fluid will be 4M ± OiDS.
5A2 Extraction fluid «i This fluid I*
made, by diluting 5J mL gladal HOAc with
ASTM Type II water (see Step 3.1) to a
volume of 1 liter. When correctly prepared.
the pH of this fluid will be 2M ± 0.05.
Not*—It I* suggested that these extraction
fluid* be monitored frequently for Impurities.
The pH should be checked prior to u*e to
ensure thai these fluid* are made up
accurately.
5.7 Analytical standards shall be prepared
according to the appropriate analytical
method.
8.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION.
PRESERVATION. AND HANDLING
8.1 All samples (hall be collected wing
an appropriate sampling plan.
6.2 At least two separate representative
sample* of a wast* should be collected. If
volatile organic* are of concern, a third
•ample should be collected. The first sample
Is used In several preliminary TCLP
evaluations (e g.. to determine the percent
solids of the waste: to determine if the waste
contains insignificant solids (i.e.. the waste is
its own extract after filtration): to determine
if the solid portion of the waste requires
particle-size reduction: and to determine
which of the two extraction fluids are to be
used for the non-volatile TCLP extraction of
the waste). These preliminary evaluations are
identified in Section 7 0. The second and. if
required, third samples are extracted using
the TCLP non-voldtile procedure (Section 8 0)
and volatile procedure (Section 9.0).
respectively.
8.3 Preservatives shall not be added to
samples.
6.4 Samples can be refngerated unless
refrigeration results in irreversible physical
change to the waste (e g.. precipitation)
8.5 When the waste is to be evaluated for
volatile contaminants, care should be taken
to minimise the loss of volatiles. Samples
shall be taken and stored in a manner to
prevent the losa of volatile contaminants. If
possible, it is recommended that any
necessary particle-sue reduction should be
conducted as the sample is being taken (See
Step 8.5).
8.8 TCLP extracts should be prepared for
analyst* and analyzed a* soon as possible
following extraction. If they need to be
stored, even for a short period of time.
storage shall be a 4* C. and samples for
volatile* analysis shall not be allowed to
come Into contact with the atmosphere (i.e..
no headspace). See Section 10.0 (QA
requirement!) for acceptable sample and
extract holding time*.
70 PRELIMINARY TCLP EVALUATIONS
The preliminary TCLP evaluation* are
performed on a minimum 100 gram
representative sample of waste that will not
actually undergo TCLP extraction (designated
a* the first sample in Step 8.2). These
evaluations include preliminary
determination of the percent solids of the
waste: determination of whether the waste
contain* insignificant solids, and is therefore.
It* own extract after filtration: determination
of whether the solid ponton of the waste
require* particle-sue reduction: and
determination of which of the two extraction
fluid* an to be used for the non-volatile
TCLP extraction of the waste.
7.1 Preliminary determination of percent
§olids: Percent solid* I* defined a* that
fraction of a waate sample (as a percentage
of the total sample) from which no liquid may
be forced out by an applied pressure, a*
described below.
71.1 If the waste will obviously yield no
free liquid when subjected to pressure
filtration (i.e. I* 100* solids) proceed to Step
7.4.
7.1.2 If the sample i* liquid or multiphasic.
liquid/solid separation to make a prelimmar-
determination of percent solids is required
This involve* the filtration device descnbi
in Step 4.3.2 and Is outlined in Step* 7.1.3
through 7.1.0.
7.1.3 Pre-weigh the filter and the
container that will receive the filtrate.
7.1.4 Assemble the filter holder and fil-
following the manufacturer s instructionr
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 4Q645
Place Ihe filler on the support screen and
secure.
715 Weigh out a representative
subsample at the waste [100 gram minimum)
and record (he weight.
718 Allow slurries to stand to permit Ihe
solid phase lo settle Wastes that settle
slowly may be centnfuged pnor to filtration.
Centrifugaiion is lo be used only aa an aid to
filtration. If used, the liquid should be
decanted and filtered followed by filtration of
the solid pert ion of the waste through the
same filtration system.
71.7 Quantitatively transfer Ihe waste
sample to the filter holder (liquid and solid
phases). If filtration of the waste at 4* C
reduces the amount of expressed liquid over
what would be expressed at room
temperature then allow the simple to warm
up lo room temperature in Ihe device before
filtering.
Note.—If waate matenal (>1% of onginaJ
sample weight) has obviously adhered to the
container used to transfer the simple to the
filtration apparatus, determine the weight of
this residue and subtract it from the sample
weight determined in Step 7.1.9 lo determine
the weight of the waste simple thai will be
filtered.
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure
of 1-10 pai. until air or presaunzing gas moves
through Ihe Oiler. If this point is not reached
under 10 psi. and if no additional liquid haa
passed through the filler in any Z-muiule
interval, slowly menace Ihe pressure in 10-
pst increments lo a maximum of 50 pal. After
each incremental increase of 10-psi. if Ihe
pressurizing gaa haa not moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid haa passed
through the filter in any 2-mmule interval.
proceed to the next 10-psi increment When
the pressurizing gaa begins to move through
the filter, or when liquid flow haa ceased at
SO psi (i a. filtration does not result in my
additional filtrate within any 2-ounuti
period), filtration 11 slopped.
Note.—Instantaneous application ol high
pressure CM degrade the glass fiber filter aad
may cauae premature plugging.
71.8 The matenal in the filter holder U
defined aa the solid phase of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phis*.
Noli.—Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some matenal that appeara to be •
liquid. But even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in Slap 71.7.
(his material may not filter. If this is the case.
the matenal within the filtration device n
defined aa a solid. The original filter M not to
be replaced with a fresh fiJler under any
circumstances. Only one filter la used.
7.19 Determine the weight of the liquid
phase by subtracting the weight of the filtrate
container [See Step 7.1.3) from the total
weight of Ihe filtrate-filled container. The
weight of the solid phase of the waste sample
is determined by subtracting the weight of Ihe
liquid phase from the weight of the total
waste sample, aa determined in Step 7.1.5 or
7 1 7 Record the weight of the liquid and
solid phases. Calculate the percent solids aa
follows:
Percent solids •
Weight of solid [Step 71.9)
Total weight of waste (Step 715 or 71 7|
XlOO
72 Determination of whether waste is
liquid or hat insignificant amounts of solid
material: If Ihe sample obviously has a
significant amount of solid matenal. the solid
phase must be subjected to extraction:
proceed lo Step 7 3 to determine if the waste
requires particle-size reduction (and to
reduce particle-size, if necessary). Determine
whether the waste ia liquid or haa
Insignificant amount* of solid material (which
need not undergo extraction) aa follows:
7.2.1 Remove the solid phaae and filter
from the filtration apparatua.
7 2.2 Dry the filler and solid phase at
100*20' C until two successive weighings
yield the same value within ±1*. Record
final weight.
Note.—Caution should be taken lo insure
that the subject solid will not flash upon
heating. It is recommended that ihe drying
oven be vented lo a hood or appropriate
device.
7 2.3 Calculate the percent dry solids as
follows:
Percent: dry solids •
Weight of dry waate and filter—tared weight of filter
Initial weight of waate (Step 7.1.5 or 7.1.1]
XlOO
7.2,4 If the percent dry solids la leas than
0.3*. consult Step 6.2 and proceed to Section
8.0 if non-volaliles In the waate are of
concern, and to Section 9X1 if volatilae are of
Interest In this case. Ihe waste, after
filtration la defined as the TCLP extract. If the
percent dry solids ta greater than or equal to
0.5*. and if the non-volatile TCLP is to be
performed, return lo the beginning of due
Section (7.0) with • new representative wist*
sample, so that il can be determined if
particle-sue reduction ia necessary (Step 7.3).
and so thai the appropriate extraction fluid
may be determined (Step 7.4) on • fresh
portion of the solid phase of the waste. If
only the volatile TCLP ia lo be performed, see
the Note In Step 7.4.
74 Determination of whether the wastes
requires panicle-toe reduction (particle-size
it reduced during this Step): Using the solid
portion of the waste, evaluate the solid for
particle-size. If the solid haa • surface area
per gram of material equal to or greater than
3.1 on *i or !• •"•U" thin 1 cm In ita
narrowest dimension (e.g« la capable of
passing through • 1.9-mm (aSTVinch)
standard sieve), particle-size reduction le not
required (proceed to Step 7 4). If the surface
area ts smaller or the parricle-ane larger than
described above, the solid portion of the
waste n prepared for extraction by crushing,
culling. «r grinding the waate to a surface
area or particle-size aa described above.
Note.—Surface area requirements aw
meant for filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and
similar waste matenala. Actual measurement
of surface area la not required: nor ia it
recommended.
7.4 Determination of appropriate
extraction fluid: If the. solid content ia greater
than or equal to 0.5* of the waata and if
TCLP extraction for non-volatile constituents
will take place (Section 8.0), determination of
Ihe appropriate fluid (Step 5.6) lo use for the
non-volaalea extraction is performed aa
follows.
Not*.—TCLP extraction for volatile
constituents entails using only extraction
fluid *1 (Step S 0,1). Therefore, if TCLP
extraction for non-volatiles extraction is not
required, proceed to section 90.
7 4.1 Weigh out a small subsanple of the
solid phase of the waste, reduce the solid (if
necessary) to • particle-size of approximately
1mm in diameter or lesa. end transfer 5 0
grama of Ihe solid phase of the waxie to a
500-mL beaker of Erlenmeyer flask.
7.4.2 Add 9BJ mL of reagent water
(ASTM Type II) to the beaker, cover with a
waichglasa. and stir vigorously for 5 minutes
using a magnetic stirrer. Measure and record
the pH. If the pH ia <5.0. extraction fluid "1
la used. Proceed to Section ao.
7.4 3 If the pH from Step 7 4.2 Is > 5.0. add
3.5 mL 1.0 N HCI. slurry briefly, cover with a
watchglaea. heal to SO *C and hold at 50 *C
for 10 minutes.
7.4.4 Let the solution cool to room
temperature and record the pH. If the pH ia
O.O. use extraction fluid *1. If the pH is
>SA use extraction fluid *2. Proceed to
Section 8.0.
7 5 The sample of waste used for
performance of this Section shall not be used
any further. Other samples of the waste (see
Slep 6.2) should be employed for the Section
8.0 and 9.0 extractions.
8.0 PROCEDURE WHEN VOLATILES ARE
NOT INVOLVED
Although a minimum sample size of 100
grams {solid and liquid phases) ia required, a
larger sample me may be more appropriate.
depending on toe solids content of the waste
sample (percent solids, see Slep 7.1). whether
the initial liquid phase of Ihe waate will be
miaeibli with the aqueous extract of the
solid, and whether inorganics, semivolanle
organic!, pesticides, and herbicides are all
analytes of concern. Enough solids should *•
generated for extraction such that the volura*
-------
40646 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
of TCLP extract will be sufficient to support
all of the analyses required. If the amount of
extract generated by the performance of a
smpip TCLP extraction will nol be sufficient
to perform all of the analyses to be
conducted, ii is recommended that more than
one extraction be performed and that the
extracts from each extraction be combined
rind (hen aliquoted for analysis.
a 1 If the waste will obviously yield no
liquid when subiecled to pressure filtration
(i e. is lOTi solid, see Step 71). weigh out a
representative subsample of the waste (100
gram minimum) and proceed to Step 8.9.
82 If I he sample is liquid or multiphasic.
liquid/solid separation it required. This
involves the filtration device descnbed in
Step 4 3.2 and is outlined in Steps 8.3 to 8.8.
8 3 Pre-weigh the container that will
receive the filtrate.
8 4 Assemble the filter holder and filter
following the manufacturer's instructions.
Place the filler on the support screen and
secure. Acid wash the filter if evaluating the
mobility of metals (See Step 4.4).
Note.—Acid washed filters may be uaed for
all non-volatile extraction! even when metals
are nol of concern.
8.S Weigh out a representative subsample
of the waste (110 gram minimum) and record
the weight. If the waste was shown to contain
<0 S"4 dry solids (Step 7.2). the waste, after
filtration is defined ai the TCLP extract
Therefore, enough of the sample should be
filtered so that the amount of filtered liquid
will support all of the analyses required of
the TCLP extract. For wastes containing
>0.5% dry solids (Steps 7.1 or 7.2). use the
percent solids information obtained in Step
71 to determine the optimum sample size (100
gram minimum) for filtration. Enough solids
should be generated after filtration to support
the analyses to be performed on the TCLP
extract.
8 8 Allow slumee to stand to permit the
solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle
slowly may be centnfuged prior to filtration.
Centrifuge non is to be used only as an aid to
Miration If used, the liquid should be
decanted and filtered followed by filtration of
the solid portion of the waste through the
same filtration system.
8.7 Quantitatively transfer the waste
sample (liquid and solid phaaee) lo the filter
holder (see Step 4.3.2). If filtration of the
waste at 4* C reduces the amount of
expressed liquid over what would be
expressed at room temperature, then allow
the sample to warm up to room temperature
in the device before filtering.
Note.—If waste matenal (> 1% of the
original sample weight) has obviously
adhered to the container used to transfer the
sample to the filtration apparatus, determine
the weight of this residue and subtract it from
the sample weight determined in Step as. to
determine the weight of the waste sample
that will be filtered.
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure
of 1-10 psi. until air or pressurizing gaa movee
through the filler. If this point la not reached
under 10 psi. and if no additional liquid haa
passed through the filter in any 2-mmute
interval, slowly increase the pressure in 10-
psi increments to maximum of SO pat. After
each incremental increase of 10 psi. if the
pressurizing gas has not moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any Z-mmuie interval.
proceed to the next 10-psi increment When
the pressurizing gas begins to move through
the filter, or when the liquid flow has ceased
at 50 psi (i e.. filtration does not result in any
additional filtrate within a 2-mmute period).
filtration is stopped.
Note.—Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
8.8 The matenal in (he filter holder is
defined as the solid phase of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phase.
Weigh the filtrate. The liquid phase may now
be either analyzed (see Step 8.13) or stored at
4 *C until time of analysis.
Note.—Some wastes, such as oily waalea
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appear* lo be •
liquid. But even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in Step 8.7. thla
material may nol filter. If this Is the case, the
material within the filtration device defined
as a solid and is carried through the
extraction as • solid The original filter ia not
to be replaced with a fresh filter under any
circumstances. Only one the filler ie uaed.
B 9 If the waste contains <0 5% dry solids
(see Step 7.2). proceed lo Step 8.13. If the
waste contains >O.S% dry solids (see Step 71
or 7 2). and if particle-size reduction of the
solid was needed in Step 7 3. proceed to Step
8.10. If particle-size reduction was nol
required in Step 7 3. quantitatively transfer
the solid material into the extractor vessel.
including the filler used to separate '-"le initial
liquid from the solid phase Proceed to Step
8.11.
8.10 The solid portion of the wesle is
prepared for extraction by crushing, cutting.
or grinding the waste to a surface area of
particle-size as descnbed in Step 7 3 When
the surface area of particle-size has been
appropriately altered, quantitatively transfer
the solid matenal into the extractor vessel.
including the filter used lo separate (he initial
liquid from the solid phase.
Note.—Sieving of the waste through a sieve
thai is not Teflon coated should not be done
due to evoid possible contamination of the
sample. Surface area requirements are meant
for filamentous (e g.. paper, cloth) and similar
waste materials. Actual measurement of
surface area ie nol recommended.
8.11 Determine the amount of extraction
fluid lo add lo the extractor vessel as follows:
Weight of extraction fluid-
20xft solids (Step 7.1) x weight of waste filtered (Step
8.5 or a?)
100
Slowly add this amount of appropriate
extraction fluid (eee Step 7.4) to the extractor
vessel. Close the extractor bottle tightly (It is
recommended that Teflon tap* be used to
ensure a tight seel), secure in rotary extractor
device, and rotate at 30±2 rpm for 18±2
hours. Ambient temperature (I.e, temperature
of room in which extraction ie to take piece)
shall be maintained el 22±3 'C during the
extraction penod.
Note.—As agitation continues, pressure
may build up within the extractor bottle for
some types of wastee (e.g. limed or calcium
carbonate containing wast* may evolve
gaeee such aa carbon dioxide). To relieve
excess pressure, the extractor bottle may be
periodically opened (e.g- after IS minutes. 30
minutes, and 1 hour) and vented into e hood.
8.12 Following the 18±2 hour extraction.
the material In the extractor veaael la
separated into Its component liquid and solid
phases by filtering through a new glass fiber
filter, ae outlined in Step 8.7. For final
filtration of the TCLP extract the glass fiber
filter may be changed, if necessary, to
facilitate filtration. Filter(s) shall be acid-
washed (see Step 44) if evaluating the
mobility of metals.
8.13 The TCLP extract u now prepared ae
follows:
8.13.1 If the weste contained no initial
liquid phase, the filtered liquid material
obtained from Step 8.12 la defined aa the
TCLP extract Proceed to Step 8.14.
8.13.2 If compatible (e.g.. multiple phases
will not result on combination), the filtered
liquid resulting from Step ai2 ia combined
with the initial liquid phase of the waste as
obtained in Step 8.7. This combined liquid is
defined ea the TCLP extract. Proceed to Step
8.14.
8.13.3 If the initial liquid phase of the
waale. es obtained from Step 8.7. » not or
may not be compatible with the filtered liquid
resulting from Step ai& these liquids are not
combined. These liquids, collectively defined
as the TCLP extract are analyzed separately.
and the results are combined mathematically.
Proceed to Step 8.14.
8.14 Following collection of the TCLP
xtrect It ia recommended that the pH of the
xtraet be recorded. The extract should be
Immediately aliquoted for analysis and
property preserved (metals aliquots must be
acidified with nitric acid to pH <£ all other
aliquots must be stored under refrigeration
(4 *C) until analyzed). The TCLP extract shall
be prepared and analyzed according to
appropriate analytical methods. TCLP
extracts lo be analyzed for metals, other than
mercury, shall be acid digested. If the
individual phases era to be analyzed
separately, determine the volume of the
Individual phases (to ±O.SK). conduct the
appropriate analyses, and combine the
results mathematically by using a simple
volume-weighted average:
Final Analyte m .
Concentration
V,+V,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40647
where:
V, =The volume of the first phase (I).
Ci =The concentration of (he contaminant of
concern in ihe firs! phase (mg/l).
V, =The volume of the second phase (U
Ca = The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in (he second phase (mg/L).
8 is The contaminant concentrations in
the TCLP extract are compared with the
threshold* identified m the appropriate
regulations. Refer to Section 10.0 for quality
assurance requirements.
90 PROCEDURE WHEN VOLATILES ARE
INVOLVED
The ZHE device n used to obtain TCLP
extracts for volatile analysts only. Extract
resulting from the use of the ZHE shall not be
used to etdluatefhe mobility of non-volatile
analytes (e.g. metals, pesticides, etc.).
The ZHE device has approximately • SOD-
mL internal capacity. Although • minimum
sample SIM of 100 grams waa required in the
Section 8.0 procedure, the ZHE can only
accommodate • maximum of 29 gnnu of
solid (defined aa that fraction of • sample
from which no liquid (additional) may be
forced out by an applied pressure of 30 psi).
due to the need to add an amount of
extraction fluid equal to 20 times the) weight
of the solid phase.
The ZHE I* charged with sample only once
jnd the device ia not opened until the Final
extract (of the solid) has been collected.
Repeated filling of the ZHE of obtain 29
grams of solid » not permitted. The initial
filtrate should be weighed and then stored at
4 *C until either analyzed or recombined with
the final extract of the solid.
Although the fallowing procedure allows
for particle-size reduction during the conduct
of the procedure, this could result in the lose
of volatile compounds. If possible (e fr,
particle-size may be reduced easily by
crumbling), particle-size reduction (See Step
9 2] should be conducted on the sample aa U
is being taken. If necessary, particle-size
reduction may be conducted during Ihe
procedure.
In carrying out the following steps, do not
allow the waste, the initial liquid phase, of
the extract to be exposed to the atmosphere
for any more Una than is absolutely
necessary. Any manipulation of these
materials should be done when cold (4* C) to
minimize loss of volatile*.
91 Pre-weigh ihe (evacuated) container
which will receive the filtrate (See Step 4.8).
and set eside. If using a TEDLAR* bag. all
liquid must be expressed from the device.
whether il be for the initial or final liquid/
solid separation, and an aliquot taken from
the liquid in the bag. for analysts. The
containers listed in Step 4.8 are
recommended for use under the following
conditions.
9.1.1 If e waste contains an aqueous
liquid phase or if the waste does not contain
a significant amount of non-aqueous liquid
(i e.. <11 of total waste), the TEDLAR* bag
should be used to collect and combine the
initial liquid and solid extract. The syringe i*
not recommended in these easee.
812 If a waite contains a significant
amount of non-aqueous initial liquid phase
fie.. > W of total waste), the aynnge or the
TEDLAR* bag maj be used for both the
initial lolid/liquid separation and the final
extract filtration. However, analysts should
use one or the other, not both.
9.1.3 If the waste contains no initial liquid
phase (is 100* solid) or has no significant
solid phase (is 100% liquid), either the
TEDLAR* bag or the syringe may be used. If
the syringe 11 used, discard the first S mL
liquid expressed from the device. The
remaining aliquot* are used for analysis.
9.2 Place the ZHE piston within the body
of the ZHE (il may be helpful first to moisten
ihe piston O-nngs slightly with estraction
fluid). Adjust the piston within the ZHE body
to a height that will minimize the distance the
piston will have to move once the ZHE is
charged with sample (based upon sample size
requirements determined from Section 9.0.
Step 7.1 and/or 7.2]. Secure the gas inlet/
outlet flange (bottom flange) onto the ZHE
body in accordance with the manufacturer's
inatruclione. Secure the glesa fiber filler
between the support screen* and set aside.
Set liquid inlet/outlet flange (top flange)
aaida.
9.1 IT the waste i* 100* solid (see Step
7.1). weigh out • representative lubsample
(23 gran maximum) of the waste, record
weight, and proceed to Step 9.3.
9.4 If the waste we* shown lo contain
0.5X dry solid* (Stepe 7.1
and/or 12], use the percent solids
information obtained in Step 7.1 lo determine
the optimum sample sice to charge into die
ZHE. The appropriate sample sue)
recommended i* aa follows:
9.4.1 For wastes containing Oft aolida
(see Step 7.1). weigh out • representative 900
gram sample or waste and record Ihe weight
9.4.2 For wastee containing >4* solids
(see Step 7.1). the amount of waste to charge
Into the ZHE ia determined ae follows:
Weight of
waato^charga .
XlflO
Weigh out * representative lubtample of
Ihe waale of Ihe appropriate size and record
Ihe weight
9.S If particle-size reduction of the solid
portion of the waste wa* required in Step 7.3.
proceed to Step 9,8. If particle-size reduction
waa not required In Step 7 J. proceed to Step
9.7.
9.8 The waste le prepared for extraction
by crushing, cutting, or grinding the solid
portion of the waste to a surface area or
particle-size ae described in Step 7.3. Waalee
and appropriate reduction equipment should
be refrigerated, if possible, to 4 *C prior to
particle-size reduction. The mean* used to
effect particle-size reduction must not
generate heat in end of itself. It reduction of
the solid phase of the waste is necessary.
exposure of the waate lo the atmosphere
should be avoided to the extent possible.
Note.—Sieving of the waste la not
recommended due to the possibility that
volantes may be lost. The use of an
appropriately graduated ruler is
recommended as an acceptable alternative
Surface area requirements are meant for
filamentous (e g.. paper, cloth) and similar
waste matendls. Actual measurement of
surface area is not recommended.
When the surface area or particle-size has
been appropriately altered, proceed to Step
97.
9.7 Waste slurries need no) be allowed to
stand lo permit the solid phase to settle
Wastes that settle slowly shall not be
centnfuged prior to filtration.
9.8 Quantitatively Irdnsfer the entire
sample (liquid and solid phases) quickl) to
the ZHE. Secure the filter and support
screens into the lop flange of the device and
secure the top flange to the ZHE body in
accordance with Ihe manufacturer's
instructions. Tighten all ZHE fittings and
place the device in the vertical position (gas
inlet/outlet flange on the bottom). Do not
attach the extraction collection device to the
top plate.
Nofsv—If waste material (> l« of onginal
sample weight) haa obviously adhered to the
container used to transfer the sample to the
ZHE, determine the weight of thie residue
end subtract it from the sample weight
determined in Step 9 4. to determine the
weight of the waste sample that will be
filtered.
Attach a gas line to the gas inlet/outlet
valve (bottom flange) and. with the liquid
Inlet/outlet valve (lop flange) open, begin
applying gentle pressure of 1-10 pn (or more
if necessary) to force alt headspace (into a
hood) slowly out of the ZHE device. At the
first appearance of liquid from the liquid
inlet/outlet valve, quickly close the %alve and
diacontlnue pressure, if filtration of the waste
al 4*C reduces the amount of expressed liquid
over what would be expressed at room
temperature, then allow the sample to warm
up to room temperature in Ihe device before
tittering. If the waste I* 100% solid (see Step
7.1), slowly Increase the pressure to a
maximum of SO psi lo force moat of the
headspace out of the device end proceed to
Step 9.12.
9.9 Attech ihe evacuated pre-weighed
filtrate collection container to the liquid
inlet/outlet valve and open the valve. Begin
applying gentle pressure of 1-10 psi to force
the liquid phase into the filtrate collection
container. If no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2-mmule interval,
slowly increase the pressure in 10-psi
increments lo a maximum of 50 psi. After
each incremental Increase of 10 psi. if no
additional liquid has paased through the filter
in any 2-nunute interval, proceed lo the next
10-psl increment When liquid flow has
ceased such that continued pressure filtration
al 30 psi does not result in any additional
filtrate within any 2-minuie period, filtration
i* alopped. Close the liquid inlet/outlet valve.
discontinue pressure to the piston, and
disconnect the filtrate collection container.
Note.—Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
-------
40648 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
910 The material in the ZHE is defined ai
the solid phase of the waste and the filtrate n
defii»d as the liquid phase.
Note.—Some wastes, such as oily wastes
ind some paint wastes, will ubviously
(onlain some material that appears In be a
liqj:d But even after nppUinq pre*sur»
fiiiMlion. this ma'enal will not filter IF this is
the Crise. the material within the nitration
dcvire is defined as a solid and is carried
ihrongh the TCLP extraction as a te if. 1)
recovery of the compound from the TCLP
extract is not between SO and 150%. or 2) if
the concentration of the constituent measured
in the extract is within 20% of the appropridie
regulatory threshold If more than one
extraction is being run on samples of the
same waste (up to twently samples), the
method of standard addition need be applied
only once and the percent recoveries applied
to the remainder of the extractions.
10.6 Samples must undergo TCLP
extraction within the following time period
after sample receipt: Volatiles. 14 days. Semi-
Volatiles. 40 days; Mercury. 28 days, and
other Metals. 180 days. Extraction of the solid
portion of the waste should be initiated as
soon as possible following initial solid/liquid
separation. TCLP extracts shall be analyzed
after generation and preservation within the
following periods: Volatiles. 14 days: Semi-
Volaliles. 40 days: Mercury. 28 days: and
other Metals. 180 days.
TABU 1.—VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS '
! CAS NO
87-94-1
7l-M-«
71-15-0
9»-23-S
IOS-90-7
7S-OS-2
7S-M-J
ioa-io-i
I27-U-4
ios-sa-1
7i.i5-a
7M)l-«
7S49-4
1.130-20-7
CKHxeboum
XyiM
• iwfudn CHnpoundi awitilKd ti M Una OiiooiH Rt-
nncwnt RuM. It in* o> « « mm eomoouna» »• 01
coram. SIB WO-KMONWCB ntracur «*u« uuu M uud.
It onw (noiMnlllMI comeounoi art ot conewn. mt con-
aneia mill M UMB.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
40649
TABLE 2.—SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION
APPARATUS '
Carwn,
Locaun
Muc.iud Onign
Minufactuivif
Comuny
Un Undo ttimnon law M
Mtmiclunng. |J13] 44B-4110.
IRA MteKin SHOO I Stnwc*. P*
ind lueruonr ! 18091 fSJ-4004
EMl EllTKIOr _•
REXNORO
(414)»*VJMO,
TABLE 2.—SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION
APPARATUS '-Continued
I Lacmon j
SW«C« fr AntWiul rmmg
tnaConwuig
Wimngwn.PA
r dme* no mum tw i
r-wid hman M Mil mm * «rr«oim»
Aunougn m d»»c» •_M*M*. * •_"* oamimrenij
1 >niy MO rVOWfV '•IIQIUUtQ 10 •OCOflWIOttCM 2Mb
TABLE 3.—SWTABLE ZERO-HEAOSPACE EXTRACTOR VESSELS
UM0NQL
AuoomdOwgntMnHewngCa .
IMIVOWCoip.
•. VA. (ran ««t itM...
MA,(«00)»-S»4_
PA, aisi >«i 4«ao_
3740-/H8. 00«rOO tJ mm.
i M igwa »am «• MM PIMM a>n •
. pmang rat« • OMn
i Th« U4 mi «• HHT i
TABU 5.—SUITABLE FI.TEM MEDIA
eompmr
toeMon
MO- i*?
OFF
a;
-------
40650 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 218 / Friday. November 7.1986 / Rules and Regulations .
WET WASTE SAMPLE
CONTAINS NO OR
INSIGNIFICANT
NON-FILTERABLE
SOLIDS
REPRESENTATIVE
WASTE SAMPLE
1
DRY WASTE SAMPLE
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION:
0.6- TO 0.8-um
GLASS FIBER
FILTRATION
DISCARD
' SOLID
LIQUID
TCLP EXTRACT-
LIQUID
TCLP EXTRACT
WET WASTE SAMPLE
CONTAINS
SIGNIFICANT
NON-FILTERABLE
SOLIDS
1
)
)
«
»
SOLID
REDUCE PARTICLE-SIZE
IF >1 cm IN NARROWEST
DIMENSION OR SURFACE
AREA <3.1 cm2
^
f
TCLP EXTRACTION^
OF SOLID
ZERO-HEAOSPACE EXTRACTOR
REQUIRED FOR VOLATILES
^
»
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION:
0.6- TO 0.8-um
GLASS FIBER
FILTRATION
^DISCARD
~~r SOLID
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION:
0.6- TO 0.8-um
GLASS FIBER
FILTRATION
*
LIQUID
V
j STORE AT 4*C |
ANALYTICAL
METHODS
* TCLP EXTRACT
iThe extraction fluid employed Is a function of the alkalinity of the solid
phase of the waste.
FIGURE 1: TCLP FLOWCHART
-------
Federal Regular / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7.1980 / Rules and Regulations 40651
Motor
(30 ^ 2 rptn)
I I
r"™"i
Extraction Vess«l Holder
i i
Figure 2: Rotary Agitation
-------
40652 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7.1988 / Rules and Regulations
Liquid Inlet/Outlet Valve
•Fiicer-
waste/Extraction Fluid
Pi scon
xJ
1 Top
Flange
Body
VI TOM
0-rings
Bottom
Flange
I I
Pressurizing Gas Inlet/Outlet Valve
Ficure 3; 2ero«Headspace Extraction Vessel
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40653
APPENDIX II TO PART 268—TREATMENT STANDARDS (As CONCENTRATIONS IN THE TREATMENT
RESIDUAL EXTRACT)
(Nan
wt a* MM ot tn» i
tfunnoni Mndvetl
. That m ml twad la M uMd
witw TruiMMV Grauat Fv PCO1-WO1 SPOT So*** *u>m (mg/l)
1 wmmi4i* ftnoiud ay
«i on CJM at
•TM
PART 270—EPA-AOMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM.
VIII. In Part 270:
1. The authority citation for Part 270
continues to read aa follows:
Authority: Sec*. 1006.2002.3005.3007.3019
and 7004 of the Solid Waite DiopoMl Act. u
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978. as emended (42 U.S.C.
690S. 8912.6929.6927,6939 and 6974). unless
oiherwiae noted. .. _
Subpart B—Permit Application*
2. In 8 270.14. paragraph (b](21) IB
added to read as follows:
9,270.14 Content* of Part I
requirement!).
(b) • ' '
(21) For land disposal facilities, if a
case-by-case extension has been
approved under § 268.5 or a petition has
been approved under i 268.6. a copy of
the notice of approval for the extension
or petition is required.
Subpart C—Permit CondKJona
3. In 1270.32. paragraph (b)(l) la
revised to read aa follows:
J270J2 b
(b)(l) Each RCRA permit shall include
permit conditions necessary to achieve
compliance with the Act and
regulations. Including each of the
applicable requirements specified in
Parts 264 and 266 through 288 of this
chapter. In satisfying this provision, the
Administrator may incorporate
applicable requirements of Parts 264 and
268 through 268 of this chapter directly
Into the permit or establish other permit
conditions that an baaed on these parts.
Subpart D—Change* to Permits
4. In { 270.42. paragraph (o) is added
to read as follows:
• 270.42 WrwmoeBfleabonaolpscnUta.
• • • • •
(o) Allow treatment of hazardous
wastes not previously specified in the
permit if:
(1) The hazardous waste has been
prohibited from one or more methods of
land disposal under Part 268 Subpart C
and treatment standards have been
established under Part 268 Subpart D;
(2) Treatment is in accordance with
the standards established under
8 288.41. or a variance established under
S 268.44 of this part:
(3) Handling and treatment of the
restricted waste will not present risks
substantially different from those of
wastes listed in the permit: and
(4) Federal or State approval of a
minor permit modification request is
granted. No permit changes can occur
except for the addition of new waste
codes and administrative or technical
changes necessary to handle new
wastes. Changes in treatment processes
or physical equipment may not be made
under this paragraph.
PART 371—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
IX. In Part 271:
1. The authority citation for Part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1000.2002U) and 3008 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by
the Resource Conservation uid Recovery
Act ee emended (42 U S.C BOOS. W12(a), and
6928].
Subpart A—Requirement* lor Final
Authorization
2. In { 271.1 paragraph (j) is amended
by adding the following entry to Table l
in chronological order by the date of
publication.
• 271.1 Purpose) and scop*.
(i)' ' '
TABU 1.—flEOutATiON* IMPIEMENTIIM THE
HAZAADOUS AND Souo WASTE AMEND-
MENTS c* 1984
Omol
net of
No* ft i
3. In 1271.1 paragraph (j) is further
amended by adding the date of
publication and the Federal Register
page number* to the following entry .n
Table 2.
{271.1 Purpose and
i • • •
(IT ' '
-------
40654 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
TABLF 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF
THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMEND-
MENTS OF 1964
OCR*
Fedwtf
proraon
No. a itM Land 30C4(i)
Hm on nnl 91
van f*t
•nd FOOl-
FOOT
|FR Doc. BS-ZS224 Filed 11-6-86:8:45 am|
aiunM COM uw4»«
-------
JULY 8, 1987 FINAL RULE
-------
Wednesday
JuJv 8, 1987
Part V
Environmental
Protection Agency
4A CHI Part 2W«t
to
-------
25760 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. luly a. laar / Rule, ftnd Regulatinng
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CPR Puts 260.261,262,264,265.
268,270, and 271
[SWH-FRL-3319-1]
Land Disposal Restriction* for Certain
"California Uat" Hazardous Wastes
and Modifications to the Framework
AOCNCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is today promulgating
regulations restricting land disposal of
certain "California list" wastes: liquid
hazardous wastes containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) above
specified concentrations: and hazardous
wastes containing halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs) above specified
concentrations. In addition, today's final
rule codifies the statutory land disposal
prohibitions on certain California list
corrosive wastes. This action also
establishes methods for determining
compliance with the prohibitions and
modifies portions of the land disposal
restrictions framework which was
promulgated on November 7.1988 (51FR
40572).
EPA Is taking this action in response
to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). at amended by..
the Hazardous and Solid Waste-. -
Amendments of 1984 (HSWAL which
requires EPA to restrict the land-
disposal of hazardous wastes containing
the California list constituents above
specified concentrations. Today's rule ••
does not establish regulations for the
California list wastes containing metals
or free cyanides beyond requirements 3-3**
set forth in the statutes. EPA may
establish more stringent requirements-- *
for these wastes In a separate
rulemaking.
Today's rule, however, does address
the Agency's approach to determining
compliance with the statutory
prohibitions on the metal-bearing and
free cyanide containing wastes.
Epncnvi DATE This final rule Is •
effective July 8,1987.
AOOMSSta: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket
Number LDR-4 and is located la the
EPA RCRA Docket Room (sub-
basement) 401M Street SW-.
Washington. DC 20*80. The docket Is
open from MO to 4:00 Monday through
Friday, except for public holidays. To
review docket materials, the public must
make an appointment by calling (202)
473-8327. The public may copy a
maximum of SO pages from any
regulatory docket at no cost Additional
copies cost £20 per page.
•on njsrmiN INFORMATION CONTACT;
For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline. Office of Solid Waste
(WH-582). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW,
Washington. DC 20460. (BOO) 424-9348
(toll-free) or (202) 382-4000 locally.
For information on specific aspects of
this final rule contact: Gary A. lonesi or
Jacqueline W. Sales. Office of Solid
Waste (WH-582B). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street SW.
Washington. DC 20480. (202) 382-4770:
SUmiMINTAMY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
L Background
A. Summary of Haxardoua and Solid Waata
Amendments ef 1984
t. Scheduled Waate* end Newly Ltelad
Waste*
X Solvents and Dloxins
X California Usi
B. Summary of Proposed Rule
1. Prohibition Levels
2. Appllcsbllity
X Treatment Standards and Effective Data*
4. Modifications to the Land Dlapoaal
Restrictions Regulatory Framework
C Summary of Today's Final Rul* "
1. Applicability
X Testing Requinmenta
X HaJogenatad Organic Compouads
(HOCa)
4, Trastmsnt Standards and Effective Delss
1. Final Approach
2. Relationship to California Lial
Prohibition on PCBs
3. Treatment Standards
4. Prohibition Effective Dales
E. Treatment Standards
1. HOC Containing Waites
X PCS Containing Waste*
F. Capacity Determination* and Effective
Dates
I. KOGCantaining Waste*
X PCB-Containing Waitas
C. Examples Ulustrailng Integration of
Today's Final Rule With Other Lend
Dif poaal Restriction* Rules
- H. Comparative Rlak and Available
Treatment Alternative*
IV. Modification* to the Land Diapoial
Restriction* Framework
A. General Waste Analyns (I204.13 and
1285.13)
B. Purpose. Scope end Applicability of Part
208(1288,1)
C Definition* Applicable to Thli Part
(| 28*2)
D. DHutton Prohibition (| 28U)
B. Treatment Surface Impoundment
• Exemption: Evaporation Prohibition
. : (IBM)
• • P. Casa>BytCsse Extensions (1288.3)
G. "No Migration11 Petition* to Allow.
• Continued Land Dl«po*al (126481
H Waate Analysis and Reeordkeeptng
: (128817)
L Waate Spadflo Prahibllions-Callfomia
' List Waste* (| 2B&32)
f. Treatment Standard* Bxpre**ed e*
Specified-Tachoologle* (1288.42)
- v K. Prohibitions on Storage of Restricted
Darin*: Interim Status-
niUflooaJa for Immediate Bffectr** Date-
"L-MBOT Modifications of Permits and
Changea Daring Interim Status (1270.42
, and 1270.72)
:- -=.-!. Minor Modifications of Pennila( 1270,42)
iTDsBnUoa of California Ust Conentuemts- t Change* During Interim Statue: Removal
2.PhnicalFormReaulmneat •••—•.' -* - ofRaconitnicttooLimited27OJ2)
X Ha»artm Waite Requirement---- - ^attgtogfto«ftutijrii(
Point of Msposal Approaeh V^
X Final Approacsi . rt---*
1 Ratifications of the Final ABBSOSC*-
UL Detailed Discussion of Today's. FfcaU
__cVl Slate Authority
£?• A. Applicability of Rules In Authorised
-••;—.» Statea
^VaX Effoet oa Slate Authorisations
r;c Stele hnptementetto*
VB. RsgeJatory Rsquiramanta
.•^A. BMilmory Impact Analysis
Impact Methodology
California Bat Metal*
i Physical ReA
IHasardott Waste .
4, CooKeaMtfaaI«*«fe Prohibited] (foot
Und-Naposa* '
f Sopporang
Maonfoiis and Solid
• Trsatmeat Standards
CTiwentSUndarde
5. ptobihiiton Effective Date
r"- Aaawlmanis of 1984 (HSWAL enacted
. bpNo*«J>iMV«X19B«> prohibit thsi
' ».csss>4pedflr petitfaa that there will
be ^nomigraaoa" of hazardous
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. July B. 1987 / Rales and Regulations 2S761
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long a* the wastes
remain hazardous. Wastes treated in
accordance with (he treatment
standards set by EPA pursuant to RCRA
section 3004(m) are not subject lo the
prohibitions and may be land disposed.
The land disposal prohibitions are
effective immediately upon
promulgation unless the Agency seta
another effective date based on the
earliest date that adequate alternative
treatment recovery, or disposal
capacity which ia protective of human
health and the environment will be
available. The relevant statutory
deadlines are as follows:
1. Scheduled Wastes and Newly Listed
Wastes
On May 28. IBM (51 FR 18300). EPA
promulgated • schedule for making land
disposal restrictions decisions for all
hazndoM wastes liatsd or identified by
characteristic ea of November a. 10M.
excluding solvent and diorin wistee
and the California lie! waetea which an
subject to a statutory schedd*. If EPA
fails to set treatment standard* or gnat
a "no migration" petition For any of the
scheduled weetes by May 1. 1990. all
such wastea will be prohibited food
land disposal. (Hazardous wMtea
containing California LM comtttueotB
are prohibited from land dfepoeal at
concentrations which exceed tke
statutory level*.)
For any hazardous waste Identified or
listed after November OL 1981. EPA hi
required to make a rand disposal
restriction determination wahiaft
months of the data of identtneailon or
listing. However, there it no automata
prohibition on land disposal if EPA
misses a deadHne far any newly bate*
or urentnwQ
2. Solvent* and Dioxin*
19801 Banr\
pi uuiui|{8t6Q 8 nnst i
A LTcUIWWOni rat* flVpMaaURQR^ UM
resaranarty mandated land dhp
•I
prohibitions (51 FR 4»177VT*er«h»
established piuuiduimfcr ssHlillslilnj
treatment standarda. targranflng
nationwide varimwe* fpoas *aiMaiT
effective date*, for granttar«Ktensiea»
of effective datea on a
basis, for vrahatbnj petition*
variance* from the twa
flnd for ti whnQn^ pMHMns
dem«mln«ttg thet umulaausl land
disposal H) uiuHiudm ofTnnaanhealB>
^ j a*V^ ^•HHBB^aaBHaniBanBBA !•• aaltsnUlvKnV- flannV
Altfl OM VanVnvIBllCliM IB WIVHaVlnii •fflW
I^r8a f9
treatment standard* ead«r7*6O>e<
for waste* techrfed in *e fir* paaaa «f
the land disposal pumlbMlusiB-i
solvent-containing aod dioxin-
contammg hazardous waste*.
3. California List
Today's rule addresses the second
phase of the land disposal restriction*
i.e.. the California list waste*. The
California list consist* of liquid
hazardous waste* containing certain
metals, free cyanides, polychlorinated
biphenyl* (PCB*J. corrosives with a pH
of less than or equal to two (2.6). and
liquid and nooUquid hazardous waste*
containing haiogenatad organic
compound* (HOCa) a* described below:
(A) Liquid hazardous waste*.
including free liquids associated with
any solid or sludge, containing free
CVAAidftf At COOCCfltTAtiOOfl flVS&ttV tatflfi
or equal to 1.000 ma/1.
(B) Liquid hazardou* wastes.
including free liquid* associated with
any §i>lid or sliidfle. tTiw>n'i7ififf the
following metal* (or elements) or
compounds of these metals (or elements)
at «•"«•«•••« tparinna grmataT than flj •nnol
to thoa* *pecified below:
fi) Aneaic and/or ^""•nnmiH* (a* A*)
500mg/l:
(jJJ <7a«4mtiuii mnA'fnr camPOUttd* (a*
CdJIODmg/1;
(iil) nimminm (VI and/orcompounda
(as Cr VTJ] SOD mg/1;
(iv) Lead and/or compound* (a* A)
soomg/i:
(v) Mercnry and/or compounds (a*
Hg)2Dmg/1:
(vq N1ckal.and/ar compmmd* (n NJ)
134mg/l:
(vii) Selenium and/er compound* fa*
Se) 100 mg/1: and
Tl)T30inf/1:
pHtasnaaoreoaaJtotwe^
(D) Liquid hansedeua waafea
containing pcJyohMnated Mafanyb at
couuuuaiBllons giu ater BHU-OC eqaait*
Mppm.
(EjHeaerdi
hdogentsdi
are referred to a* the Califoaosa Hat
beeaaaa the SaMs^of CalifbnBB
11*1
andWM
Otffaso* .
point iBcarrftag ouUba i
disposal of CaiiEonua list waste* was to
avoid time-coaaunung litigation over the
selection of appropriate lerela.
However, section 30M
-------
25762 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday, fuly 8. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The Agency proposed to establish a
two-year nationwide vanance for these
wastes. Incineration in accordance with
existing RCRA regulations was
proposed as the treatment standard for
most HOCs. However, based on a lack
of incineration capacity, (ha Agency
proposed a two-year nationwide
variance from the prohibition effective
date for these HOC wastes. The Agency
also proposed a performance based
treatment standard for corrosives
wastes having a pH less than or equal to
two (iO). The Agency did not propose
required treatment standards for the
remaining California list wastes!
however, applicable technologies
generally capable of meeting the
statutory prohibition levels were
discussed in the proposal
4 Modifications to the Land Disposal
Restrictions Regulatory Framework
EPA also proposed to modify portions
of the land disposal restrictions
framework established in the November
7 1988 final rule. These proposed
changes would apply to all wastes
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
Among then was a proposal to
strengthen the dilution prohibition by
amending 1288J to prohibit dilution aa
a means of achieving the prohibition
levels or aa a means of circumventing
the effective date of a land disposal
prohibition. The Agency also proposed a
prohibition on evaporation of hazardous
constituents for purposes of obtaining
an exemption under 1288.4 which
provision allows otherwise prohibited
wastes to be treated in surface)
Impoundments without the wastes first
being treated to the section 3004(m)
standards.
The Agency also proposed to amend
Part 270 to provide more flexibility in
handling restricted wastes by allowing
permitted facilities to use the minor
modification process to change their
operations and treat or store restricted-
wastes in tanks or containers, subject to
certain enumerated conditions. The.
Agency further proposed that the so-
called reconstruction ban in 127QJ2(e) •
not apply to interim statue facilities • • -
adding treatment or storage capacity
(also in tanks or containers) to comply...
with the land disposal restrictions.. • - -.
C. Summary of Today't Final Rub
1. Applicability
Today the Agency is promulgating
land disposal prohibitions and effective
dates for liquid hazardous waatea
containing PCBs at concentrations
greater than or equal to 50 ppm
(California list PCBs) and other liquid
and nonliquid hazardous wastes
containing HOCs in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1.000 mg/kg
(California list HOCs). In addition. EPA
is establishing treatment standarda
expressed as specified technologies for
these PCS and HOC wastes (except for
dilute HOC wastewaters). EPA is also
codifying the statutory prohibition on
land disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes with a pH less than or equal to
two (2.0) (California list corrosives).
Today's final rule doea not establish
prohibition levels, treatment standards.
or effective datea for the California list
liquid hazardous wastes containing
metals or free cyanides. Rather. EPA la
publishing a notice of data availability
and request for comment which outlines
the Agency's findings with respect to
establishing more stringent prohibition
levels. Since a final decision aa to mon
stringent land disposal prohibition* for
these waatea will be contained In a
separate notice, moat comments on
metals and free cyanide Issue* received
in response to the December 11.1988
proposal will be addressed In that final
rule. The California list metals and free
cyanides an only addressed In today's
final rule for purposes of explaining the
Agency's approach to demonstrating
compliance with the statutory
prohibitions which automatically
become effective on July a 1987. and far
purposes of determining if the statutory .
prohibition date shall be immediately
effective or whether national capacity -
variances shall be granted.
The California list PCB and HOC
wastes that an not subject to e national
capacity variance are prohibited from
land disposal unless the waste* comply
with to-applicable treatment standard*
(Including potential alternative • -
standarda granted pursuant to • -
|28a42(b)). a Emigration" petition .-
he* been granted by the Administrator <
pursuant to I288A a caa*4ry-caae ,*
capacity variance ha* been granted ••. •
pursuant to 1288A or the waate* are... .
treated In an impoundment which la>- - •
exempt from land disposal prohibition*
under 12884. •
The California list corrosives, metal-
bearing waste*, and free cyanide waate*
are prohibited from land disposal eat
July 8,19875 unless * "no migratioo/V.. <
petition-has-been granted by the) - -••>
Administrator under 126*6.0* to— •
•largnnt* • case-by-cu**- •*
apadty variance under 128&& lor"
complying with these prohibition*, thft
and related RCRA Subtitle C
requirements (e.g* 9 284.13 and \ 269.13
waste analysis requirements) are
applicable to all of the California list
wastes, including die metal and free
cyanide containing wastes.
Where treatment standards and
prohibitions effective dates are
promulgated for California list waste
constituents that are also covered under
the November 7. 1988 solvents and
dioxins final rule, the constituent-
specific treatment standards and
effective dates promulgated on
November 7. 1988 apply. For example.
HOC-containing wastes that are also
covered by the FOOT or F002 spent
solvent listings an prohibited from land
disposal according to the effective date
specified on November 7. 1988 and must
be treated to the levels specified in that
final rule (or meet those levels as
generated). They need not be
incinerated in order to reach such levels.
(Thia example assumes that the waste
doea not exceed the California list
prohibitions levels for any constituent
but HOCa. See section IIL C. below.)
2. Testing Requiraments
Today's rule requires that the Paint
Filter Uquida Teat (PFLT) be used to
determine whether a waate. including a
free cyanide or metal-bearing waste, is
considered to be e. liquid or nonliquid
waste for purposes of the California list
land disposal restrictions. The
procedure la method 9095 in EPA
Publication No. SW-848. Test Methods-
for Evaluating Solid Waste."
The Agency proposed to determine
whether a waate 1* a liquid, and thus
potentially subject to the California list
land disposal restrictions, at the point of
disposal However, today's- final rule
• depart* from the proposal and clarifies
EPA's position that wastes (both
California list wastes and other westes
restricted under RCRA section 3004) are
eonaidend to be prohibited at the point.
of generation, a* described in man
detail to to "Scope and Applicability"
section of today/a preamble.
Te determine whether a waate meets
the specified prohibition level*, the •
Agency I* departing from the proposed
rule which staled that an extract
generated, wing, the Toxieity
regi
itoryfri
rk promulgated oev
November 7.1988 (51 PR 40573) lav -
applicable Unless odurwiae specified .
in today's rule, the Part 288 (e.g, | Z8&7
tracking, notification and certification)
(TCLPJ would be tested. Today's final
rule requires » total constituent analyst*
when tecting Uoa*d waatea containing.
PGBftor liquid ovnoaJsquld wastes,
containing other HOCa. Thia approach,
require* that the entire waste sample be
analyzedfor the constituent* of concern.
Today'a-njl* also, state* that when .
testing liquid hazardous waate* t»
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8. 1387 / Rules and Regulations 25763
evaluate whether they have a pH less
than or equal to two (2.0). the existing
method for determining the
characteristic of corrosivily in
{ 28l.22fa)(l) M required.
In determining compliance with the
statutory prohibition levels for metals
and free cyanides. EPA will be
evaluating whether the nitrate generated
from the Paint Titter Liquids Test
contains die prohibited constituents in
concentration* exceeding the specified
level*. The literal sense of the statutory
language "liquid hazardous waste,
including free liquids associated with
any solid or sludge" is that the free
cyanide and metal containing waste
bans aoplies when the true aqueous
portions of the wastes contain
concentrations exceeding die statutory
levels. Further, the HOC wastes are
prohibited when -total ooocenlration(«r
exceed the statutory level*. The absence
of any reference to total concentrations
in the metal and cyanide waste
provisions strongly suggests a dtffesenoe
in regulatory approach. EPA tana-
disagrees with those caounenten who
claimed that a total constituent analysni
of the metal and cyanide wastes is
mandated.
Consistent with the framework
established oa November 7, 1988.
generators may oeteaniae whHhertaeir
wastes an restricted baaed oa
knowledge of the waste penaaat 10
I26BJ.
3. Haktgeneted Organic Compounds
(HOC*)
The Agency Is promulgstktg the
definition of HOCs as proposed (La, as
a compound f?«»a"""g a cazhan-
halogea bond), but is modifying the
proposed limitation on those HOCs
subject to the California Cat resrrirtinns.
Only those HOCs that ass listed ana
new Appendix ID to Part 288401
included within the regulatory
definition. In limiting the univeoa of
HOCs subject to today's Jfeal rule, iba
Agency is clarifying that pak/meric
materials such as polynayl chloride*
(PVCs) are not HOCs within the scape
of the HOC land disposal restrictions
because they an not listed on Appendix
in.
4. Treatment Standards aad ESecthw
Deles
a. A/OCs. Pursuant to todays And
rule, all liquid endmmlkraH hazardous
wastes containing HOCsln total
concentration greater than orequai 1a
1.000 mg/kg except dlhrte HOC
wastewaters (i.e.. HOOwater luUtuiu
containing primarily -waler end-wtt*
contain less then tO.OOOmg/1 HOCs)
meet be incinerated m accordance with
existing BCRA regulations. However.
EPA has determined that there is a
nationwide lack of such incineration
capacity and, therefore, ia promulgating
a 2-year variance from these treatment
standards. HOC wastewaters need not
be incinerated but they mutt be treated
to the 1.000 mg/l prohibition level
Because the Agency is unable to
determine that there is insialkKoi
treatment capacity for these
was jewelers, they are not sufaject to the
2-year variance. Such waslewaters are
prohibited as of Jury & 1887. unless
those wastewaters are also RBV-P005
spent solvent wastewalers granted a 2-
year variance in the November 7.1988
final rule. HOC wastewaters regulated
as hazardous because they contain such
listed solvent hazardous wastes remain
exempt from the treatment requirement*
until November 8.1988.
^ p{°ft*. Liquid hazardous wastes
containing PCBs at coaoentcatioBB
greater than or equal to SO ppaauiat be
treaJad ia acoozdance with
8. Permit Modifications and Changes
[hiring Interim Statin
As proposed, today's final rule allows
permitted facilities to use the minor
modification process, under certain
conditions, to obtain approval to change
their facilities to treat or store restricted
wastes in tanks or containers as
necessary to comply with the land
disposal restrictions. Also, today's find
rule allows interim status facilities ta
expand their operations by more than SO
percent, in terms of capital
expenditures, to treat or store restricted
wastes ia tanks or containers as
ssary to comply with the land
TSCA dBemal Ifcataieat resakilioas at
40 CP1 Pan 7»1. EPA proposed to grant
• frjearTOaaca fresi lha Jaty 8. Mat
proainitian effective data lor these
weMsatataasaroahradlackof
incjaaratiea capacity. However, today*
final ruki does not grsat sooh a variaaoe.
Allhoagh ma weetnent standard*
applicable to me California Hit PCB and
HOC wastes ere expressed as specified
technologies -wMchrat be used.
alternative treatment menods Te.g*
chemical deehternnrtlon of PCBs) may
ahn be utilized provided the
Administrator finds that»petitioner's
method can achieve e meaaura of
performance equivalent to the method
specified .by ECAand csztaia-othar
requkameatsuadari^sVttansMt.
Evapoiaoa*
JtoiaHDaosa_.
the saJatH^jreaibkteB-eadissrinaaf
restricted wastes ay asoeadsng I f
concentrations batoar (he uusllcsMe
lavela * prohibsfcd. as)p)to provide for an
immediate effective data. Jar the sasM
reasonswIPA Jinds that good cause
exists laularJ OSjd sectioa fi53(d]p) to>
waive Jha raqiiiraieunt that cegulatioaa
be puhlishsil at Issst 1ft rlays hnfnn
InadditioB.£PAIs|
ladbmmattalii*
prohibitions and Inanpsetsag
statutosf tensa^aoch ee -nejuieT.
liiikigeaelBil iiigsnsr eeoipovner. etc.).
Theeeeules ese a nunuuury edfaiict ta
take-effect
vhich provision aBosn treetraent of"
otharwiae afooihUed
Impoundments.
immedisftery %y operatioa oHaw. aad «a
it wvnU-betapnetical fcrtfce &genoy
to delay
-------
25764 Federal Register / Vol. 52. Mo. 130 / Wednesday. July 8. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
IL Scope and Applicability
A. RCRA Section 3004(d) Requirements
The RCRA section 3004(d) provisions
prohibit the land disposal of hazardous
wastes containing California list
constituents above specified
concentrations. With the exception of
HOCs. the restricted wastes must be
liquids. In order to be subject to the
section 3004(d] provisions, a given waste
must meet each of the four criteria
discussed in this section: (1) The waste
must contain a constituent specified in
the California list provisions or have a
pH less than or equal to two (2.0) (see
section 3004(d)|: (2) the physical form of
the waste must be a liquid (except for
HOCs): (3) the waste containing the
California list constituent must be listed
or identified as hazardous under RCRA
section 3001 (as implemented in 40 CFR
Part 261): and (4) the watte must contain
a concentration of one or more
California list constituents at or above
the levels specified in section 3004(d).
1. Definition of California List
Constituents
The Agency proposed to define
cyanides as any substance that can be
shown as having a resonance structure
containing a carbon-nitrogen triple
bond. Then were numerous comments)
as to the proposed definition of
prohibited cyanides and EPA has
modified its approach as a result to
apply more dearly to the free cyanides
in the waste.
The California list metals an easily
defined with reference to the periodic
table of elements. This requirement
applies both to individual constituents
and to the relevant metal portion of any
compounds containing Ca ifornia list
metals.
The Agency proposed that wastes
having a pH less than or equal to two
(2.0) an to be determined using the
method specified for determining the
characteristic of corrasivity at 40 CFR
261.22(a)(l). No commenten addressed
this issue: therefore. EPA Is
promulgating this definition as proposed
in order to maintain consistency with
the existing definition.
The proposed definition of PCBs is
consistent with the existing.definition In
the PCB regulations promulgated under
the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Although one commentar
suggested an alternative definition, the
Agency does not believe that it is
consistent with congressional Intent
Therefore, the proposed definition is
being promulgated in today's final rale.
EPA proposed to define the universe
of prohibited HOCs as any compound
that contains a carbon-halogen bond
and is listed as a hazardous constituent
in 40 CFR Part 281. Appendix VIII. The
comments generally supported this
approach: however, concern was
expressed over the open-ended nature of
Appendix VUI and the availability of
test methods for all constituents on
Appendix VIII. In response to these
comments, the Agency has slightly
modified its definition of HOCs for
purposes of today's final rule.
More detailed definitions of corrosive
wastes, and wastes containing cyanides.
PCBs. or HOCs are provided later in the
preamble sections addressing those
constituents.
2. Physical Form Requirement
Except for HOCs (which are
prohibited from land disposal in both
liquid and nonliquid form). RCRA
section 3004(d) prohibits the land
disposal of California list wastes only if
such wastes exist in liquid form.1 For
purposes of determining whether a given
waste is a liquid, the Agency proposed
to require use of the Paint Filter Liquids
Test (Method 9095 In EPA Publication
SW-946). On April 30,1985 (SO FR
18370). EPA promulgated a final rule-
requiring use of the Paint Filter Liquids
Test in determining whether s wast*
sample contains fret liquids. The Paint
Filter Liquids Test is described in detail
in both the April 30.1985 Federal
Register notice and in the background
document for the December 11.1988-
proposed rule. Basically, the method
consists of placing • predetermined
amount of the waste in a paint filter. If
any portion of the waste pssses through.
the filter within five minutes, the waste
is deemed to contain free liquids. For
purposes of the California list proposal,.
it would also he considered • liquid
waste.
Commenters unanimously supported
use of the test therefore, today's final
rule requires use of the Paint Filter.
Liquids Test to determine whether
wastes, '"?''"<«"B the metal-bearing and
cyanide waste* sufalect to the automstte
statutory prohibitions, an liquids for
purposes of the California list
prohibitions. EPA Is clarifying that once
a waste is determined tabes liquid; the
entire waste is prohibited (provided the) •
concentntion of California list
constituents In the filtrate, or. for PCBs--
• B»A •* «
CiUfontalMwuiMMtaUrdMMtai
with tto idwduls flaiUnd oa May Zft ISSS (SI FR
-
and HOCs. the entire waste, exceeds thp
applicable levels), not just the liquid
portion. The Paint Filter Liquids Test
thus determines whether wastes are
liquids for purposes of the California list
prohibitions, but not what portion of the
waste is prohibited.
3. Hazardous Waste Requirement
RCRA section 3004(d)(2) states that
the California list land disposal
prohibition "applies to the following
hazardous wastes listed or identified
under section 3001." This section coven
any wastes which are either listed as
hazardous under 40 CFR Part 281 or
exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste
identified in Part 281 (i.e. ignitability.
corrasivity. reactivity, or EP toxicity).
and which also contain a California list
constituent Since PCBs are not
currently regulated as hazardous under
RCRA. they would have to be mixed
with or contained in a RCRA hazardous
waste or otherwise be contained in a
waste that exhibits s characteristic in
order to be subject to the California list .
prohibitions.
4. Concentration Levels Prohibited From
Land Disposal
The California list prohibitions in
RCRA section 3004(d) establish-certaln
concentration levels above which there
Is a strong statutory presumption against
land disposal After the effective date of
the prohibitions, the only circumstances
In which such wastes may be land
disposed in concentrations above the
levels specified In section 3004(d) an
those cases: (a) For the California list
metal and free cyanide containing-
wastes sod corrosive wastes, when (He
waste has been treated and rendered
nonliquid: (b) for the California, list PCS
wastes, when the waste has been
treated by the specified technologies or
Is subject to • variance from the
treatment requirements of 1 28&42(b]; or
(c) for say of these wastes where s .
petition haa been granted pursuant to
the | Zfl&S "no migration" standards,
adopted on November 7. 1988 (51 FR
0).
t» Ai
owMiwillbai
italtei
BHtfltd fry T*"TT*T
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. July 3. 19B7 / Rules and Regulations 23765
(except for PCBs. which are not
currently regulated as hazardous wastes
under RCRA unless they are otherwise
contained in hazardous, wastes) will be
reevaluated according to the Agency's
final schedule for promulgating land
disposal restnctions (SI FR19300).
The California list metal and cyanide
wastes are being addressed in a
separate final rule because the Agency
currently is compiling and evaluating
data which may indicate that more
stringent prohibition levels are
necessary to protect human health and
the environment A separate notice of
data availability and request for
comments will outline EPA's basis for
lowering the prohibition levels and
establishing treatment standards. As
will be discussed more fully in that
notice, the Agency is considering
promulgating prohibitions on the
California list metal and cyanide wastes
at levels 100 times existing drinking
water standards. Similarly, treatment
standards that would be promulgated in
the next several months (concurrent
with such lower levels) will serve as an
interim measure until EPA reevaluates
these wastes according to the May 28.
1988 final schedule.
b. Determination of whether waste*
exceed the concentration levels. Having
codified the PCR HOC and corrosives
statutory prohibition levels. EPA must
specify a method for determining
whether a waste as generated equals or
exceeds these levels. Using the Paint
Filter Liquids Test to determine whether
or not a waste is a liquid results in •
filtrate (the liquid that comes through
the filter) and. in many cases, a residue
that is left behind. The California list .
constituents may be contained in thai
filtrate, entrained in the matrix of the)
solid residue left on the filter, or may be
partitioned between the two phases.
Because of this possible partitioning, thai
A jency considered several approaches
as to which part or parts of thai waste*.
should be analyzed in order to
determine if the concentration of
California list constituents is greater
than or equal to the statutory prohibition
te-.els. • : '
The Agency received numerous
comments on this issue, many of which •
were critical of requiring use of the
Toxldty Characteristic Leaching •
Procedure (TCLP) in determining the). '
applicable concentration leveL Among
the criticisms were comments that the •
TCLP was inappropriate for use on
HOCs in light of statutory language
prohibiting HOCs In. "total
concentration", and comments that the-
PCS regulations under TSCA require
what is In effect a total constituent
analysis. For these and other reasons
discussed later in today's preamble.
EPA is requiring that a total constituent
analysis be performed on the liquid
hazardous wastes containing PCBs as
well as (he nonliquid hazardous wastes
containing HOCs.
For the liquid hazardous wastes
containing free cyanides or the specified
metals. EPA is requiring that only the
nitrate generated from the Paint Filter
Liquids Test be tested in order to
determine the applicable statutory
concentration levels. Thus, the Agency
reads section 3004(d) as applying only
when the liquid portion of a waste
(which includes the free liquids which
partition in the Paint Filter Liquids Test)
contains concentrations of the specified
metals and free cyanides in excess of
the statutory levels. When testing the
relevant portions of these wastes, EPA
is recommending use of the applicable
methods in 'Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/
Chemical Methods". EPA Publication
No. SW-848.3d ed. November. 1988.
As in the November 7,1988, final rale.
generators may also determine whether
their wastea an restricted using
knowledge of the waste. However, a
correction notice published In the June 4.
1987. Federal Register (52 FR 21010)
clarifies that in such cases the generator
must maintain all supporting data used
to make such a determination on-site in
the generator's files.
A Determination of When California
List Waste* Aa Restricted
1. Rationale for Changing faun Proposed
Point of Disposal Approach
In the proposed rule; EPA stated that
California list waatee era determined to
be liquids at the point of disposal White
noting that this- approach deviates) from
the November 7,1988 solvents and
dioxins rule (51 FR 40820) which •
requires that wastes are determined to
be restricted at the point of generation, •
EPA stated that the proposed approach
is consistent with congresslona*
!• WWUtNeHwM*) WBMS>
-------
25766 Federal Register / Vol. 52t No. 130 / Wednesday. July 8. 1987 / Rules and Raiulaiioni
the rule as a section M04(d) or a section
3004(8) nlaV and ia such circumstances
the Agency has great latitude ia
choosing the means by which to
proceed Se»e$. CMA r. NJUJC. 105 S.
Ct. 1102.1111 (1985). For these reasons,
therefore. EPA finds unpersuasive the
notion that the California list statutory
language is a junsdictional bar requiring
prohibition determinations to be made
only at the point of disposal
2. Final Approach
Having determined not to use a point
of disposal approach, EPA is clarifying
in today's rale when wastes are
considered "prohibited" both for
purposes of the California list
restrictions and within tha remainder of
the land disposal restrictions
framework.
Today's final rale indicates that
"initial generators" of hazardous wastes
must determine whether their waatea
are prohibited m interpreting this
language to determine at what particular
point generators an to make this
detemnBsnon. the Agency has
considered two principal options, Tneso
are: (1) At the point of generation (see 51
FR at 40828 (Nor. 7. MM). 51 FR 44*27
(Dec. 11.1980) (raising me issue)); or (2)
at the point of common BQP elation
preceding centralised treatment (52 FR
22358 (June 11.1967)). In this rast-
mentioned notice. EPA advanced ee
reasons for mterpretfng the rules to use
a point of aggregation approach the
feasibility of sampling wastes ai
enclosed systems such es pipes or
process vessels, phis tha fact that
aggregation hi aiaay eases is a
legitimate and necessary step la
centralised freatment processes.
Commentm to the fwe n. 1807
notice pointed eat however, the severe
practical difficaWes «f detorninina, a
precise point of legitimate aggreguaoa. •
Commentm aha raised the iesue tat •
point of aggregation approach couM
result in less treanpent of eoneentntsd
waste streams, or could ia i
lead lo itapernassible ditasea.
Upon reeaasideratioa. EPA has
decided to adhere to die i
from the November 7.:
initial generators are to detenaaaaif
their hazardous wastes are [mails'liul at
the poznt of generation. 51 FR 44028. ha
the fiat place, me mnfamentanaai
difficulties with a point oi i._
approach are considerable, end i
only be sartealoa a i
raising the possibility of i
fjf BBPCra^JBaaal Jai 8flflaaaaT aO VB^ftBXCfleaaW.
andiadeedEPA'srabaioawtHaa- •
waste a suouuikuBi already use taw ease.
Sea } 28ia (»Xl) and <&*>*. Ite Aaaac*
sees DO compelling reason to deviate
from this long-standing regulatory
requirement
Perhaps more important is the need to
avoid the possibility of compromising
applicable treatment standards. For
example, if a generator generates bur
solvent-bearing wastestreams, one an
organic liquid containing greater than
10.000 pom prohibited solvent, and the
other three containing lesa than 10.000
ppm solvents, it was the Agency's
intention (and existing rotes require)
that tha concentrated stream has to
meet the treatment atandard based on
incineration (sea 1288.41(e) and
Appendix 0 to Part 26ft), aad that if
these streams are aggregated tha
aggregated streams must meet the
treatment standards based oa
incineration as well (see | U&41(b): «M
also 51 FR at 40823. both of which state
that where waatea are combined for
treatment treatment residaes oust meet
tliM IP.II.II *•• a •^••.^••J JL»« aoV^ A«^^^_
UlB UCBteaaBMH eVIflfleUQ IQsT IfleJ GOO^LBOQ
constitusats). These settled prindplee
could be coafiued by a potato!
ich»
The practical difficulties the Agency
saw with e point of generation approach
appear ta be nenageeble. Ae far ee the
danculnee of saaahng caJuse*
systems, EPA benevea (hat in aeet
esses waste stream pipes ere eesdjp
entered by netatting sample tape. This
should not interfere with oa-geiaa;
treatment processes. Nodalneof
difficulty nurallinf such taps have been
made since impLsmautaiianof the
solvent ben rule, which adopted a point
can determine tf wastes era prahbneel
baaed ea knowledge of their araeta.
[J aa»J(aB. J>«»aai«s cases wkere
FR 22356k stiaafoai ofsabdat thai
rnnlltmnr
Agency ieauU alas
whose e waste mat
or not aidsafla
woaUha
wastes to lower constituent
concentrations. (51 FR 40592).)
EPA also repeats that California list
wastes for which then sre no treatment
standards may be aggregated for
treatment (assuming no impermissible
dilution) and would no longer be
considered prohibited if they no longer
exceed the specified prohibition levels
or ara rendered nonoqnid For example.
if a generator generated liquid lead-
bearing wastestreams of 1.000.300,40,
and SO mg/1 lead and aggregated them
for centralized treatment and tha waste
streams before or after treatment
contained leas than 500 mg/l lead the
waste currently would not be prohibited
Hazardous sludges generated from
wastawater treatment likewise would
not be prohibited if they do not contain
free liquids; nor would such sludges
currently be prohibited if they contained
free nouns whose filtrate contained less
than 500 mg/1 lead (Should EPA
promulgate treatment standards for
Cainornia-bat lead-beanng wastes, then
the comnnwd lead-bearing wastes in
this exaamst would have to meet that
tnataseat standard (126e.41(b).)
Thus, should EPA ultimately adopt
treatment standards for California list
metet and free cyanide wastes, these
wastes would here to meet or he treated
to meat these standards aad not simply
be treated to redoes concentraa'oos
below tha prdnbrtion lerek or ha
rendered aonaquid Where treatment
standards an expressed es specified
teehaoJogies. the Agency has staled ea
tha November 7. IBM final rule that such,
specified tscsBHungies mast be
enadacad^sva^. 51 fR 40820, For
example, hi today's final rda. tha
Calihsnia hst-eiaatea cnatasmng POss
must ha treated in accacsknce with taa
ateBOaais specified hi § 290,42 f-
Uga anUsavTboilenlaad mar •*»•
raaatoedaoaUeosdia aider to avoid the
Paamsnialmiasiils EPAbeharssthat
this approasBBaSects the mteat of
RCRA seBtaataOMpai) to seqaine
treatssBBl ai a hnat or "by a method.
snacaJaa to « aalslhs is " Allaanay
soUdiflcation of such wastes in lieu aj <>
sectioa JOBtiaUtateanse anereaaaaat
aad wouU Beaks 0A'« nnlishllshinnal at
I'miaMliBH iBusasslaaiisa.EPA-e«*'
not sea that a
approach
legiamaai
PtelCtfOflaai Of
appraaek.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 32. No. 130 / Wednesday, fuly 8. I9C" / R-Jes and Regulations 25767
X Ramifications of the Final Approach
Determinations as to whether a waste
is both a liquid and exceeds the
applicable concentre trans of hazardous
constituents thus would be made at the
point of generation. The generator
notification and certification
requirements in 5 263.7(a) likewise
would apply at this point.
This point of generation principle also
hjs several ramifications in determining
how to treat prohibited wastes, and to
what levels such wastes must be
treated. With respect to those wastes for
which the treatment standard is
specified as a method, the wastes would
be considered prohibited at the point of
generation, with the further consequence
that they would require treatment using
such methods. Likewise, where EPA has
established performance levels as the
treatment standard, wastes would have
to be treated until they meet that
standard. (See also the correction notice
published in the June 4.1987 Federal
Register.) Thus, prohibited solvent and
dioxin-containing wastes (I.e. solvent
and dioxin-containing wastes prohibited
at the point described above) would
have to be treated to the levels specified
in 1288.41. Prohibited solvent or dioxin-
containing wastes treated to the one
percent level sped/fed in the
i Z88.30(a)(3} national capacity variance
would continue to require treatment to
the specified levels. For example. If a
prohibited solvent still bottom is
incinerated and the Incinerator ash
residue does not meet the treatment
standard but contains less than one
percent total FD01-F005 solvent
constituents, further treatment would be
required.
As explained in the funa 11,1987
notice, however, there is one exception
to the principle that treatment residues
from prohibited wastes must continue to
be treated until they meet the treatment
standard. This is when treatment
results in a residue that belongs to •
different treatability group than the
initial waste and the Agency hae
already determined that there is
inadequate nationwide capacity to treat
the wastes belonging to that group.
For example, if an incinerator was t»
burn an F001-F005 spent solvent
containing greater than or equal to one
percent total FQ01-F005 solvent
constituents and generate a soubbet
water, this resulting scrubber water
belongs to a different treatability group.
i.e. the wastewater treatability group. If
the scrubber water contains FOOI-FD05
solvent constituents in concentrations
less than one percent but greater than
the applicable treatment standard* '
further treatment of the scrubber water
Mould not be required until November 8.
1988 because the Agency has already
determined that there is inadequate
nationwide capacity to treat liquids
containing less than one percent total
FOOl-FOOS solvent constituents.
As stated in the fune 11.1987 notice.
this distinction comes directly from the
Agency's own estimates of available
treatment capacity. These estimates
included capacity for further treatment
of solid (or slurry) solvent treatment
residues which did not meet the
treatment standards. No capacity was
allocated for wastewaters resulting from
treatment of these wastes.
The discussion above coven
situations where wastes are determined
by their initial generator to be presently
prohibited at the point of generation
(i.e.. not subject to any variance). The
Agency is clarifying that where the
waste Initially generated is subject to a
national capacity or other variance, any
residue from treating the waste remains
subject lo the variance. This point
follows directly from the principle
reiterated most recently in the Agency's
correction notice (52 FR 21010. June 4.
1987) that the initial generator of
hazardous wasta determines whether
his waate is presently prohibited from
land disposal (see 1Z68.3fl(a)(3), as
amended).
Thus, using FOOl-FOOS solvent wastes
as examples, residues from treating
small quantity generator wastes (either
1-100 kg/month, or 100-1.000 kg/month),
CERCLA response action or RCRA
corrective action wastes, or an initial
generator's solvent waate containing
less than one percent total FOOl-FOOS
solvent constituents, would remain
exempt regardless of solvent
concentration In the residue (or
regardless of whether the residue* met
the treatment standards) since the
waste's status has already been
determined by the Initial generator. The
policy rationale for thia la that any other
result creates e disincentive for
treatment 52 FR 22357. (This discussion
assumes that the treatment residues
derive solely from treating exempted.
wastes. If both exempt and regulated
wastes an commingled end treated.
reaidues would not automatically be
exempt.)
EPA adds several caveats. FirsW
although wastes are considered to be
prohibited as early as the point of
generation, the California list
prohibitions also must necessarily apply
at the point of disposal In cases where
the waste is not subject to any of the-
above stated variances. See RCRA
sections 3004{dHq).« FR 40S0T
(November 7.1986). and 40 CFR 28&7(c)
(land disposal facilities are ultimately
responsible for ensuring that wastes not
meeting the treatment standards or
prohibition levels, or not otherwise
exempt, are not land disposed). For
example, if a waste is initially a
nonliquid. but changes its physical form
and becomes a liquid (for instance, in
transit), the waste would still be
prohibited if it exceeds the specified
California list concentration levels at
the point of disposal. (In this last
example, standards could apply to
treatment facilities as well. See e.g.,
»26&7(b).)
Second, if a non-hazardous waste is
treated and the resulting treatment
residue is a hazardous waste, the new
hazardous waste would be subject to
any applicable prohibitions from that
point of generation. This is the initial
point at which a waste could become
subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulation.
and therefore to any of the prohibitions.
(Furthermore, there is no inconsistency
with the regulatory provisions discussed
above referring to initial generators.
because these provisions apply to initial
generators of hazardous wasted)
Finally, as noted in the November 7.
1988, final rule, when a waste generated
before a land disposal prohibition
effective date ia later removed from
storage or disposal it becomes subject
to the land disposal prohibitions at that
point (assuming that at the rime of
removal the waste Is ineligible for one of
several variances and does not already
meet the applicable treatment
standards). SI FR 40577. Similarly.
residues generated from such wastes,
such as leachate or contaminated
groundwater containing FOOl-FOOS
solvent wastes disposed prior to
November 8,1988, would be viewed as
newly generated wastes. Their eligibility
for the national capacity variance (or
the statutory variance for certain
CERCLA response action and RCRA
corrective action wastes) would
consequently be determined da nova
upon removal, and not by reference to
the composition of the waste prior to the
prohibition effective date.
m. Detailed Dtacuuioa of Today's Final
RuU
A. Fna Cyanides and Metals
Today's final rule does not establish
prohibition levels or treatment
standards for the California list wastes
containing free cyanides or metals.
These determinations will be made in a
separate rokeonking. Today's rule.
however, does address the Agency's
approach to determining compliance
with the statutory prohibitions on the
-------
25768 Federal Register / VoL 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. |uly 8. 1987 / Ruie3 an
Calibrate last cyanadi assi metal
las hiiMSisrTmilssntr
these praposa* levels ia today's rate.
Instead. EPA is onhUshing • separate
notice of data anattafaaaty assi racpsst
tot comment requesting comment nd
data<
ande
these waste*. Safafsctta sh»<
received ia nsaoasa la Oial noticsk BPA
wall
those described in the section entitled
"Summary of Hazardous and Solid
Amendments of 1984" at the beginning
of today's preamble. As discussed
above. EPA interprets the statutory
prohibitions as applying when free
cyanide or metal concentrations in the
filtrate developed using the Paint Filter
Liquids Test exceed the statutory
concentration levels.
B. Corrosives
1. Final Approach
A Definition of wastes with pH less
than or equal to ZO. The Agency
proposed to adopt the statutory
definition for the liquid hazardous
wastes as wastes having a pH less than
or equal to two (2.0). No alternative
definitions were suggested by
commenten. The Agency is therefore
finalizing the definition aa proposed.
The definition is the one currently used
in the existing oorrasivity characteristic
B. Maxidata waste and physical
farm requirements. By definition, acidic
wastes are hazardous baaed on the
characteristic of comaivily found in 40
CFH 281.n(aF)(l) whan the pH ia leas or
equal to 24. If these wastes an treated
to a pH greater than two (2.0). they are
no I*MMT*T chazactfintatic hazardous*
wastes aad may be land disposed in a
Subtitle D facility. Additionally, section
3004(d)(2) specifies thai the Califorada
list land disposal rfiitrienons apply onl y
to liquid wastes (with the exception of
HOCs). Then/ore, since the Agency is
not spedfiying a tachnolahgy-baaed
treadoeot standard, corrosive wastes
may be neutralized to a pH greater than
2.0 or rendered onnlisjiiid by chemical
BvotMH gf other tresUneoi methods ""*
be eligible Ear land disposal If a wastes
is haufdous solely J**^""* of t^t*
"harsrlprlf*1r of comsibity {pH > 2d)»
rendering iiooaUouid also readats it
charactsdatic of corcowuty based oa
\owpHooJirapidiintaaaueoiu waetet*
c. pftlBV&pnMMat The Agency
proposed to codify the statutory
prohihUiaa levels for dwse aafic
iiasMsse To ristnnnlnn if the nvntns
exceed (be psooiWlkui ksveL te
Ageacy yfODassd to eeajun testiag usiag
the test method sawsnid in 40CFK
281 .OfaKlV faadvartaaiy, EPA ais*
ass) the TOJ)Lthat this test
and to the relevant natal pertasi of aja*
compounds contaMMg each awtals.
Prior * j
section XM& becoote aoteaatksrfir
Is fcaseyiuprisias tot theoaoaaivsi
wattes, sasatitiawolvesa aU
adfussBMai step aad us* ol SB addle
eKtractsaL EPA hast iatsadad that the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. July B. 1987 / Rqfca and Regulation* 257S9
pH of* west* be determined by testing
the waate temple not • leachate—to
see if it has the propertJe* ia
§ 281.22f*)(l)' Thna, today's rule require*
that Ihe waste sample be tested using
the method specified in 1201.23*1(1) lo
determine whether its pH ia lesa thaa or
equal to two (2.0).
2. Determination Not lo promulgate
Treatment Standard*
The Agency proposed that treatment
that neutralise* acidic wastes to above
two (LO) era BOAT treatment and
requested comment on whether thie type
of treatment should be codified a* a
specified method or performance-based
standard. The ma|onry of coauneatera
supported the proposed approach and
reconunened that treatment be oofified
as a performance-based standard. They
preferred the performance-based
standard because it i* ronshtent with
the hazardouw characteristic, it
simpUflea demonstration of coirrnnanca.
and it place* ao Hnrilation oa
technological development*.
alternative treatment standard for
coiroaiv* wastes, recommending dut
the pH levda be raised to a level above
four (4JJ). The commenter argued that
thie approach waa mere conaistfut with
operational recoounendanona of
synthetic oner maaufacturen ta prevent
liner damage caused by acidic waate*.
The Agency reeogaiaea the need to fully
evaluate treatment performance data
and Information before promulgating a
treatment standard for acidic waalee.
The Agency is codifying the statutory
prohibition level ia today's final rula,
but ia not promulgating a treatment .
standard for waate* with pH leaa thaa or
equal to two (20)). Thie approach witt
not result in any difference* far the
generator of TSDF. since they still moat
comply with the prohibition oa waalee
with a pH leaa than or equal ta two (24) -
specified in 40 CFR 2MJ2 before the
waste ia land disposed. The Agency wffl
addreaa the issue of the appropriate
treatment standard for corrosive waataa
when d consider* the scbeluded waatea
(Si FR19300).
Another commuter argued that the
Agency should establish an alternative
treatment standard for it* corrosive
wastewater because purtfuu of the
wastewater an utilized in a gypeunt
recovery procese that require* the water
to be at e pH kn* than two (iOj. Thfa
request doe* not take brio account the
statutory language ta RCRA section
3004(m) which require* that treatment
methods or level* be those "which
substantially diminish the toxfctty of the
waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardoua
corutireent*'
•Tneeommeatey*
argument regarding Hi procese simply
doe* not addreea these •tatutorily
mandated requirement*. The procese to
fact is designed lo maintain (he very
property which make* the waala
hazardon*. Thna. even if EPA were lo
take action to establish treatment
standards for theae corrosive wastes,
the Agency coold not grant the
conunentere lequeet
C PolychlorinotedBiphenylt (PCSt)
1. Final Approach
a. Deffaitfea afpaJychtorinated
biphenylt (PCStf. For the California list
restriction*, the Agency ia defining PCS*
consistent with the definition of 40 CFR
761.X That provision define* PCBa for
purposes of regulation under the Toxic
Substance* Control Act (TSCA) aa "any
chemical substance that to limited to Ihe
biphenyi molecule that ha* been
chlorinated la varying degnea or any
i of subatancaa which
inadvertently generated noo-Andc*
PCS* an defined a* "the total PCB*
calculated following dfvfstoa of the
quantity of monocnlormeted biphenybj
by SO end dkUorbiated biohenyt* by «V
This waa meertedmlha TSCA
regulation* ia recognitioa that
monocUavtnatad biohenyle an lea*
toxic and let* psntrtent thaa
dkhbrinated btpheayb. which an
themeerre* leaa toxic and lesa penUtent
thaa porycUeriaated brphenyb) with
greater than two chlorine*.
AhknshanaltanativedefinWoaof
PCB* we* «iM*«tnd by a uiomeulBK.
EPAbeBeveedMtmthesbsenceofasi
dtematfv* definition of PCTe specified
lnHSV¥A.tt»reuennsh>stoedop«the>
• -j _ _ _• _ •» e^m aT^^»^^B\ &•• al*^B> VGa^aV
eXVDDBj CMflBaTQQB IWaW BB Haw A0wtTV
regalattBaaavTbe atafluaviy ttfanBcvto
SO ppaai drawn directrjr from the-
Agency'* i
wtm different
of
Cl
be „
aa expreaaad to HCtioa 300s(dl to
concentrate on waate* that an kiiinsq.
to create subatanoal risk Moreover, lha
Agency believe* that an allenuthnt
deflnttiea wouJd add omnnfOB to aa
• f^^^kdA^ ^M^^Ba^^^M ^^^e MB^M^AVH^i^A
aineoy oompseii MM* »iiiMpp»sr
framework forregulaUag PCBa. An*'
alternative defrrftJoa CBHaJdnred by BPA
would not have employed the? nea of
drvi*4oafecton(erln«irartendy
generated PCHe. Under thw deflnitfan.
PCB* would beve been defined aa Iha
biphenyi molecnw that he* been
chlorinated to any degree." EPA dee*
not beheve that tbi* approach to
consistent wtth congresawnal intent
Iherefcre. Ihe Agency i* adopting the
TSCA regulatory definition aa discussed
above.
O. HQtOfOOO9 eMOsIsT /VylffiWIW/tlL
Since PCB* are not listed ea hezardon*
waste* ander ROM. PCB-conlaining
wastee are only subject to the California
list prohibitfon* if they are mixed with
or olaWfwiM coBtiinvd fai wsvtM whKn
are fitted ai h«arrfot» under 40 CFR
Part 291. or if tin mixtare exhibit* one or
more of toe cnanctericocv of Iteurdoue
waste identified hi Pert 281 (I.e..
IgnrtabiHty, uunuai*ity< reactivity, and
EPtoxfcity).
Tranaformen often contain both PCB*
and haurdoua constituents Hsted in 40
CFR Part 2B1. Appendix VUL However.
if the waste containing these
constituent! la not a Hsted or
characteristic hazardous waste, the
California Uat prohibitioa doe* not
apply. For example, some transformers
contain fsomeza of tetrachtorobenzeae
and Mchhvobeazena. Although several
of these unman (a*. U.4*5>
* tvai klanaarttKai*ji«aa«iav aiflff * 9 at« "
trichienbenzene) an listed aa
Appendix VHI heT*rl7"i constituenta,
EPA ha* not Hated wastes containing
theaa igjumf* a* huardoua where the
source of the was tat la a spent dialectic
fluid. Coneequentry. theae PCS-
containing apenl dielecblc Quids will be
•object to the CeBfamia list land
disposal prohibitions only if they an
mixed with a listed haiardooa waste or
tf they exhibit a characteristic
todaatlBadloPartan.
c PmfabOia* /mt» EPA i* codifying
the 60 pom prohibition level specified ia
secttea aOJN(d)(2XP) of KCRA. Thia
level i* coaaMeat with the
i iai|*aliiiiaiiie rm rngnlnlinna rrisling
under the Tcxfc Sabslancss Control Act
(TSCA) and. at tW* tone, tha> Agency
teveiia
Under
i great** thaa or equal ta
SO pom an pnUbHed bom land
diapsaal ante** they am treated to
accordance with 12BH4Z an the subject
of a luuuasni "no migration" peetloa
uader 12084. or am granted a caaa>by-
ca*a ntantoa or national capacity
In iliifciailnaaj whnttoT a HqaH
h*i«"i
ofakMchertractaeneratedusBwtae
TOP.
i the Agency benevea Ihe t
prohaBttoa level to be connatent with
-------
2577D Federal Register / Vol. 5Z. No. 130 / Wednesday, (uly 8. 1967 / Rules and Regulations
existing regulations under TSCA. EPA
also believes that the test methods
required under TSCA are appropriate
for use in determining compliance with
the land disposal restrictions. The
methods specified in the TSCA
regulations at 40 CFR 761 do not test
leach extracts. Those methods require
testing of the total waste. In addition.
the statutory prohibition on PCB-
containing wastes is expressed in "ppm"
rather than "mg/1" as used for the other
California list liquid wastes, suggesting
that consideration of the solid fraction
in the PCB-containing waste ia
appropriate. Therefor*, today's final rule
requires that once a hazardous waste
containing PCBs is determined to be a
liquid, then the total waste [not an
extract or filtrate) must be analyzed for
purposes of determining compliance
with the California list land disposal
restrictions.
2. Existing Regulations of PCBa
Regulations promulgated pursuant to
TSCA currently address the land
disposal of PCS wastes which an not
mixed with RCRA hazardous wastes.
The TSCA requirements at 40 CFR Put
781 vary depending on the concentration
of PCBa In the waste and the physical
fora In which the waste is disposed Le,
(n bulk liquid farm, as a containerized
liquid, or as a nonliquid Disposal of
PCBs at concentrations below SO ppm to
not regulated under TSCA unless such
concentrations wen created by diluting
• higher concentration of PCB or unless
they ore used In specified ways. i.e~ as a
sealant coating, dust control agent
pesticide carrier, or as a rust prevention *
agent on pipes. Liquid PCBt at
concentrations greater than or equal to '
50 ppm, but less than 500 ppm. may be- .
incinerated or burned In a high
efficiency boiler. They may also ba> land .
disposed pursuant to ins TSCA
regulations, but with certain Limitations, •
some of which an summarized la thar •
December 11.1986 proposed rule (81 PR •
44723). Liquid wastes containing PCB* af
concentrations greater than or equal to
500 ppm must be incinerated according.
to TSCA regulations or disposed of bf
any other approved alternate method*
(40 CFR 761.60(e)) thai con achieve) •
level of performance equivalent to th»
technical standards set in 40 CFR 781.70,
Such liquid wastes containing PCBa at •
concentrations greater than or equal to
soo ppm cannot be land disposed. •
3. Relationship Between HSWA and '
Existing Regulations .
Several provisions In HSWA impose
restrictions on the land disposal of PCB
wastes which an not contained in too
existing TSCA or RCRA regulations. The
TSCA regulations at 40 CFR 7BU(e)
clearly state that where (here is an
inconsistency between TSCA and RCRA
standards, the more stringent
regulations govern. In addition, the
HSWA legislative history (H.R. Rep. No.
198. Part L 98th Cong, 1st Seas. 56
(1983)] suggests that allowing the more
stringent provisions to govern ia also
consistent with Congress' understanding
of the regulatory scheme. Today's final
rule integrates a number of the TSCA
requirements into the RCRA framework
in order to ensure that where there is an
inconsistency between TSCA and RCRA
standards the more stringent regulations
govern (see 1 268.5. 1 288.0. 1 288.42. and
S 288.50 in today's (mat rale and the
accompanying preamble discussions in
the section entitled "Modifications to
the Land Disposal Restrictions
Framework"). For a further discussion of
the PCB land disposal requirements In
light of lha RCRA section 3004{c) liquid*
in landflll prohibitions and the RCRA
section 3004(d) requirements, see the
December It 1966 proposed rule (51 FR
44723).
4> Treatment Standards
EPA Is establishing treatment
standards fprliquid hazardous waste*
containing PCBs at concentrations
greater than or equal to 50 ppm. That '
Agency proposed to require thermal'
destruction (Lew treatment in
Incinerators os high efficiency boilers) oL
such waates pursuant to the operating -
standards set forth In 40 CFR 761.aa and
781.70. Norm of the conuueater*. :
challenged the appropriateness of theao
proposed standards, and EPA lsj> •
promulgating the treatment standard* as*
proposed Alternative treatment- '
method* (»gw chemical dacUorinatfon) •
may bo used when the Administrator
has dctaoninad that such methods- .. .
achieve- • measure of performance) •
equivalent to us* achievable br • >
method* BPA he* specified and^wfaen -
certain olhet enimieiated condlttone ere *
satisfied See |'2Mu*2(b). See tno socdoft
In today's final rale entitled Treatment -
Standards* tor a further discussion ot-
to tnetinarrt standard* applicable to. .
wastes*: • -.."',-•.
5, ProhlbJtfon Effective Datr; ; /', ^:J
. TH» Agency proposed ta grant a *-. ^
year nationwide variance from th» {tily j
a. 1887 statutory effective date, based
e perceived- leek of sdequal* thermal -
treatment capacity foe the Californie list
PCB waste*. Several commenten stated.
that therv-l* sufficient treatment. ,.- • .
capacity tec liquid halogenatad waatae.-*
Although the commenten did not
provide quantitative data to support
these assertions. EPA has revised its
capacity estimates and determined that
there does not appear to baa
nationwide lack of adequate capacity to
treat liquid hazardous wastes containing
PCBs at concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm. Thus, the proposed 2-
year variance is not being promulgated
in today's final rule. Rather, the
statutory effective date of July 8.1987 is
applicable to the California list PCB
wastes. To the extent that isolated
shortages of capacity occur, applicant*
may apply for case-by-case extensions
pursuant to I 288.5. See the section in
today's Rnal rule entitled "Capacity
Determinations and Effective Dates" for
a further discussion of the Agency's
basis for the approach.
D. Haiogenatad Organic Compounds
(HOCs)
1. Final Approach
a. Definition of halogenatad organic
compound* (HOC*). HOC* are
compounds containing a carbon and a
halogen in the- molecular formula.
Halogen* include the five nonmelallic
element* In Group VHA of the periodic
table: fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl). bromine
(Br). iodine (I), and astatine (At). For
purpose* of the California list land
disposal prohibitions, the Agency
proposed e deflaUkm for HOC* that
wouM require e earbon-aatogra bond.
Tk» rationale for thi* proposed ••
definition wa»tnat compounds that lack
such • bond but that have a halogen
attached !o an atom such as nitrogen
(e.g* aniline hydrochlorideX an not true
HOC*. All the commenten who
addressed thl* Isaa* agreed that a/ •
carbon-halogen bond should b* - - -
required; therefore! today's-final role
promulgate*- the-HOC definition a*'
b. Hosatdout woits no/mmnAitC'
Waste* containing HOC* on only :
subject to the CaUbruia Hst prohibition*'-
if the waste 1* Hsted as hazardous under'
40 CFR Part 281 or exhibits one or mon
of m* characteristics of hazardou* •'
wastoMsirttfiftdlcrPBrt 281 However.- •
the waste listing or characteristic need
not b* related to the HOCcontenf of the
KmWiffM waste tot if to be covered
c. C
Ta*HCRAsactton300 ,
pnUbitfoo codified today applies only
toha*»e«waw**tas>containingKOCa .
In tout'concentntion graalar than or '
equal to IjOOO-mg/jkarAlthougb EPA 1*
codiryu^th«*
-------
Federal Register / Vof. 5;. No, 130 / Wednesday. July B, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 25771
disposal restrictions (51 FR19300). At
that time, prohibitions on land disposal
and treatment standards will be
established to the extent necessary for
individual HOCs or groups of related
HOCs.
In determining the concentration of
HOCa in a hazardous waste, the Agency
recognized that the proposed carbon-
halogen definition presents a potential
problem because it would include a
number of polymerized and other
halogenated compounds thai am
generally considered nonbazardous due
to their relative immobility and lack of
loxicity. EPA slated in the proposal that
Congress did not indicate an intent to
include within the California: list
prohibitions every possible HOC such
as polymers that comprise solid plastics
and vinyls. Instead. EPA Hated that
Congress was concerned with
constituents that are mobile and/or
potentially hazardous to human health
and the environment Therefore, the
Agency proposed to limit the HOCa
included under the California Hal
prohibition to those HOCs which ere
regulated as hazardous under 40 CFR
Part 281 or listed in Appendix Vffl to
Part 281.
Many conunenten agreed with the
Agency's proposed rationale for limiting
the HOC prohibition; huweier. severe!
suggested that the Agency clarify that
polyvmyl chloride* (PVCs) are not
subject to the California Hat
prohibitions. Although some
comraenten supported the reference to
Appendix VDl as a mean* of limiting the
HOC pfohibitron. other connnenters
stated that testing for Appendix VTD
constituents Is difficult doe to, amonf
other things, the lack of appropriate test
methods and the undefined boudarte*
inherent in the list (e.g. beeauw of tto
"not otherwise specified" (NLO&7
categories}. The commentera suggested
thai EPA substitute Perl 28ft Appendn
IX in place of Part 201. Appendix TO U
a limitation on the HOC {wmbioea.
EPA agrees with the concern of
commenten regarding testing and b>
requiring in today's final rale that m
determining whether • hazardous waste
contains HOCa in eoneentnttont shore?
the California Ifst prohibition level onfjr
those HOCa which are IMad to Part 269
Appendix IH must be mended m the
calculation. Appendix 01 it being; added
to Part 280 in today's final rate. II
consists of aO HOCa whkfa EPA
currently analyze* hi establishing
section 30tM(m) treatment standards
expressed ss performance lewis. (See
the "BOAT Pollutant UsT (a Cmerfe
Quality Amrenct Prefect HmfrrLant
Dispatal Restrictions Program (BDAT%
U S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. March
12.1987.) The Agency has also added
PCBs not otherwise specified to this
Appendix because the "BDAT Pollutant
List" that formed the basis for Appendix
HI only lists certain Aroclor PCBs
(whereas the existing TSCA regulations
apply to non-Aroclor PCBs as well).
Appendix III is a finite list of
constituents for which lest methods
exist, thereby addressing the
commenters' concerns. It includes only
HOCs found in Appendix VIII of Part
261. and so is limited to toxic HOCs,
satisfying the concerns of coramenlers
and the Agency that innocuous HOCs
not be included. EPA is not adopting the
Part 264 Appendix IX limitation
suggested by several comraenters
because it has not been finalized a* yet
and because Appendix IX only
addresses thus* HOCs that an water
soluble, and so would not b*
appropriate when HOCs an found in,
solid matrices. (Whan finalized.
Appendix IX will serve a* Ik* new list
of constituent* for which ground water
monitoring i* required.} The. list adopted
in Appendix ill to Part 268 also contain*
HOC* that an not walar solubl* and,
therefore, EPA believe* it addressee
coagresaional cancan* and better
represent* a comprehensive yet
enforceable list of HOC* to b*
regulated.
In fuuBzing tho HOC prohibitton. EPA
is reiterating that oampoud* such a*
PVCs. even if contained in hazardou*
waste*, an not within the scope of too
CattfbnsB U*t praaibinon* baoavao
PVC* an not Indadad on Appendix ID
to Part 2Bs\ However, saooosaaiic vinyl
chkvid* ts sabfsct to mo restriction*
because, it to Bsa*dniP*Bt2M Appendix
HI
In testing far tfa* HOC* dtoauHd
above. BPA piupassd to looofao nso si
th* TCLP. Seven! oannnontBfa. warn
stal
HOC* "us total
that EPA shoold
analysis.
The
that • total cunannent analytic better
reflect* congressional fatent (a* weO a*
the IHenl stetntory lunyiogu) regarding.
th* HOC proMbrao*) an* tkenroco.
today'* Eon! rale depart* from nW
proposed spproech to tint) msneiA A* o
result tho entfr* wast*- (not en extract*.
moot bo tested I* order to detonate th*
concentration* of th* HOC^discasaerf
above. However, a* fa the Hevemoer 71
198B final rah. gmentera Bead not test
than* waste* if they eaamaJc* * ••
detennjnaoon aa to whether or not (bay
an restricted nsing knowledge of tho
waste. In doing so. generator* must
maintain all supporting data used to
make such a determination on-site in the
generator's ales.
2. Relationship to California List
Prohibition on PCBs
As discussed earlier in the preamble.
today's final rule codifies the RCRA
section 3004(d)(2HD) prohibition on the
land disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes containing PCBs at
concentrations greater than or equal to
SO ppm. Because PCBs an also
halogenated organic compounds. EPA
reads the PCS prohibition as plaaog an
upper limit of 50 ppjn on the
concentration of PCBs that may be
contained in a hazardoua waste
containing HOCs which is land
disposed. (A* discussed more hilly later
in today's preamble, the treatment
standards and prohibition effective
dates for the PCB-containing wastes, as
the morn waste-specific determination*.
would control and the HOC treatment
standards and effective dates an
supercaded).
The limitation of 50 ppm. however, fa
only applicable to liquid hazardoua
waste* containing PCBs. Therefore, a
nonliqvid hazardoa* waste containing
PCBs at concentrations greater than or
equal to SO pom nay be land disposed
without violating lhe> California K*t PCS
prohibition on HOCs as long as the total
concentration of HOCs doe* not exceed
1.000 mg/kg. For example, a nonliquid
hazardous wast* containing 209 mg/kff
(ppm) PCB* end 700 mg/kg (ppm) other
HOC* may be land disposed became
tho 50 pom prohibition doe* not apply to
nonliquid* and because the 900 ug/kp
total HOC concentration doe* not -
exceed dk* t«0 me/kg threshold
promoJgattd ha today's final rofcs.
If the total concentration of HOCa hi
either a Bquid or nonHynd hamduu*
waste-hi greater then or eqaeJ to VOW
mg/kg. tho waste It prohibited froa land
disposal even If the coneeotmoon of
PCB»t* below 8D ppm. Par example. •
liquid baxaidoa* waste containing 25
mg/kg (ppm) PCS* end 980 mg/kg HOC*
othai than PCB* n> prohibitad fmas tend
disposal under th* CaUbni* Uat HOC
prohibition despite the fact that the
California list piohibinon on PCBs)
woohl aflow «v to SO ppm PCBa in •
liquid hazardbv* waste to be land
disposed. Alsat • nonBojura haxnraoni
waste eontamng 400 Big/kg (ppm) PCBs)
and TOO mg/xg HOCs other thsin PCBe to
prohilMted ttott land cwsnoaai iiespttsj
th* fact that existing regulations
pneanigatsd nnder TSCA would aflow
such nmBqvJd PCB waste* to bo
disposed hi sa approved landfill
-------
25772 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. July a. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
3. Treatment Standards
EPA is establishing incineration as the
treatment standard for all hazardous
wastes containing HOCs in total
concentration greater than or equal to
1.000 mg/1 except dilute HOC
waatewaters (i.e.. liquid hazardous
wastes that are primarily water and
contain HOCs in total concentration less
than 10.000 mg/1). As explained more
fully below, however, if an HOC-
containing waste already is subject to a
treatment standard for a specific HOC
(e.g.. and F001 or F002 spent solvent or
a prohibited dioxin- or PCB-containing
waste), the treatment standard
applicable to the more specific HOC
waste would control Thus, when all of
the treatment standards became
effective, the wastes need not be
incinerated to meet the solvent dioxio.
and PCS treatment standards. (See the
section of today's final entitled
'Treatment Standarda" for a further
discussion of the treatment requirements
applicable to tha California list HOC-
coatairung wastes).
4. Prohibition Effective Oatea
Due to a lack of incineration capacity.
the Agency proposed to grant a 2-year
nationwide variance from the July 8.
1987 statutory effective data for the
California list wastes requiring-
incineration. EPA did not propose to
grant a nationwide variance for the
dilute HOC wastewaters. As a result
these wastes would be prohibited fron* •
land disposal aa of July a 1987. EPA
received mixed comments regarding-
available treatment capacity for the
California list HOC wastes; however, no
quantitative data wen submitted
suggesting that incineration capacity
was adequate. Therefore, the Agency la •
promulgating the 2-year variances •*•
proposed. To the extent that new data- <•
are developed by tha Agency, revised
capacity determinations will be made.
some of which could result in the
revocation of existing nationwide
variances. (For a further discussion of -'
these issues, see the section la today*! -
final rule entitled "Capacity
Determinations and EffecnvaDatea.")-
£ Treatment Standards
Today's final rule promulgate*-.
treatment standards for several of tha ,
California list wastes. Unlike tha
concentration-based treatment
standarda established for the solvent?.
end dioxin-containing wastes oa
November 7.1988 (51 FR 40572). todays
treatment standarda an expressed as
specified technologiee. These specified -
technologiee an applicable to the*
California list wastes containing HOC*
(except for dilute HOC wastewaters)
and the California list wastes containing
PCBs. Today's final rule does not
establish treatment standards for the
California list wastes that contain
metals or free cyanides. Treatment
standards for these wastes are being
addressed in a separate final
rulemaking. Today's final rule also does
not establish treatment standards for the
California list corrosive wastes. As a
result, the statutory prohibitions OB
liquid hazardous wastes containing
cyanides, metals, and those having a pH
less than or equal to two (2.0) govern the
degree to which such wastes must be
treated prior to land disposal
1. HOC Containing Wastes
As discussed in the proposed rule (91
FR 44725), the treatment technologiee
applicable to hazardous wastes
containing HOCs In total concentration
greater than or equal to the 1.000 mg/kg
statutory prohibition level an similar to
those technologies identified aa the
basis for establishing BOAT for the
F001-F005 solvent wastes, (F001 and
F002 spent solvents an halogenated
organic compounds.) These technologies
Include incineration, batch distillation.
thin film evaporation, fnctionation.
biological degradation, activated carbon
adsorption, and steam stripping;
a. Dilute HOC wmttwoten. Among
these technologies. EPA determined la
the November 7,1988 final rule thai
wastewater treatment technolglee such
as biological treatment activated
carbon adsorption, and steam stripping"
should form the basis for concentration*
based tnafmeat standards applicable to
the F001-F008 solvent wastewatara.
However, tha Agency did not proposal*
estaiihsh treatment staadarda for HOC»-
not covered by the November 7.1988 •
final rdexTJ» rationale far ttae; •
approach waa that tha wide-variety of
continientsrinch)ded> withai that I
aa limited a l
impractical at thie time far EPA tar
develop westewater treatment - •
standard* expressed either aa '
concentntioa levels or as specified
technologloa. Application of. > • •
technologies1 suck, <
treatment
as biological'
d carbon adsorpHoiii-
or steam stripping may be effective for
many HOC waste*: however, ay.., ,*••*
generalization that one at ell of them.;..:
constitutes BOAT for such a wioV ' .
variety eicempouada la not passible ai-
la the absence of data submitted by
the commenter*. EPA la promulgating
primarily water and contain leas than
10.000 mg/1 HOCs) must be treated to
concentrations below the 1.000 mg/l
statutory prohibition level prior to land
disposal However, no particular
methods for achieving this level an
specified in today's final rule. As stated
in the proposal EPA will reevaluate
each of the HOCs covered under the
California list prohibitions (except for
(he solvent and dioxin-containing
wastes for which the Agency has
already established treatment standarda
on November 7.1906) in accordance
with the schedule published in the
Federal Register on May 28,1988 (51 FR
19300).
b. Other HOC wastes. For the
California list HOC wastes that an not
dilute wastewaters as defined above,
EPA proposed to establish treatment
standarda expressed as a specified
technology. The required method
specified in the proposal was
Incineration in accordance with the
existing requirements of 40 CFR Part 284
Subpart O or 40 CFR Part 285 Subpart O.
One commenter stated that the
administrative record does not support. '
the Agency's selection of Incineration as
BOAT for these non-wasiewater
hazardous waatea containing HOCs In
total concentration greater than or equal
to 1.000 mg/kg, Tha same commenter
also stated that in establishing
Incineration as BOAT the Agency must
demonstrate at least tha same level of
treatment performance aa that required
for permitting under 40 CFR Part 284
Subpart O. For example, the ccmmenter
asserted that since EPA is promulgating
a generic rolemakirtg, it must
demonstrate 9949* destruction and
removal efficiency (four 9s ORE) for all
HOCs the Agency includes within the
scope-of the HOC treatment standard. .
The Agency disagrees with the
r*jTftipmf\t*r thai tfry administrative • <
record doe* net support EPA's selection
o{ incineration as BOAT for the noa»-- .
wastawater HOC wastes subject to-
today1* final ml*. la the preamble to the •
proposed rule (51 FR 44725). tha Agency
cited the November 7,1988 final rule as
support for • detaiminatioa that
incineration represents BOAT for moat
organic liquids aa wall as organic and .
Inorganic sludges sad solids. Further,
support for mcinereaoaaa the basis for
BOAT lathe bet that indurationia
presently a demonstrated and currently
used treatment method-for most PCB -
compounda. These baloganated organic..
PCB compounds an vary, stable and.
the dilute HOC wastewater prohibition
aa proposed. As a result, diktat HOC
wastewaters (la* wastes that am • •
documents for tha November 7.198V
filial rule contain data regarding tha .
incineration of hazardous wastes
-------
Federal Register / Vol. Si No. 130 / Wednesday, July 8. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 25773
containing HOCs (chlorinated solvents).
The data summarize the performance of
10 incinerators at nine facilities Of the
nine facilities, seven facilities)
incinerated HOC wastes and all seven
showed a reduction in the concentration
of HOCa in incinerator ash sufficient to
satisfy the RCRA section 3004(m)
requirement that any treatment levels or
methods specified by EPA substantially
dimmish the toxicity of the waste so
that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized.
The requirement that hazardous waste
incinerators achieve 99.99% ORE is
codified in the existing RCRA
regulations under Part 284 Subpart O.
The requirement is also mandated by
statute. RCRA section 3004(o)(1)(B). The
California list final rale does not reopen
consideration of the permit standards. If
a facility demonstrates that a restricted
waste cannot be incinerated in
compliance with Subpait O
requirements, the facility may petition
the Agency for a treatment variance
pursuant to f 286.44 or the facility may
petition EPA for approval to use an
alternative equivalent treatment method
pursuant to f 28&42|b).
The Agency recently proposed that
burning HOC wastes hi boilers
industrial furnaces in compHanc* with
proposed Part 266 standard* would be
equally effective aa Subpart O
incineration and suggested mat sack
methods could form the basis for a
revised determination of BOAT. 52 FR
16982 (May 8,1987). These standard*
could provide for nse of these
alternatives to incineration in tieating
prohibited HOC waste* without
requmng a case-specific demonstration
as to equivalency pursuant to
} 268.42(b).
c. Applicability of today's aneanmt
standards. Although EPA has
determined that incineration is aa
appropriate treatment standard forth*
broad category of waste* refened to as
HOCs. the Agency letuguizea that tha> '
California list was intended at a starting
point in the land disposal resulttfons
and so where the Agency hae developed
waste-specific data it Is desirable to
refine the treatment requirements
accordingly. Such waste-specific
requirements are Kkely to be mow
reliable, aa the wastes themselves are
better characterized. Furthermore, as
discussed in the November 7.19B8 final
rule, the Agency prefers to estabaafa
concentration-based treatment
standards rattier tnsn) rreennenT
standards expressed as specified
technologies because- EPA believes that
this will provide the regulated
community with greater flexibility in
meeting treatment standards and will
encourage the development of more
efficient and innovative technologies.
Consistent with these principles, and
in response to a commenter's concern
over which treatment standards apply
where a waste contains several
constituents, the HOC treatment
standards promulgated in today's final
rule are only applicable to those HOCs
that are not covered by other Agency
rulemakings under I 288.41.I208.42. or
S 268.43. The Agency has provided in
} 288.42 that treatment standard*
established for wastes containing
individual California list constituents
will supersede today's treatment
standards. With respect (o the
prohibition effective date, the waste-
specific determination that adequate
treatment capacity does or does not
exist for (he more specific type of HOC
waste would also be controlling.
Therefore. 9 28842 states that the
prohibition effective dale established for
the more specific HOC waste would
apply, not the prohibition effective data
established today for the generic HOC
wastes.
For example, a restricted waste (La. •
waste to whichno variances apply)
containing an FD01 or F002 halogenated
spent solvent constituent (such ae
trichloroethylene F001) la subject to e
concentration-based treatment
standard. See Table CCWE 51 FR 4084Z
November 7.1988). Thus, such a waste
need only be treated to meet the
applicable levels fa Table CCVVB. The
Agency is not requiring that incineration
be need to adneve this level. However.
the waste most be treated to these levels
effective November & 1980 and h aot
entitled to the Z-year nationwide
capacity variance eppHcabkt to non-
solvent HOC*.
The Agency caution*, nowever. that
the** prmcfpie* stating that waste*
specific determination* a* to treatment
standards and effective dates are
controlling over more generic
determinations only appflee where the .
waste* are e subset of HOC* for which
treatment standards and prohibition
effective dates exist (The wastes
currently affected by this overlap are
the prohibited solvent, dioxia. and PCB
waste*. Several additional examples of
the Agency's approach ta such esses are1
provided foQcwrng the section entitled
"Capacfty Determinations and Effective
Dates* fa today's preamble.) Where a
haardoos waste contains both HOCs
and non-HOC constituents (e.g»
prohibited levels of a CaHnrrae Hst
metal far Bqnid form), the waste woolo?
be prohibited from land disposal until R
is in compliance with the treatment
standard for both HOC and non/HOC
constituents (or. until treatment
standards are promulgated for the
California list metals, the waste also
meets the statutory prohibition, levels or
has been treated and rendered
nonliquid). In this case, unlike the case
of the HOC/more,-specific-HOC overlap.
there is no necessary relation between
treatment of the non-HOC constituent
and the HOCs. so that HOCa could go
untreated if the treatment standards for
only the non-HOC constituents applied.
The general principle here is that when
different constituents are present in the
same waste (as opposed to one
constituent appearing on two lists, e.g.
an F001-F002 solvent which is also aa
HOC), all of die constituents in (he
waste must be in compliance with, or be
treated to comply with, all specified
treatment standards (or prohibition
levels where no treatment standards
have been established). The same
principle would apply in determining
prohibition effective datee for wattes
containing HOC* and non-HOC -
constituents. Unless the Agency had
specifically addressed this type of waste
matrix to its capacity determination*,
the prohibition effective date for each
constitntent would be applicable.'
For example, where a liquid
hazardous waste contains both
California list metals above the
statutory prohibition levels and HOCs in
total concentration greater than or equal
to 10.000 mg/1. the applicable prohibition
effective dates an July 8.1387 for the
metal portion of the waate and July 8.
1989 for the HOC portion. This reading
is not only «•"""•««" with the. Agency's
analysis, of available treatment capacity
(EPA i» finding that then presently doe*
not exist a nationwide shortage ol
treatment capacity far such matabk hot
It is also necessary to avoid sitmrtioaot
when the Agency would be gnaling •
national capacity vaaanca foe a period
longer Ihaa two yean. Thi* oouha
happen, (or instance, to the ea*a of aa
Fon-FOfl* solvent west*, which is
" entitled t» the 2-year variance fan the
November 8.1B8B prohibition effective
date bat which also contain* prohibited
concentrations of CanfonJe hat
constituents (e-g, metals) for which EPA
TII • If aa !\mm I Fn< tiUntmi Bfr TIT Tf
evme« • Jm
d*miuiii«»m.
dad woild apply.
.
inhii mlm nrk prntihiaon igjcftt*
-------
25774 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. July 8. 1987 / Rulea and Regulations
established an effective dale later than
November 8. 1988 (assuming only for
purposes of this example that such a
variance was granted for the metal-
beanng wastes). Since national capacity
variances cannot exceed two years
IRCRA section 30W(h)(2)). the variance
on the solvent portion of the waste
could not extend beyond November a.
1988. For these reasons, today's final
rule states in J 268.32 that constituents
in a waste may become subject to
prohibitions different times.
2. PCB-Containmg Wastes
The Agency proposed to establish
treatment standards expressed aa
specified technologies for liquid
hazardous wastes containing PCBt in
concentrations greater than or equal to
50 ppms. The proposed methods were
thermal treatment pursuant to the
technical requirements in the TSCA
regulations at 40 CFR 761.60 (burning in
high efficiency boilers) or 40 CFR 781.70
(incineration). Commenten did not
challenge the appropriateness of the
well established TSCA treatment
specifications, therefore. EPA it
finalizing the treatment standards ai
proposed.
The treatment standards promulgated
today in I ZB8.42(a) are consistent with
the TSCA regulations which require the
incineration of liquid wastes containing
PCBS at concentrations greater than or
equal to 500 ppm. Liquid hazardous.
wastes containing PCHs at
concentrations greater than or equal to
SO ppm and less than 500 ppm may be
burned in either high efficiency boilers
or in incinerators. As with the
prohibited HOC weastes or any other
wastes subject to treatment standards
expressed as specified technologies.
alternative equivalent methods may be
used provided they are approved by the
Administrator according to the
standards and procedures specified In
3 268.42(8).
Applications for approval of
alternative equivalent method* should
be submitted to the EPA Administrator
however, where such applications
involve PCB-containing wastes copies
should also be sent to the Director.
Exposure Evaluation Division. Offke of
Toxic Substances, and to the Chief.
Waste Treatment Branch. Office of Solid
Waste.
Regardless of whether the specified
methods in 1288.42(a| or alternative
equivalent methods approved under
128&42(b) are employed. EPA Is
clarifying that, since the PCB wastes
subject to today's prohibitions an
contained in RCRA hazardous wastes,
compliance with the applicable
provisions in 40 CFR Parts 264.265. sad
266 ia also required. The more stringent
technical operating requirements for
incineration in the TSCA regulations are
applicable: however, facilities treating
these liquid hazardous wastes
containing PCBs must also be in
compliance with existing RCRA interim
status or permit standards specified in
Part 264 and 265. In addition, any Part
266 regulations that may be promulgated
with respect to the burning of hazardous
wastes in boilers and industrial furnaces
will also apply. (See 52 FR18982. May 6.
1987.)
Liquid hazardous wastes may contain
both PCBs and other hazardous
constituents for which EPA has
established different treatment
standards or prohibition effective dates.
An example would be solvent wastes
and PCB wastes mixed in a single
matrix. In this circumstance, both sets of
treatment standard* and effective dates
would apply. This is consistent with the
principle outlined above that where
different constituents are present in a
waste, all applicable treatment
standards and prohibition effective
dates must be complied with.
F. Capacity Determinations and
Effective Dates
\. HOC-Containing Waste*
On December 11.1986. EPA proposed
that liquid hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds (HOC*)-
la total concentrations greater than or
equal to 1.000 mg/1 and less than 10.000
mg/1 HOCa ("dilute HOC waatewaters")
be prohibited effective July 8.1967. EPA
did not consider proposing • 2-year
nationwide variance for the dilute HOC
waatewaters. in part, because the
Agency believed it was legally
precluded from granting capacity
variances where treatment standard* •
are not specified. For all other California,
list HOC wastes. EPA proposed
Incineration es the required treatment
method and proposed to grant a 2-year
nationwide variance boa the July 8*
1987 prohibition effective date due to a.
lack of Incineration capacity. For these
wastes. EPA stated that incineration
waste*.
Several eommenters suggested that
there was available thermal treatment
capacity for liquid HOC waste*. Other
eommenters questioned whether the
Agency we* in fact legally precluded
from granting capacity variance* where
it did not establish treatment standard*.
Additional eommenters noted that the
Agency had already found that there is
inadequate capacity to treat dilute
solvent waslewaters, which are a subset
of dilute HOC wastewalers. and noted
the incongruity of not granting a
corresponding variance for (he dilute
HOC wastewalers. The Agency has
reexammed these issues in light of the
comments received and in light of new
information. EPA's findings are set out
below.
a. Legal constraints on granting
national capacity variances. Aa stated
in the Agency's recent notice of data
availability and request for comment (52
FR 223S6. |une 11.1987). the threshold
issue here is whether the Agency is
barred as a matter of law from granting
capacity variances where it does not
specify treatment standards. Upon
reexamination, EPA believes there is no
absolute legal constraint. No commenter
to the June 11.1987 notice challenged
this conclusion. The statute itself
contemplates that such variances can be
granted. Section 3004(h)(2) indicates that
the Agency may grant a national
capacity variance in either of two cases:
(1) With respect to wastes prohibited
when the Agency promulgates
regulations pursuant to section 3004(d)—
(gfc or (2) with respect to hazardous
wastes "subject to a prohibition" under
those same subsections. In this latter
case, the prohibition would take effect
by operation of law (La* the so-called
statutory hammer would fall), and no
treatment standard* would be
established. Yet the statute states that
EPA remains authorized to grant
national capacity variances. The Agency
could grant case-by-case extensions of
the effective date under section
3004(h)(3) as welL since (h)(3) authorizes
extension* to aa "effective date which
would otherwise apply" under
subsections (dHg) or subsection (h)(2).
These affective dales, as Just explained
can take effect whether or not the
Agency promulgate* treatment
standard*..
In addition, the statutory standard
that authorize* EPA to grant capacity
variance* I* not Identical to the
language in section 3004(m) authorizing
EPA to establish waste treatment
standard*. The Agency construe* this to
mean that It aeed not consider precisely
Identical factor** Section 3004(h](2)
requires thevAgeacVt determination to. .
be based on availability of "adequate '
alternative treatment recovery, or
disposal capacity which protect* human
health and the environment* • '".This
can either be>broeder or narrower.
under different dicumstancea. than-
treatment satisfying the section 3004(mi
standard*. 51 FR at 4080& The key point
hate, however. I* that the existence oC -
the different statutory standards for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. ::. \j. 130 / Wednesday, July 8. I3C7 / Ru!es ard Regulators 2"775
granting capacity vanances and
establishing treatment standards
confirms that the two determinations
are not inextricably linked.
b. Determination not to grant national
ccpacity variance for dilute HOC
H ;stewcters. Although the Agency's
rationale at proposal Tor not granting
national capacity variances For dilute
n.insolvent HOC wastewalers would no
longer apply, (he Agency does not
believe such a variance is warranted.
The Agency's estimates are thai these
v. astes are generated in law volumes.
and most of these wastes are believed la
contain less than the statutory HOC
prohibition level. 52 FR 22358. No
commenter challenged this conclusion.
Ir. addition, there is some available
commercial capacity to treat these
wastes. 51 FR 40614.
Commentera lo the December 11.1980
proposed rule and the June 11.1987
notice did not document any shortage of
available treatment capacity; however,
several suggested that the Agency's
determination in the November 7,1986
rule thai there ia inadequate treatment
capacity for certain dilute solvent
wastewaters (which are also HOCs) Is
inconsistent with the proposed approach
not to grant a nationwide variance for
the dilute HOC wastewaters. The two
rules are consistent The dilute solvent
wastewaters granted a national capacity
variance in the November 7.1988 rule
are not limited to waste* containing
1.000 mg/l solvent HOCs. Rather, many
of those wastes contain less than 1.000
mg/l solvent HOCs and. therefore, are
not subject to the capacity demande
imposed by the California list
prohibitions.
The Agency notes, however, that the
national capacity variance for F001-
FOOS solvent-containing wastewaters
would continue to apply even if the
solvent wastes also contain over 1.009
irgfl HOCs as long as the wastewater It
regulated as hazardous because of the
F001-FOOS solvent constituents. This Is
because EPA has already addressed
these specific types of HOC waste* oa
November 7,1986 and has Indicated in
the California list proposal (51 FR 44720)
and earlier in today'e preamble that
such waste-specific determinations
supersede the California list
determinations. However. If the solvent-
HOC hazardous wastewater ia not
regulated as hazardous by virtue of
being an F001-F005 solvent it don not
meet the definition of those wastes
addressed in the November 7.1988 rule
and. therefore, it la subject to the
prohibition effective dale promulgated
for the dilute HOC wastewaters. A* a
result, the hazardous waste would be
prohibited effective [uly 8.1987 despite
the fact it night contain constituents
identical to those specified in the F001-
FC05 listings.
C. Determination to grant national
capacity variance for HOC liquids
containing greater than lO.OOOmg/1
HOCs and HOC solids. As slated earlier
in this section to today's final rule. EPA
has specified incineration as the
required treatment for all California list
HOC wastes except dilute HOC
wastewaters and determined thai, due
in large part to the additional demand
placed on incinerators as a result of the
November 7,1988 solvent restrictions.
there is a nationwide lack of
incineration capacity. Several
commenters suggested that incineration
capacity exists for the liquid HOC
wastes: however, quantitative data were
nol submitted to support these
assertions. Other comnunters agreed
with the Agency's capacity analysts as
discussed ia the proposed rule (51 FR
44732). Based on EPA'* data and public
comments, the Agency ia granting the
proposed 2-year nationwide variance*
from the July 8.1987 prohibition
effective date for these categories of
California list HOC wastes.
As noted in the previous section
entitled "Treatment Standard*." the
Agency prefer* to eslabllsh
concentration-based treatment
standards rather than treatment
standards expressed a* specified
technologies because concentrarion-
based standard* provide, the regulated
community with flexibility and an
believed to encourage the development
of innovative new treatment processes
or more efficient operation of existing
technologies, fa addition. EPA intends t»
revive treatment standards as new
technologies emerge or the Agency
obtains new data. For example, the
Agency's recent proposal (32 FR 18982.
May & 1987) to regulate the burning of
hazardous wastes (including HOC*) in
boilers ""i Industrial furnaces **H to>
specify aumerans operating.
requirements could form the basis for a
revision of the HOC treatment standard.
In the absence of regulatory standards
specifying operation of these devices.
the Agency is not yet comfortable
including them as treatment methods. .
and Intends lo first analyze comments to
the May 8.1987 proposal before
Instituting any such action. Should EPA
revise the treatment standards as
mentioned above, or ia other ways. •
revised capacity determination will be> •
required in order lo justify tha-
continuance to today's national capacity
variances.
2- PCB-Containsng Wastes
On December 11,1980. EPA proposed
treatment standards for the California
list liquid hazardous wastes containing
PCBs a| concentrations greater than or
equal lo SO ppm. In proposing these
treatment standards (i.e., thermal
treatment in accordance with existing
technical requirements set forth in the
TSCA regulations at 40 CFR Part 781).
EPA also proposed to grant a 1-year
nationwide variance based on a
perceived lack of such thermal
treatment capacity.
A Revaluation of existing data and
new volume and incineration capacity
data indicate that there is not a
nationwide shortage of capacity to
manage the small volumes of these PCS
wastes that are currently land disposed.
For the liquid wastes containing PCBs
at concentrations greater than or equal
to 500 ppm. the TSCA regulations in 40
CFR Part 761 already require
incineration. Since none of these wastes
can penaissably be land disposed
currently, the California list prohibitions
do not add any Incremental demand to a
capacity analysis. Therefore, the Agency
Is not granting the proposed 2-year
nationwide capacity variance. As with
the HOC wastes discussed above, any
Individual demonstrations of capacity
shorfaU* may warrant a case-by-case
extension provided the requirements of
i 268.3 are met
The primary impact of the California
list prohibition* on PCB-coataining
wastes is on liquid wastes containing
PCBs st concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm and less than 500 ppm.
Such wastes could previously be land
disposed under the TSCA regulations
provided absorbents are added and
other requirements are met Today's
final rule prohibits, the land disposal of
such concentrations if contained in
hazardous waste; however. Agency data
indicate that very low volume* are
currently being land disposed. In
addition, treatment capacity En high
efficiency boilers and alternative
technologies (e-g, chemical
dechlndnatioD) appear to be adequate.
Therefore, additional demand for
treatment as a result of the California
list prohibitions appear* minimal and
existing estimates of capacity supply do
not warrant granting a nationwide
variance for these wastes. This
conclusion was not disputed by any
commenter to the Tune 11. notice.
3. Metals. Free Cyanides, and
Corrosives
The Agency stated in the November 7.
1988 final rale (SI FR 44732) and the June
-------
S779 Federal Register / VcL 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. M? 3- 1987 / Rules and Regulations
U. 1987 notice (52 FR 223591 lhat it does
not believe it is necessary to grant a
national rapacity variance for the
California Hat metal cyanide, and
corrosive wastes, given the relative ease
with which treatment can be conducted
and unregulated tank capacity can be
installed. Several commenlen
challenged this conclusion. EPA is
currently reevahiatrns, its assumption
that tank capacity and associated
treatment devices can be rapidly
installed: however, the Agency does not
believe it can currently justify granting
of national capacity variances given its
uncertainties about vomme* of wastes
generated, existence of conuneraal
treatment capacity, pins the ability to
treat theae California rials wastes to
reader them nonhamd (ardmaniy •
relatively ansophuticated treatne^
process] and. therefore, no longer'
prohibited. In addition. the fact that EPA
has only received two petitions to date
requesting caee-by-casa extension! for
California Hat waalee auggati that no
national shortages exist. To the extent
thai then an isolaled shortages iai
capacity, case-by-ceaa erteoeioas aay
be granted pursuant to the requirements
of i 268J. Although today's final rule
doe* oat grant a nationwide variance for
theM wastes. tha Agency is coaoemed
that certain targe voLueae flaw* ought
pose a capacity problem, and ia
compiling aad evaluating data relevant
to future capacity determination*.
C. Examples Ohatratiag Integration of
Today1* Final Bub With Other Load
Disposal Restriction Oata
The following examples an tne
Agency's innaprenrtlon of the operetta*
of today's final ruin. (These tuuuuplva
assume that none of the exemptions ia
SS26M.2eeA and 08.8 apply.) _
1. Generator A jfeim ufej o /icutf
hazardous mats containing iOOOppm
HOCs, some of wn/cn ore FOOI _
hOZOTOOaS WQSliB1 fOivetrtS. LIM WVSrBJ
must meet die treatment standard for
the FOOT sorrent by Nmeiabu 6. 1968.
The treatment standards and prohiMttoa
effective dates for spent seivgat wastea
control here became these sutvuuls an
a subset of HOCs nUtadj adJiiunudte
the November 7. T988 final nh. (Bee
solvents, bat it need not be incinerated
to do so. The land diapoaal prohibition
for FOOl wastes containing greater than
or equal to 1% total FOOT-FOOS solvent
constituents is already ut effect (since
November & 1966). (This answer
assumes that the waste is nut generated
by a small quantity generator, a
CERCLA response action, or RCRA
corrective action.)
X Generator C a small quantity
generator {SQCJ of 100-1.000 kg per
month of hazardous waste, generates a
speal solvent waste containing 20.000
ppm of FOOl solvents and 25.000 ppat of
other HOCs. The treatment standard for
FOOl solvents wifl apply as of November
8, 1988 because tha Agency has
determined that then is currently
insufficient nationwide treatment
capacity for such spent solvent wastes
generated fay SQGa. (See S2S8.30(a)(l) at
51 FR 40S41.) Aa these SQC FOOl
solvents an a subset of HOCs already
addressed fat the November 7, 1966 final
rule, their treatment standards and
prohibition euectivv data win iwitivL
4. Generator D. a targe qamtity
generator, generates a non-CERCLA
liquid haxardom waste containing 600
ppm KBs ami 11.000 ppm ttazardoa*
waste spent chlorinated admits. The
waste must neet the treabaent ptaiidaid
forbotb«ohwmaandPC8a,andrr«atdo
so by Incineraflo*. HUM profcibiltaiw
are effective asiaaedlately. Solveola aad
PCBs an oonaUend to be different
constituenta and. tenCon. both seta of
treatment standards aad prohibtUeai
effective dates (November & 1080 and
Inly & Me?, aaepacowly) aee** WMa
the eaitkr escanples tttnacata eaat the
HOC aoofaika tieaa an s*p«sededifa*
wastes containing tesa than 1* tetsl
POOl-ADOS conetitMnta as wBsfly
generated an prohibited vttuMm
November 8. 1988. a FR 48841. 5X ff*
hazardous waste aaataiMuy JZOUffn
HOCs. aver 10.000 pom of which an
F001 solvents. For tha same reasons at
the pmviews exaaapk. ta» wassa oaoat
uioel tlui liaalBMial alianrtiitsJ far flBI
effective, the waste cannot be I
disposed onui it has been incinerated.
The residue from inanaaaon may be
(and disposed I it is a nonkquid {e.g. an
ash) or. i/ itiU a liquid (a-g, a scrubber
water), rt contains less than 500 ppat
lead (or more stringent levels that may
be specified). The general principle hare
is that where a waste contains different
constituents that are not subsets, tha
waste must meet the treatment
standard* and prohibition effective
dates for each such constituent.
H. Comparative R'ak and Available
Treatment AHmattres
HOCs. lUa cs SB! the c*aa heae
solvents aee not a aatesi es*?CBe er tic*
versa.
Sa. Caaane
geaermsar(l0^iSs9Jsjf/iaoi, gonerotet
thesasmmassi**Generator Oi* ska*
fouarfaeg/aaartapianatiaaHidaPCa
treatment capssata-. tisa vntte wesM
have so in i&cnientBd aa of |uly A> IflBj.
stomtbepsaritm
prohibited se tadey's ijeal nia.
HOCt asetsi portise; at
\\m siBetn ia iM-J-'^**1 teeaediatBcr.
Once the HOC prohibition becaeaea
As EPA re
fd in establishing a
framework for implementing the
statutorily mandated land disposal
restriction*. Congress did not intend that
risks to human health and the
environment ba increased as a result of
such restrictions. To help prevent
situations in which regulations
restricting hazardous wastes from the
land disposal woald encourage
treatment technologns posing greater
risks than tbose posed by direct land
disposal. EPA is conducting comparative
risk analyses. In the November 7. 13B6
final rule (51 FB 403721 the Agency
conducted comparative risk
assessments for the fust category of
wastes subject to the land disposal
reetrictians, Le_ certain diaxin-
contaiai&g iheeolyent*cantumag
hazardous wastea.
The Agency has conducted
coaqmrativa oak assessments u
conpacnosi wiA eetaUiehiag section
3004(m) rrnatmrat sUndarris for several
of tha California liet waalea. The
methodology employed is similar hat not
identical to that it'^T^ ia tha
November 7, 19B0 solvents and «**"»'"•
final cule. The BCZ/V RJak-Cost Analysis
(WET) Modal canOnues to be the
priawtr tool for iisanaiiig comparaflv»
riakc howevab Ibe WET Model hea
beaa nviaad oa aha basia of detailed
case atedtaa parnvmnri lot aha
Novasaber^ 1PM fine) rule aodpnblle
counenia napooelBg to the Agency'*
appniarJi In that mfnmnlriee
analyaufenaot eeiaaj need te alisMf
rnntlraimHaeri aiipntai if HPT— '~*
hazardous weeta. teaftnrf rnHetmeal
greatat Wtl iiaka »•• tond rllapnsnle<
untnaaed eaaelea aee eKfJudnd (Lew
usasii'lsesri ^JSM«aitay»1 *• e b«le far
establish the tectiM MO*W
treeasnssBtetaadasda. tftkabeataraeet.
efficient anateeea tacanalagy lar a
Uf Bssatai) AM ^^^^^s^Hlsl^is^ri laal ssssV jtHss^BsW Alila^B
land aaapeeal. the dedssoBl««laMdf it
aa ueernilahle wd have a ditetf insect
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51 \o. 130 / Wednesday, [.ly „. :,Br , Riilg< ^ Re)p.!a.,ona
on the level or method established as
the section 3004(m) treatment standard.
The treatment standard, which must be
based an the capabilities of the best
demonstrated available treatment
technologies for a waste, is then based
upon the capabilities of the best
demonstrated treatment technology (hat
dues not pose greater risks ihan land
disposal. To the extent that the next
best treatment technology performs less
efficiently than the best technology (in
te.ms of the fate of its residuals in the
environment), the resulting section
3004(m) treatment standard will be less
stringent.
As noted in the November 7,198* final
rule, treatment technologies identified
aa riskier than land disposal, and
therefore, classified as unavailable far
purposes of establishing standards, may
still be used by facilities in complying
with treatment standards expressed as
performance levels. Accordingly. EPA is
committed to developing sufficient
regulatory controls or prohibitions over
the design and operation of these
technologies to ensure that their use in
complying with the treatment standard!
does not result in increased risks to
human health and the environment The
analyses conducted in support of these
comparative risk assessments will
provide a basis for developing such
controls or prohibitions, however.
additional supporting data will be
necessary. Where, aa in today's final
rule, the section 3004(m] treatment
standards an expressed as specific
methods which must be utilized, a
determination lo classify a treatment
al'ernative as unavailable will prohibit
the use of that technology to complying
with the applicable treatment standard*.
The comparative risk analysis
conducted For selected California list
wastes estimated the human health risk*
of land disposal practices and treatment
alternatives for California list PCB and
HOC wastes. These assessment!
produced estimates of two measures of
nslu the probability of harm to the
maximum exposed individual [MEI risk]:
and the total number of cases of health
effects (population risk). For a treatment
to be considered unavailable with
respect to a certain waste stream: (1) It
had to be more risky than land disposal
along all pomta of the risk distribution;
[2] the treatment and land disposal riski
had to share the same medium and
canstihitent of concern: and (3) the first
two condition* had la be mat for both
the population and MEI risk
distributions for that waste stream.
Results of die comparative risk
assessments Indicate that the best
demonstrated treatment methods for die
PCB and HOC wastes are not clearly
riskier than land disposal. Whenever
treatment a less nsky or it is uncertain
that a given treatment technology or
treatment tram is clearly riskier than
land disposal, as in today's final ruJe
concerning California list wastes, the
Agency will consider the treatment
available for determining treatment
standards and will develop data to
support additional regulatory controls
that may be appropriate. All alternate
treatment technologies modeled in this
analysis were determined to be
available alternatives to the land
disposal of HOC-containing California
list wastes. For all PCB-eontatning
California list wastes, incineration to
99.9999 percent (six 9s) destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) was
determined to be an available
alternative to disposal in a landfill
IV, Modifications to the Land Disposal
Restriction* Framework
Today's final rule does two things.
First, it addresses the land disposal of
tha second category of wastes scheduled
for prohibition under RCRA section
3004. La* the "California list" wastes.
Second, it modifies portion* of the land
disposal restrictions framework
promulgated on November 7,1986(51 FR
40572). Unless otherwise specified (e.g.
the unique waste analysis requirements
codified in 1 288.32). the modified
framework applies to both California list
waste* and all other restricted wastes.
This section In today's final rule
describes the substantive change* made
in the framework and briefly discusses
any unique requirements with respect to
the California list wastes.
A. General Waste Analysis (§ 204173
In the November 7.1988 final rule |51
FR 40B37-U). the Agency amended ihi
general waste analysis provisions by
requiring owners or operators to specify
In their written waste analysis plans
certain procedures and schedules for
meeting tiu fetpunaaat of the ) 28M
treatment in surface Impoundments
exemption. In particular.
1 Z54.13(b](7)(iii)and I 2BM3(b)(?)(iii)
require the waste analysis ptan to •
specify the procedure* and schedules for
complying with the RCRA section
3005jjJ(ii){B) requirement to annually
remove hazardous residue! for
subsequent management ID
implementing the hazardous residua
removal requirement the Agency stated
that such residues need not ha delrsted.
Rather, EPA provided In 12SB.4(a|(2) •
that the removal requirement could be
satisfied if the residues which do not
meet the Subpart 0 treatment standards-
are removed. The rationale for this
approach is that smce wastes meeting
the treatment standards may be land
disposed, such wastes should not be
subject to the removal requirement.
Today's rule does not change (tie
basic thrust of ihis approach. However.
many of the California list wastes are
subject to prohibition levels which are
not expressed [at least as yet) as
treatment standards. Similar to wastes
that are treated to meet corresponding
treatment standards. California list
wastes treated to below the prohibition
levels may be land disposed. Today's
final rule revises { 268.4(a)(2l to provide
that where no treatment standards have
been established (e.g.. for several of Ihe
California list wastes), residues not
meeting the applicable prohibition levels
are subject to the annual removal
requirement. As a result, the waste
analysis requirements are also revised
accordingly. (Incidentally, such a
residue could not be rendered nanliquid
and then be placed back in an
impoundment unless it also meets Ihe
specified prohibition level because it
would become liquid again immediately
upon placement in the impoundment.)
B. Purpose. Scape nod Applicability of
Part 268 {§288.1}
In i 288.1 of the November 7.1986,
final rale (51 FR 40838). the Agency
stated that the Part 283 land disposal
restrictions apply to generators.
transporters; and owners or operators of
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.
EPA also noted (51 Fit 40577) that the
land disposal restrictions apply to both
interim status and permitted facilities.
Section 208.1 also contains certain
exemptions from the land disposal
prohibitions. Among these are
exemption* for (1J Wastes that are
fubfect lojuccescful case-by-case
extension! pursuant to { 2884; [2)
waste* that are the subject of a
successful "no migration" petition
pursuant to } 288.8: (3) contaminated
soil and debris resulting from a response
action taken under section 104 or
section 106 of CERCLA or resulting from
a corrective action required under
RCRA: and (4) waste* generated by
small quantity generators of less than
100 kilograms of non-acute hazardous
wastes per month or less than 1
kilogram of acute hazardous waste per
month. These exemptions continue to
apply.
The Agency notes that it omitted lo
cme-rafennce an existing regulatory
exemption in proposing the California
b'sl rule*. Thia 1* the exemption la 40
CFR 282J1 for a farmer disposing of
waste pesticides from his own use on
-------
25775 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday, fuly B. 1367 / Rules and Regulations
his own facra in accordance with the
disposal inatnictiom oa the pesticide
label. Then is no suggestion a RCRA or
the legislative hiatory that this practice.
which can be similar to lawful
application of a pesticide product was
intended to be subject to the land
disposal prohibitions. The Agency
discussed this omission in the June 11.
19B7 notice of data availability and
received no adverse comment.
Therefore, today's final rule codifies this
exemption in 126&l{d) and revise
J 282.51 accordingly.
EPA is nol amending 1266.1 to
exempt lab packs, as requested by some
commenters. As the Agency stated in
the November 7,1988 final rule (51 FR
40584). lab packs remain subject to the
land disposal resla'cn'ou because
neither the legislative history nor the
statute indicate that lab packs can be
excluded from the land disposal
restrictions if. they contain restricted
wastes in concentrations exceeding the
applicable treatment standards or
prohibition levels, la addition, liquid
wastes contained in lab packs must
comply with the Part 264 and Part 265
requirements regarding the placement of
containerized liquids in landfills.
C. Definitions Applicable to thlaPart
(§2603)
As stated earlier in today's preamble.
EPA is defining (he California Ksl
constituents subject to me RCRA
section 3004(dl prohibitions on rand
disposal. To avoid confusion in tha
regulated coramanitv over which wastee
are subject to the section 3064(4)
prohibition*, the Agency has codified
several of these Jefiniliomi hi 1188.2. A
more detailed dbemsion of tha basil for
these definitions appears in Ihe eerfiev
preamble sections addressing each
constituent
The Agency also notea that today's
rule slightly revises the lenavegv
defining the term land disposer to
correct an ambiguity hi the Ho number r.
1966 version of the deftriHeo. Ae
revised, the definition clearly states thai
"land disposal- is "placement m or en
the land" and that such piecemeal need
only be "for disposal pwrpe«ee~ wtten
placement ocean in the concrete wettM
or banker. See RCRA section »8*fVf.
D. Dilution Pnribitioa (§2£&3)
EPA proposed to .mend me t2U6J
dilution prottbiliaa promulgated oa
November 7,1966151 FR 40639) to
incnde dilution to avoid a preaibUion la
Subpart C of Part 208 (t*. dsbfean at
bekMrthaMdia fans strata for tha
California Hal vastest aari doitlcai tt
circunwaat the effeetwe data of a
Subpait C arcJubAiBB m las
Aa proposed, these amendments lo
3 268.3 would apply to the entire land
disposal restrictions program, and not
just to the California list wastes, for
example, a waste prohibited from land
disposal as of Novembers. 1988 because
it contain! greater than or equal to IX
total F001-FOOS solvents could not be
diluted to create a ulvent waste
containing less than IK total FW1-F005
solvent constituents in order to take
advantage of the November 8, 1968
prohibition effective data applicable lo
the latter group of solvent wastes.
Most of the commenters supported the
proposed amendments to the dilution
prohibition: however, several expressed
concern that aoJidirlcalion not be
eliminated as a means of Ueatiog
restricted baeardmu wastes. They
stated thai solidification la treatment
not dilution, aad ihauld be allowed.
EPA (* promulgating the amendment*
to the dilation prohibition as proposed:
however, the Agency i« clarifying that tt
agrees with the coeuientera that
solidification— Le, treatment that
renders ffca waste nonUquid— it
appropriate treatment ia many easea.
Therefore, legitimate solidification
technologies are appropriate for asa on
tha California list oMlaJ-beanag wastes,
at least antii treatoaeat standards have
beea established tor euca waalee.
ia the Novetabar 7.1060 Coal rule (51
FR 405921. EPA acted that anay
treatment method* require the addiiioa
of remenH, baldo not thereby
constitute dilution AddiUea of these
chaoajes and daw not merely dilute tha
haurdoaa canetttaoata into a larger
volume of waste «o aa to lower ibe
consUluanl concentration. Where such
physical or eaenrical changes da not
occur, or when toe hazardoue
coaatiaatnti (ft*, aetsiej are aat
othandaa aaaaaMind "idioiflnirtrai"
techaasjaaa oary poasiMy be caosidorad
dlliilliai in e iirfiaiiaals far erlaqnela
IreatSBBBt wilUa the auaninf W tha
a prohibition. SourliGcation will either
have lo achieve the treatment levels or,
where treatment standards have been
expressed aa specified technologies.
those technologies must be utilized.
Where particular technologies have
been specified, aay treatment methods
not specified in 1 268.42 or approved
under } 26&42(b] are not allowed Thus.
in today's final rule, the California list
wastes containing PCBs must be treated
using the specified thermal destruction
technologies {i.e.. incineration or
burning in high efficiency boilers).
The Agency also notes here that, as
slated earlier m today's preamble.
legitimate aggregation of waste streams
(e.gM waatewalers) to facilitate
centralized treatment is not considered
impentisaible dilution. However.
artificial aggregation of wastes to avoid
a land disposal prohibrtioa standard, or
mixing suovtaacea that do not either
themselves need lo be treated or which
do not aid la treatment would be
couideted
£ Treatment Surface Impoundment
Exemption: Ewpstotiot Pnhsbilton
solidiicaina 1 -,
considered dilution, the Isauses at
larrifiUs precautions eat ferth m
f 264JM and j 2UJ*tmma
certainpf*eabition an ate tineas'
iiliiiilnnas (Sea,{brexeafk
"Statutory Jntaapielasii^'CaidaaTia am
tha Placement of 8att LJquist Haaarakwa.
Waste hi UndfiRa," O6WEB Mky
la iddition to modifying the treatment
residue removal reouiremeol as
described in section A of this unit In
today's prffamMa, EPA is also revising
I 268.4 to prohibit in certain
circumstances, the evaporation of
hazardous constituents for purposes of
obtaining aa exemption allowing
treatment of prohibited ia surface
fmpoundmenla. The Agency proposed
this »™*ftri"n because of ils belief that
only impoundments used to treat
resoicae4 suites to reduce fheir loxlclty
or owaifilH. and nol just to transfer
hazardous constflucBU and (heir
associated daka to other media (e^.
from tha land to (ha air), should be
eOgibla lor flia \ 288.* exemption.
Amsfcriry of tha coauaenten
supported lha proposed prohibtOon, But
seveal uggested tkat de aiaiaiu at
other releues incidenl la treatment
skauklW aBowed. One comment or
staled &a! EPA saould focus on lha
riaka af avapoiajQan ID fTa>p™ng tfuy
appropaajta scape of the prohiblBon.
The Afeacjr agnea wUa (he commenti
thai dfjuoiout evaporation Incident lo
propeahjr«Beaitad and eBecflva
ttaatBeal matAoda should be aBowed In
the coataxtdf today** final rule. Today**
final ruin thw stalaa (hit evaporattoa of
standaada are anawlfjaiedte tan liaviet
metal-^eaonf waatae. totonnVarinn at
mutkm m,
110 avoid
hazacdausooniStaealf as tta principal
mean* of rmnffimf !• nol considered
pennisaibla IreatmeaX lot purposes «C a
1268.4 aajasyriian.
tn fbuBeai lha propoawl arebJbRton.
EM esnpaaaizas (hat II la dannlng whal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. MV 3, 1387 / Rules and
25779
constitutes permissible "treatment" for
purposes of section 268 4 and RCRA
section 3C05())|11). EPA agrees that
evaporation risks should.be evaluated
bul not in (he context of today's final
rule. The Agency is not determining in
this final r-jle whether evaporation From
such impoundments poses risks
requiring control. This will be
determined in the context of rules
implementing RCRA section 3004[n).
Rather. EPA is stating that
impoundments which merely evaporate
hazardous constituents are not engaging
in an activity justifying receipt of
prohibited wastes. This reading of the
statute is a corollary to the prohibition
on dilution: both evaporation aa
described above and dilution do nothing
to remove, destroy, or immobilize
contaminants at contemplated by
RCRA. The Ihnisl of the staluiory
provision in section 3005(J)[I1) is lo grant
a limited exemption for impoundments
engaged in treatment which to some
extent meet the objective* of aection
3004(m). namely which reduce levels of
toxicity or reduce the potential fur
hazardous constituents to migrate from
the wade. Practice* which do nothing
more than transfer hazardous
constituents to other media fail to
sattsfy thu objective Put anodurvrey,
since placement of reafricted-wnta m
surface impoundment! Is-coruidezed
land disposal under RCRA •acton
3004(k) and } 2W2. the Agency doa> not
believe that Congress intended to aitow
this exemption where irapoandiaen.lB.an
essentially engaged in land disposal.:!**
placement on the land followed by OB
evaporation of hazardous coiutitueRBk
Therefore, today's find rule-problbisi
such evaporation aa the "principal"
means of treatment for puspaei.o£«
J 268i4 eiEenrption*
An example of impermissible
evaporation of hozardou* ouiisllUmrts
aa the "pnncipai" meai»aFtje«traeat*s
when the role activity ocnimng In the
impoundment is the volatilisation oZ
organic compounds into the aob'ient air.
However. EPA recognises tiwtTtrtrti
treatment practices rwjluae-ev«pormf
as a consequence' of U ealiMirt fe.g*
aggressive biological undue nt)-ar
involve emissions ofhewrdoas
constituents uicidentto elaertn
These practices an romdwlees
legitimate treatment under) ^M4
because they-destroy or inmobiUw
hazardona-conslituenw.ipHiirtt'iwWti
say that "aggreaaive"'treate«irt hi
necessarily r*qurwd'»-aidwtO'Wmpl]r
with f 266:*)
The Agenqraalw crerifytag-rlrnliaBt
that evanoratton rfvrater or other
componmts mrtmi the li»t"of *hexndBM
constituents" (in 40 CFR Part 281.
Appendix VIJJ) \a not addreosed by
today's final rule. Therefore, a treatment
process involving the evaporation of
water as the pnncipai maans of
treatment is currently eligible for a
5 Z884 exemption. Far example.
dewatenng liquid metal-bearing wastes
to concentrate metats for recovery or
further treatment is acceptable under
today's final rule.
F. Case-by-Case Extensions (§ 2BB.SI
In 4 268.5 of die November 7.1966
final rule (SI FR 40639), EPA established
procedures for obtaining caae-by-caae
extension* to a prohibition effective
date pursuant to die authority ofRCRA
section 3004|h](3). One requirement in
i 268.fi for obtaining such extensions u
that the applicant demaiutiate that he
has entered into a trading contractual
commitment to conatruol or otherwise
provide treatment recovery, or dupoeal
capacity that meets the applicable
treatmentstandaids. The rationale for
this requoement n that Congnas
intended to encourage 6m devempmenl
of altemativ»capacity by
accommodating dose-making a good
faith effcrt-tocomply with the
prohibitions by Am effective data.hul
who are unable A do ro:du» to
circumstances beyond ibeir.control. [See
S. Rep. No. 284. Bath Gang..l3LSeu.lH
(1983).) The baste thnrst of this uuurvmih
is not changed by today'! Rod rule:
however, the Agency tiaa recognized
that applicants cannot-damonttrate a
binding contnchial-oomndtau! at 1o
provide- eapwcrry meeMnglreatjnent
standards .when'no'trMaBant ataadanie
have b«en-e«t8bBehed((«ia» Jen- seHsni
of the-Callremia Jisf mv,**). Ttareiow,
applicable to new impoundments by
November 8. 1988. Although (he Agency
has not codified this statutory
requirement, it remains applicable. In
order to clarify the regulated
community's obligations, however.
today's final rule reference* the RCRA
section 3005) j ]fl ) requirement in
9 2B8.5(h)(2).
Another modification to S 288 5(h](2)
is made in today's final rule with respect
to the disposal of California list PCS-
containing wastes that are subject to a
case-by-case extension, m order to
integrate the TSCA and RCRA
requirements, a new paragraph (h)(2)(wj
is added which statn that a landfill
disposing of such PCB-contaming
wastes during the period of an extension
must be in compliance with both the
TSCA regulations for chemical waste
landfilh at 40 CFR 701.75 fPCB wastes at
SO ppmosr greater may not be placed rn
surface impoundments under the TSCA
regulations) and me.Part Z64 and 265
requirements. This modification has
been made to ensure that the more
stringent of the two sets of requirements
apply.
C. "No Migration" Petitions to Allow
Cmlmuad-Land Disposal (§2384)
In the November 7. 1986, final rure (31
ER MHO], EPA established procedures
forgnnlingjjeUtiorui allowing
prohibited wastes to be land disposed
where applicants-can demonstrate, to a
reasonable degree at certainty, thai
than wiD be "no-migration of hazardous
constituents Irara the disposal unit or
injectkia zone Tor as. long BJ the wanes
remajjLhazardoiia.'* FCRA sections 3004
(d). (e]..and(g). Today's final rule does
noLcaaaga laepcoceduns established
in 9 268.6: however, the exemption js_ •
being iJaii't'THy excludiagxertain PCB-
containing wastes From eligibility for
such exemptions.
Current T90A,regale trees- wqwre'th*!
rule.*** of **rikft dari«rtlt
prahibflsfl •asDis aabjaoltoi
CttBO BJC^BnaW^BH
concentnlMae«iealer.laa»ar4qual to
500 ppethe Jneieautad aaotoag to 40
CFRa«L»*tsa**aide.ilB-ordBr ta^a void,
the possihiti»ta£oiicum¥eflang this
I ifiurt»*iamde
li
-------
25780
Federal Register / Vol. Z2. \'a. 120 / Wedrcs^av. July 8. 136: / Rules ind Re«uia':c-3
RCRA regulations in order to facilitate
compliance by (he regulated community.
H. Waste Analysis and Recordkeepins
(§269.7}
In the November 7.1986. Final rule (51
FR 40597). EPA acknowledged that the
ultimate responsibility is on land
disposal facilities to ensure that
prohibited wastes are not illegally
disposed. However, the Agency also
recognized that a testing and tracking
scheme is critical to implementation
and. as a resuJt. imposed certain waste
analysis, notice and recordkeeping
requirement! on generators and
treatment facilities, as well as land
disposal facilities. These requirements,
as specified in { 286.7 and set forth in
the Agency's recent correction notice (52
FR 21010. June 4.1987). are not
substantially modified in today's final
Generators remain responsible for
determining whether their wastes are
restricted from land disposal and may
continue to make this determination
based on knowledge of their waste.
testing, or both. A unique aspect of
today's final rule ia that, when testing.
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) ia not required for the
California list wastes. Rather than
testing an extract developed using the
TCLP (as is required for the solvents and
dioxins to determine if wastes meet the
applicable treatment standards),
9 288.32 specifies the relevant portion of
the waste to test. I.e.. the entire waste
and not a leach extract for HOCs. PCBs.
and corrosives. Other revisions to
} 268.7 Involve modifications and the
notice and certification provisions to
require reference to the applicable
prohibition levels where no treatment
standards are established. The
remainder of 1 268.7 is unchanged
/. Waste Specific Prohibitions—
California List Wastes (§ 268J2)
The primary focus of today's rule ia on
codifying statutory land disposal
prohibitions, establishing effective
dates, and. for certain California liat
wastes, promulgating treatment
standards. Today's final rule adds a new
3 268.32 which contains the prohibitions
and effective dates. The unique waste
analysis requirements for these waste*
are also included in § 288.32.
Prohibitions and effective dates for
the California list metal and free
cyanide containing wastes are not
included in today's final rule. These
determinations will be made in a
separate rulemaking. In the interim, the
statutory prohibitions In RCRA section
30M(d](2)(B) are applicable and today's
preamble discusses the Agency's
approach to determining compliance
u-ih the statutory prohibitions. In
addition. ! 268.32 (and § 268.42) are
revised to state that the California list
prohibitions, treatment standards, and
effective dates for HOCs are superseded
bv more specific Agency determinations
regarding treatment standards and
prohibition effective dates (e.g.. any
determinations already made for
solvent-containing and dioxin-
cantaming wastes on November 7.1986.
or any determinations to be made
according to the May 28.1980 schedule.
(31 FR 19300)).
The rationale for this approach ia that
EPA has recognized (51 FR 44725) that it
is difficult to establish prohibitions and
treatment standards for the broad and
diverse categories of wastes specified
on the California list. In both the
December 11.1988 proposal (SI FR
44715) and today's final rule. EPA has
noted that Congress intended the
California list prohibitions to serve as a
starting point in carrying out the
congressional mandate to minimize land
disposal of hazardous waste. Therefore,
as the Agency develops data on
particular waste streams, it will
promulgate prohibitions, treatment
standards, and effective dates that will
supersede those promulgated today.
/. Treatment Standards Expressed as
Specified Technologies (§268.42}
Today's final rule establishes
treatment standards expressed as
specified technologies for the California
list wastes containing HOCs (except
dilute HOC waatewaters) and those
containing PCBs. The technologies-
specified in 128&42(a) are thermal
treatment methods currently subject to
existing regulations and are discussed In
more detail in today's preamble section
entitled "Treatment Standards."
Because the PCS wastes subject to these
treatment standards an mixed with-
RCRA hazardous waste* the Agency Is
reiterating in 128&42fa)(l) thai
compliance with both the TSCA and
RCRA standards is required in Seating
such wastes. This will ensure thai
today's treatment standards do not
result in reducing the stringency of
existing treatment requirements for PCB
wastes or RCRA hazardous wastes.
EPA is also clarifying two aspects of.
} 28&42(bh As promulgated oa
November 7.1986 (SI FR 40042), this
provision allows the AdmialstratH to-
approve the use of alternative treatment
methods provided an applicant can
demonstrate that such alternatives can-
achieve a measure of performance
equivalent to that achievable by
methods EPA has specified. A further •
demonstration must be made that the-
alternative treatment method does not
pose an unreasonable nsk to human
health or the environment.
One commenter suggested that such
equivalency petitions may only be
granted through rulemaking after notice
and public comment. The Agency does
not fully agree. Such a determination
could be made in such a way as not to
have general applicability and effect,
and so amount only to an individualized
vanance. The Agency does not believe
that in such instances rulemaking
procedures necessarily are required. To
the extent, however, that Agency action
on an equivalency petition would have
general applicability and effect (for
example, indicating that a technology
constituted an equivalent technology for
classes of wastes and generators), then
rulemaking procedures would be
appropriate. The EPA would make this
determination when evaluating each
petition. The language in } 28&42(b)
therefore should not be read to require
use of rulemaking procedures in every
case.
The Agency is removing the language
in i 26&42(b) requiring petitioners to
demonstrate that their treatment method
does not pose an "unreasonable nsk."
This standard is drawn Gram the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and ia
inappropriate for a RCRA
determination EPA ia substituting the
RCRA standard which requires a
demonstration that the alternative
treatment method Is "protective of
human health and the environment" To
the extent that the equivalency petition
is made with respect to PCB-containing
wastes also regulated under TSCA. the
applicant would also have to satisfy the
"unreasonable risk" standard contained
in 40 CFR 781.60(e) aa part of the
demonstration required independently
under the TSCA regulations. The
remainder of the 1288.42(b) framework
continues to apply. •
K. Prohibition* oa Storage of Restricted
Wastetl§288JO)
Today's final rule does not modify the*
framework for prohibiting storage of
restricted wastes; however, two
revisions an being made- that are unique
to the Califoraia list wastes. First, the .
applicability provision in < 288-30(e) la
being modified to account for wastes for
which treatment standards an not
specified (e.g, several of the California
list wastes). As promulgated on
November 7.1980 (51 FR 40842)1 thia
provision exempted from the storage.
prohibitions any wastes meeting the-.
applicable treatment standards. i.e,
wastes that are, not prohibited from land
disposal. Today's revisions to ! 28B\50(e)
-------
Fetfaral Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday, fulv 8. 1967 / Rules and ':
simply extend tfcu prmcipleta wastes
that are not prohibited from land
disposal but for which treatment
standards are not specified.
Section 268.50 is also bemg revised to
incorporate an existing TSCA PCB
storage prohibition into the RCRA
regulations in order to integrate the two
sets of requirements and facilitate
compliance by the regulated community.
Existing TSCA regulations at 40 CTR
76I.65(a) require that wastes containing
PCBs at concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm be removed from
storage and disposed within one year
from the date when they were first
placed into storage. The RCRA
regulations in 9 268.50. however, allow
storage of restricted wastes m tanks or
containers where such storage is "solely
for the purpose of the accumulation of
such quantities of hazardous waste as
necessary to facilitate proper reeo«»y.
treatment, or di«posel.'"Despite some
confusion m the regulated community.
S 288.50 does not establish a firm time
limit on allowable storage of restricted
wastes-Section 268.50 merely shifts the
burden of demonstrating compliance far
lack thereof) when restricted wastes are
stared beyond one year. Storage
violations may occur withm one year, or
storage may be allowable bayimd 000
year, depending on die reasons for such
storage. Absent a modifies two to
{ 2t050for the California bsi KB
wastes, the open-ended BERA storage
prohibition could cxcannvent the Oat
one-year limit imposed by the TSCA
regulations. Therefore, today's final ruk
revises (.288.60 mtequire that the
California .list J>CB wastes may onjy.bs)
stored in accordance-with-lhe 1268.18
requirements, but that such stoiagejs
limited to one year. For the-sonvsoience
of the regulated community, today'srcuk
also revises I 288.&0 to incorpoaunU
ft Ttt-BSlb) provision wquiring-oartaia
physical ebBWCtensiios.aLeueWCB
storage facilities («+.ddaquaas foofiqfr.
walls, and flcofs-wuta.cnrbifla|.
reconstruction ban. The Fotlowmg two
sections discuss me comments retained
on the proposed approach and a
description of the provmorts contained
in today's final rule.
1. Minor Modifications of Permit*
(5 270.42)
All comments received on the
proposed amendment to the minor
permit modification regulations
supported the proposed approach.
Commenters indicated that the use of
minor modifications vrould be essential
to allow facilities to respond promptly
and effectively to the land disposal
restrictions. The Agency agrees with the
commeatecs and is promulgating
{ 270.42(p) essentially as proposed.
Specifically, this pnmiuna will allow
permitted facilities to use dteminor
modification process in obtaining
approval to make changes as needed to
treat or store restnctad wastes m tanks
or containers in-order to comprywjth
Part 268 land disposal restrictions,
provided the permittee complies Math
the following conditions: ficst the or-
or operator must submlta sompJete
maior permit modification application
pursuant to Ml3Uf and27o\«t: meomi
the applicant most demonstrate .that
changes in a anil to trial at stare
restricted wastee hi taaks-ar coxmnnsn
are nwessary to-aompryniBh Thailand
disposal wstncuons of Past-aftand
third'the applicant must«neuae mat
such onits comply wllli tlie ^pplieafalB
Part 2B8.fltandards untillto major
modiflesjtion-'no.ueBt ts granted or onfll
Post WB-cloiure-and Boavdoann
respoMib(lMee«>e-- — J ^
store mtri«tedwaelss)«wuldi»eufaBict
to the
conUii
(sw-W
L Minor
CAonsw Danng 7/rtenm States- ffWWB
and § 270.72)
On .December 11. ****, lha.Ageaqr
.proposed .two amendment*, to (he
requirements in J^art 2fO to give uciBQm
the Ability to-changa their operations to
treat ar .store restricted waste* in tatik»
issue a proposed rule in the next several
months.
2. Chaoges Qunog Jnterim Status;
Removal of Reconsiructisn Limits
(4 270.72)
The Agency proposed to allow interim
status facihltn to modify their
operations to treat or ctore restricted
wastes in tanks or containers at
necessary to comply with the lend
disposal restriction* without being
requited to obtain i permit oven if such
changes exceed the reconstruction
limits. Current regulations at 1 27Z.72(e)
requite owners or operators of interim
status facilities that may need to expand
the facility by more ihan^Q percent (m
terms of capital investment) to defer
such changes until a permit is issued.
Virtually all of me commenters
supported the proposed approach to
waive the SO percent reconstruction
limits for interim status facilities. They
further commented that delaying such
necessary changes to me facility until a
permit is issued could present
significant operational difficulties at the
facility. The Agency, therefore, is
amendiAgeom«nef«.-
preamble to the proposal EPA beUewes.
wiih Ihe ParUZfifl land disposal
^^^n^. jot permitted facilities It
was ^mpased that such changes coutB
be approved through (ha-minor
modifioatloa process under certain
coadQunn.lt was aUoprojiumfl tiial
ihpan expansions at interim statia
facilities would nofbe subjecrtothe
piueesaes. snea'
modiflcsfion ^rocen. ffawwer.'tlw
jf an-ore»Bitr
THomTitatUiu legulsMons.
iBsltsiinn rmtsmrm
Sano
is of
-------
15782
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday, jjly 8. nsr / R-Jes ar.d Regulu::c.-3
Wastes." (U.S. EPA. 1986). This
assessment was based OB a
methodology to score and rank waste
streams for relative acceptability for
ocean disposal, based on technical
requirements, environmental criteria.
and. to a limited extent, nsk to human
health and the environment. This
analysis was supplemented with an
analysis of cost factors and capacity
constraints.
The scoring/ranking methodology was
based on technical requirements (e g..
physical form and heating value) and
MPRSA environmental cntena (e.g..
constituent concentrations, toxicity.
solubility, density, and persistence of
the waste) associated with ocean
disposal of hazardous waste. The
capacity analysis assumed that those
wastes least acceptable for ocean
disposal will be treated or disposed of
by land-based methods. The coal
analysis assumed that additional land*
based treatment capacity would be built
to treat waste streams for which the
costs of land-based treatment would be
less than the costs of ocean disposal
(including on-land transportation to a
port located on the East Coast).
The results of the cost/capacity
analysis indicated that, as a result of the
land disposal restrictions.
approximately 20.3 million gallons per
year of hazardous waste containing
HOCs. 15.1 million gallons per year of
liquid hazardous wastes containing
metals, and 8.2 million gallons per year
of liquid hazardous wastes containing
PCBs could create demands for ocean
dumping and ocean-based incineration.
Such demands result from capacity
shortfalls of land-based treatment (e.g..
incineration and chemical precipitation)
and the relatively lower coat of ocean
dumping and ocean-based incineration,
taking into account the costs of
transportation on land. The cost/
capacity analysis did not take Inta
account technical requirements or
environmental cntena.
The Agency expanded the cost/
capacity analysis to evaluate-the wastes
based on cost, capacity, technical
requirements and MPRSA —' - - -
environmental cntena. and to a limited
extent, nsk to human health and the
environment. The results of thai •
analysis indicated that ocean disposal
of some of these waste streams may
incur risks to the marine environment
Clearly, potential risks will influence
whether or not ocean dumping permit*.
for example, would be issued for the
affected waste streams. However, under
present statutory authorities, with the
exception of certain specified waste*.
EPA may not disapprove ocean dumping
cf a hazardous waste for failure to
comply with one or more environmental
cntena. EPA must consider all statutory
factors under section 102(a) of the
MPRSA in its decision-making on permit
issuance, not |ust compliance with
environmental cntena. Consequently.
EPA will have to make case-by-case
decisions on whether such permits will
be issued for hazardous waste streams
prohibited from land disposal.
VI. Slate Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authonze qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the Slate. Following
authonzation. EPA retains enforcement
authonly under sections 3008.3O13 and
7003. although authonzed Slates have
primary enforcement responsibility. The
standards and requirements for
automation are found in 40 CFR Part
271.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program in lieu of EPA administering the-
Federal program in that State. The
Federal requirements no longer applied
in the authorized State, and EPA could
not issue permits that the State was
authonzed to-iasue. When new. more
stnngenb Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the State was
obligated to enact equivalent authority
within specified time frames. New
Federal requirements did not take effect
In an authorized Slate until the State
adopted the requirements ae Slate law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(8) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)) new-
requirements and prohibition* imposed-
by HSWA take effect in authorized
Slatea at the same time that they take
effect In non-authorized Slatea. EPA la
directed to carry out theee requirement*
and prohibitions to authorized States, .
Including the issuance of permits, until
the State ia granted authorization to do
so. While Slatea must still adopt.
HSWArtelated provisions avSUte law.
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim. , •
Toda/a rale ia promulgated pursuant
to sections 3004(d) through (k). and (m).
of RCRA (42 US.C. 6924). provision*
added by HSWA. Therefore, it Is being
added to-Table tin 40 CFR 271.HJJ -
which identifies the Federal program
requirements that an promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and take effect In all
States, regardless of their authorization
status. Slates may apply for either
interim or final authorization for the
HSWA provisions in Table 1. as
discussed in the following section. The
Agency is modifying Table 2 in J 271(j)
also to indicate that this rule pertains to
the self-implementing statutory
provision of the RCRA amendments.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above. EPA will implement
these regulations in authonzed States
until Stales modify their programs to
adopt the regulations and the
modification is approved by EPA.
Because these rules are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA. a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g)(2) or 3006(b). respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
Slate 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 f 271.24(c)).
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires States
that have final authonzation to modify
their programs to reflect Federal
program changes, and to subsequently
submit the modifications to EPA for
approval The deadline by which the
Stale must modify its program to adopt
today's rule is July 1.1991 (July 1.1992- *
a Slate statutory change is necessary).
These deadlines can be extended in
certain cases (see 1271.2l(e)(3)). Once
EPA approves the modification, the
State requirements become Subtitle C
RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may have requirements
similar to those in today's rule. These
Slate 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 are- a matter
of Stale law. In Implementing the
Federal program EPA will work with"
States under cooperative agreements t»
minimim duplication of efforts. In many
cases EPA will be sble to defer to the
States in their efforts to Implement their
programs, rather than take separate -
actions under Federal authority. •
States that submit official application*
for final authonzation lesa than 12 • • '
months after the effective date of these
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. |aly 8. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 25783
standards are not required to include
standards equivalent to1 these standards
in their application. However, the State
must modify its program by the
deadlines set forth m 3 27l.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. Section
271.3 sets forth the requirements a Stale
must meet when submitting its final
authonzation application.
C. State Implementation
There are several unique aspects of
today's rile which affect Slate
implementation and impact State
actions on the regulated community:
1. Under 40 CFR Part 268. Subpart C,
EPA is promulgating nationwide land
disposal restrictions for all generators
and TSDFs of certain types of hazardous
waste. In order to retain authorization.
States must adopt the regulation* under
this Subpart since State requirements
cannot be leas stringent than Federal
requirements.
2. Under I288.32. the Agency may
grant a national capacity variance to the
prohibition effective date for up to two
yean if it is found that then it
insufficient alternative treatment
capacity. Under 1288.3. case-by-case
extensions to the effective date of up to
one year (renewable for an additional
year) may be granted for specific
applicants lacking adequate capacity.
EPA Headquarters is solely
responsible for granting such
extensions. It is clear that RCRA section
3004(h)(3) intends for the Administrate*
to grant such extensions after consulting
the affected States, on the basis of
national concerns that only the-
Administrator can evaluate. Therefore,
this aspect of the program cannot b«
delegated to the States.
3. Under | 268.42(b) and 1288.44. US)
Agency may grant a waste-specific
variance from a treatment standard to
cases where it can be demonstrated that
the physical or chemical properties of
the waste differs significantly from
wastes analyzed in developing the
treatment standard, and the waste
cannot be treated to specified levels or
by specified methods.
The Agency is solely responsible for
granting such variances sine* the result
of such an action will be the
establishment of a new wasta
treatabdity group. Wastes meeting the
criteria of this newly established wast*
treatability group may also ba eligible
for the variance. Thus, granting such •
variance could have national impacts.
Therefore this aspect of the program
cannot be delegated to the States.
4. Under 5 268.8. EPA may grant
petitions of specific duration to allow
land disposal of certain hazardous
waste where applicants can
demonstrate that there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents
from the disposal unit or injection zone
for as long as the waste remains
hazardous.
States that have the authonty to
impose land disposal prohibitions may
be authorized under RCRA section 3006
to grant petitions for such exemptions.
Decisions on site-specific petitions do
not require the national perspective
required to grant extensions or
variances from the treatment standard.
The Agency expects few "no migration"
petitions, therefore. EPA is currently
requiring that these be handled at EPA
Headquarters, though the States may be
authorized to grant these petitions in the
future. Also, since the Agency has had
few opportunities to implement the
newly promulgated land disposal
restrictions, the Agency expects to gain
valuable experience and information
from review of "no migration" petitions
that may affect future land disposal
restrictions rulemakings. In accordance
with RCRA section 3004(1). EPA will
publish its determination that the "no
migration" demonstration has been
made in the Federal Register.
Slates are free to impose their own
land disposal prohibitions if they an
more stringent or broader in scope than
Federal programs (RCRA section 3008
and 40 CFR 271.1(1)). Where States
impose such prohibitions, the broader or
more stringent State ban governs and
EPA's action is without meaning in the
State.
VIL Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analytic
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
to assess the effect of contemplated
Agency actions during the development
of regulations. Such an assessment
consists of a quantification of the-
potential benefits and costs of the rule.
as well as a description of any
beneficial or advene effects that cannot,
be quantified in monetary terms. In
addition. Executive Order 12291 require*
that regulatory agencies prepare an
analysis of the regulatory Impact of
major rules. Major rules an defined as
those likely to result In:
1. An annual cost to the economy of
S100 million or more: or
2. A major increase in coats or prices •
for consumsn or individual industries.'
or '
3. Significant advene effects on
competition, employment Investment
Innovation, or international trade.
The Agency has performed an
analysis of today's regulation to assess
the economic effect of associated
compliance costs. Total costs of
restnctions on affected wastes are
expected to be S93.7 million per year.
Although the rule does not constitute a
maior rule under Executive Order 12291.
EPA has nonetheless prepared a formal
regulatory impact analysis of today's
regulatory action in recognition of the
effect of the rule on a broad spectrum of
American industry.
The remainder of this section
descnbes the analyses performed by
EPA in support of today's rule affecting
all California list wastes identified in
section 3004(d)(2) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
1. Cost and Economic Impact
Methodology
EPA has assessed the costs, benefits
and potential economic effects of this
rule and of major regulatory alternatives
to it In the final rule. EPA has specified
treatment standards or concentration
levels for each of the five waste groups
identified as part of the California list.
For the corrosive wastes. EPA is
codifying the statutory prohibition
specified in section 3004(d)(2) of RCRA.
For the PCS and most HOC wastes. EPA
has specified treatment standards as
described earlier in today's preamble.
Finally, for the liquid hazardous wastes
containing the specified metals and free
cyanides. EPA is deferring to the
statutory levels at this time.
In addition to assessing the regulation
itself, the Agency has examined maior
regulatory alternatives to it This
preamble presents results for the final
rule only. Each of the alternatives is
explored to detail In the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) that is available
for viewing in the docket
EPA establishes the total costs and
economic impacts of this rule in three
steps. Pint EPA estimates the
population of wastes, facilities end
waste management practices that will
be affected. Next it derives the total
social costs of the regulation by adding •
costs for Individual facilities. Finally.
EPA assesses economic impacts oa
affected facilities by-comparing total
costs for individual facilities to standard
measures of facility financial vitality.
*. Affected population and practices.
The affected population is the total
number of hazardous waste treatment
storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
and generaton land disposing of
California, list wastes either directly at
the generation site or indirectly through
the purchase of commercial land
-------
2S7B4 Federal Register / VoL 52. No. 130 / Wednesday, [uly 8. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
disposal capacity. This groap'a waste
management practices are assessed to
identify baseline cosU of managing
wastes and incremental cost increases
attributable to today's rule.
The number of facilities that land
dispose of affected wastes was
determined using the EPA's 1981
Regulatory Impact Analysis Mail
Survey.1 Waste quantities and
management costs for facilities
responding to the Mail Survey are
scaled up to represent the national
population by meani of weighting
factors developed within the survey.
EPA estimates that 339 facilities
comprise the total national population of
commercial and noncommercial
facilities land disposing of California] list
wastes on-site. excluding RCRA wastes
mixed with polychlorinated biphenyU
(PCBs). This estimate is baaed on 1981
survey data adjusted for intervening
regulatory requirements.
EPA estimates that an additional 2.162
plants generate more than 1.000
kilograms per month of wastes that are
sent off-site for management The waste
is disposed of either by noncommercial
TSDFs (e.g.. those owned by the firm
generating the waste but at a different
location), or by a commercial TSDr*.
Generators of leas than 1.000
kilograms par month wen not mckded
in the 1981 survey because they were
conaidered exempt at that time.
However, the 1984 amendments to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act directed EPA
to lower the exemption for small
quantity generators (SQCa) from 1.000 to
100 kilograms per month by March 31.
1988. so SQCa generating betweaa 100
and 1.000 kilograms of waste per moath
for off-«ts disposal an also included la
the affected population. The Agency
estimates that these SQGs add 2jM8
plants to the affected population. Heat*
and waste-specific data oa this fwf>
are derived from EPA's Small Qaantity
Generator Survey.4
Because PCBs are not themselves a
listed RCRA hazardous waste, data on
generators of PCBs mixed with
hazardous wastes regulated under
RCRA were not specifically gathered in
the RIA Mail Survey. However, recently
developed data on this group indicate
that there are approximately 83
generators of mixed PCB/RCRA
hazardous wastes.'
EPA's characterization of current
management practices for these groups
includes the cost of compliance with
regulations that have taken effect since
the 1981 survey was conducted. In
particular. EPA has adjusted waste
management practices reported to
reflect compliance with the provisions of
40 CFR Part 264. In making this
adjustment, the Agency assumes
facilities elect the least costly methods
of compliance. This adjustment defines
not only baseline management practices
and costs associated with them, but also
the number of waste streams in ma
affected popolation. For example, for 16
facilities, the costs of land disposing
certain wastes are driven so high by
regulations predating this final rate that
other management modes are lest
expensive. EPA assumes that these
facilities no longer land dispose these
wastes and that these wastes ant
therefore no longer part of the
population of waste streams that may be
disposal
No aggregate models have beea
developed for the population of
treatment storage, and disposal
facititiea aad small quantity generators
examiaed in this analysis. Instead.
Individual observations in the data
sources have beea weighted to represent
the national population of wastes and
> EPA eondncfed (h« UA Mad
hiait*
deicnnnt waita naaaaumi I
Ficiliiiei ihn tuiuUtd liu than 1.000 kflosrmma a*
WHU par month «m» not rqidatad ta 1SB1 ud
ihui M» ml aclnM hi «J» dau.r«ra»i»
mforaaoa aaa *• 'Wiooul Sivvvy af MMMB
Waitt Caaaral
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. N'o. 130 / Wednesday. July 8.1987 / Rules and Regulations 25785
minimal effect on results. This is
because many plants that send wastes
off-site send small amounts, and
economies of scale, reflected in per-unit
pnces of waste disposal at large
commercial facilities, outweigh even
major increases in shipping costs.
EPA developed facility-specific
compliance costs in two components.
which are weighted and then summed to
estimate total national costs of the rule.
The first component of the total
compliance cost is incurred annually for
operation and maintenance of
alternative modes of waste treatment
and disposal. The second component of
the compliance cost is a capital cost.
which is an initial outlay incurred for
construction and depreciable assets.
Capital costs are restated as annual
values by adjusting them into equivalent
yearly payments using a capital
recovery factor based on a real cost of
capital of 7 percent These annualized
capital costs are then added to yearly
OSM costs to denve an annual
equivalent cost
c. Economic impact analysis—I.
Noncommercial TSDFs aadSQCs. EPA
assesses economic impacts on non-
commercial TSDFs and SQCa in several
steps. First the Agency employs a .
general screening analysis to compare
facility-specific incremental costs to
financial information about firms.
disaggregated by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) and number of
employees per facility. This comparison
generates two ratios, which EPA uses to
identify facilities likely to experience
adverse economic effects. The first Is a
ratio of individual facility compliance
costs to costs of production. This ratio
represents the percent product price
increase for facility output that occurs if
the entire compliance cost-
accompanied by facility profit—is
passed through to customers in the form.
of higher pnces. A change exceeding
five percent is considered to imply a
substantial adverse economic effect on a
facility. The second is a coverage ratio
relating cash from operations to cost! of
compliance. This ratio represents the
number of times that facility gnu
margin covers the regulatory compliance
cost if the facility fully absorbs the cost
For this ratio, a value of less than 20 Is
considered to represent a significant
adverse effect. The coverage ratio ia the
more stnngent of the two ratios, but
exceeding the critical level in either one
suggests that a facility is likely to bo
significantly affected. These ratios
bound possible effects on individual
firms. This analysis considers only pre-
tax costs, because Census data are
stated in before-tax terms.
Once facilities experiencing adverse
economic effects are identified using the
two screening ratios, more detailed
financial analysis is performed to verify
the results and to focus more closely on
affected facilities. For this subset of
facilities, the coverage ratio is adiusted
to allow a portion of costs to be passed
through. Economic effects on individual
facilities are examined assuming that
product pnce increases of one and five
percent are possible. Those facilities for
which the coverage ratio is less than
two are considered likely to close.
ii. Commercial TSDFs. Commercial
TSOFs are here defined as those
facilities that accept fees in exchange
for management of wastes generated
elsewhere. For this group of facilities.
there exists no Census SIC from which
to draw financial information. Two SICs
that EPA might use as proxies. 4953 and
49S9. do not distinguish between
financial data for hazardous wmio
treatment firms and for firms managing
municipal and solid wastes.
Consequently, the analysis of economic
effects on commercial facilities is
qualitative. This analysis includes an
examination of the quantity of waste
each facility receives from the waste
group restricted by today's rule. EPA
also examines the ability of each facility
to provide the additional treatment
required once these restrictions are
promulgated and thus to retain or
expand that portion of its business
generated by restricted wastes.
iii. Genera tors of large quantities of
wastes. EPA's analysis of the economic
effects of this rule on generating plants
disposing of large quantitien of affected
wastes off-site assumes that commercial
facilities can entirely pass on the costs
of compliance with this regulation in the
form of higher prices for waste
management services. Because of data
limitations in the RIA Mail Survey, EPA
has not developed plant-specific
characterizations of wastes, treatment
methods, and compliance costs for
generators, as it haa for TSDFs. EPA's
analysis of the economic effects of
today's final rule on this group uses RIA
Mail Survey data to develop model
plants generating average, maximum.
and minimum waste quantities. This •
allows EPA to assess the range of
possible effects on generating plants.
2. Costs and Economic Impacts
Total costs of regulating California list
wastes do not qualify this rule as a
major rule under Executive Order 12291.
since the total annualized costs of
restricting land disposal of these wastes
are estimated at $93.7 million per year.
These costs are not adjusted for the
effect of taxation, which is merely a
transfer from one sector of the economy
to another. Costs are stated in 1986
dollars.
Today's regulation will affect entities
in a variety of four-digit SICs. including
chemicals and allied products.
petroleum products, and metals
industries. Two SIC sectors, chemicals
and allied products (SIC 28) and primary
metals (SIC 33) together account for
approximately three-fourths of the after-
tax cost of complying with the land
disposal restrictions.
Economic effects have been assessed
for both noncommercial and commercial
facilities. Noncommercial facilities are
those that generate and manage their
own wastes, as distinct from facilities
that accept fees in exchange for
managing and disposing of wastes
generated by others. Of 308 (weighted)
noncommercial facilities nationally. 39
(weighted) facilities may experience
financial distress because of this rule.
and six of these appear likely to close.
EPA estimates that 31 (weighted)
commercial facilities will incur
incremental costs as a result of the •
restriction on land disposal of California
list wastes. Fifty-eight percent of these
commercial facilities offer a range of
hazardous waste management services.
including land-based disposal, storage.
and treatment The increased demand
this rule will create for highly priced
treatment services may actually
strengthen the financial position of these
firms by allowing them to increase their
market shares. On the other hand, for
the IB percent of commercial facilities
that offer solely land-based
management of restricted wastes, the
Increased emphasis on treatment prior
to land disposal may prove
economically disadvantageous. It was
not possible to-characterize the
remaining 28 percent of commercial
facilities based on services offered.
Turning to effects on generators, EPA
found that based on average waste
quantities, the SIC sectors generating
California list wastes include 2.162
(weighted) plants. Of these. 34
(weighted) plants may experience
significant financial distress based on
costs imposed by restrictions on land
disposal This represents 1.8 percent of
all waste-generating plants that may
face increased waste management
prices. Based on further analysis, none
of the 34 distressed plants appear likely
to close:
Total annualized national costs for the
2.046 (weighted) small quantity
generators (SQCs) of California list
wastes an S4.S million. Based on
engineering estimates of prices for off-
site waste management services, costs
-------
73786
Federal Register / Vol. 52. N'o. 130 / Wednesday, fuiy 3. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
for SQGs generating the maximum of
l.OOO kilograms per month of nothing but
hazardous wastes specified in the
California list would incur not more
than S13.200 ar."ual!y ;n incremental
compliance cosn. Economic ratios for
ail plants in each 4-digit sector
represented in (he SQC survey were
examined. In 102 (weighted) cases.
plants seemed likely to experience some
financial distress, and none of these
plants appear likely to dose. Thus.
resigning land disposal of California
list wastes may have substantial
advene economic effect on
approximately 5 percent of all
generators of small quantities of wastes.
Economic effects on generators of
mixed PCB/RCRA wastes are also not
expected to be significant: although.
because of data limitations, no plant-
specific analysis could be undertaken.
Further information on economic effects
on all groups mentioned above is
available in the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) supporting toil rule.
The following table summarizes me
economic impact information presented
above:
Typeolftn
Noncommercial
Small Quantity Generators..
PCS Generators
Large Quantity Generators..
Commercial TSOFs '
Totals __. .
No. of
nirnft
308
2.048
S3
2.162
31
4.610
Son*
can*
impact-
ed
39
102
0
34
17S
1 Because of trie assumption of fuD cost
pass-tnreuon by commerce) TSOFs. no —
nomic ettects are derated tor tea g
3. Methodology Used in Assessing
Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness
The RIA performed by the Agency
evaluated the benefits of three
regulatory alternatives for restricting the
land disposal of California list wastes.
As with the discussion of cost and
economic impacts, this preamble only
presents results associated with the
final rule.
The benefits of today's final rule were
evaluated by considering the reduction
in human health risk that results from
treating California list wastes to below
statutory levels prior to land disposal
rather than managing by baseline land
disposal practices. Human health riak Is
defined as the probability of Injury.
disease, or death over a given time due
to responses to doaea of disease causing
agents. Predicting human health riak
entails estimating quantitatively the
consequences of human exposure to
these agents. To estimate risks of
baseline and alternative technologies.
the analysis characterizes wastes.
technologies, releases, environmental
transport, and dose-response
relationships based on a number of
simplifying assumptions. These include:
—The steady-state management and
release of wastes—in other words, the
quantity of waste managed in the
baseline continues to be managed—
and subject to releases—ad infimhirrn
—Exposure to contaminated media is
strady-state:
—The dose results from daily
consumption of surface and ground
water, inhalation of air. and ingestlon
of contaminated fish over 70 years by
a 65 kg person:
—The dose-response relationship for
carcinogens is linear, without a
threshold; for noncarcinogens it is a
modified linear response;
—Risks are based on exposures to all
constituents in each waste stream;
and
—Riska are not discounted.
The human health risk posed by •
waste management practice is e
function of complex interactions
between the tmacity of the chemical
constituents in the waete stream and the
extent of human eapusuie to these
chemicals (e,g.. considering, among
other things, the hydrogeologic settings
at land disposal units and the fate and
transport of chemical constituents of
wastes).
EPA estimates human health risk in
four steps. The first step *n to estimate
the concentrations of each of the
hazardous constituents) of the waste
stream in each of the three media (air.
surface water, ground'water) into which
they may be released in the course of
w&ete management. Tness estimates
depend on the steady-state release rate*
calculated far each technology, and on
environmental fate and transport. "Hie
next step rs to estimate the total human
intake, or dose, of each of the chemicals
through inhalation of air and ingestioa
of ground water, surface water, and
contaminated fish. The Agency next
calculates the risk to an individuals
from the dose derived ta the previous
step. EPA estimates the relationship of
dose to effect (ustag tfce "doee-
response" curve developed baaed on
toxicity data], and weights the effect
according to severity. Fiaafly. EPA
estimates the population at riak by
multiplying the average individual riak
by the number of people in a given
environment which is derived by a
Monte Carlo simulation involving 2J30O
iteration*.
In assessing the benefits of the rule.
EPA limits the analysis to reductions in
human health effects attributed to a
reduction in exposure to (he toxic
constituents in the wastes. Other
benefits, such as improvements in
environmental quality, are not
quantified. As a result, the benefits of
the land disposal restrictions for
California list wastes may be
underestimated. Furthermore, the
assessment may underestimate benefits
since the effects of the comparative risk
analysis were not mduded. Therefore.
negative benefits resulting from a
technology considered riskier than land
disposal (which would be designated
not available for purposes of
establishing treatment standards) were
included in the analysis. Although this
assessment does not estimate potential
increases in risk from increased
transportation and handling of
California list wastes, an initial analysis
indicates that such increases are not
likely to be significant.
4. Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness
Based on this benefits analysis, the
final rule is estimated to result in a net
reduction in health risk equal to 2J88
weighted cases (&g, cancer, fetal
toxicity. decreases in reproductive
capacity) over seventy yean, which
represents a 71.1 percent reduction from
baseline practices. Of (lie total
reduction. 2.048 cases— or 89 percent of
the benefit— comes from changes to land
disposal technologies, such as disposal
in landfills. tanJ fanns. wastes piles,
and disposal impoundments. Am
additional 10 percent reduction in risk
comes from ^»"g»« to la^-b^wd
storage practiced in surface
impoundments. Finally, approximately 1
percent of the total reduction comes
from changes in treatment practiced in
surface impoundments.
The analysis is in no senae taae-
depeadaac. P/mrfi'* are expressed as
steady-stale aaaual values. No aliens*
has been nude to coowefe the initial
year at which steady state mrk values
are reached across options or between
an option and me ha inline However, it
can be generally observed that the effect
of restricting land 'tinpr"! is to reduce
risk in absolute terata waUa sifting U
forward temporally. This is because
ground water risks, the type likely a*
predominate in the basaune. lead to
occur a kwg time after waste is Iaa4
disposed oi because af the slowness of
constiaiaal movement in this awdiiUB.
However, air and surface water risks—
while lower as a whole- are ukely to
predominate in the poet-regulation
scenario. Migration of wastes in these
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. |u!y 3. 1987 / Rules and S;rj:jt.o".3 25737
media is relatively rapid, and thus risks
are incurred sooner.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. S U S.C. 601. whenever an agency is
required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final
rule, it must prepare and make available
for public comment a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis that descnbes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e..
small businesses, small organizations.
and small governmental jurisdictions).
This analysis is unnecessary if the
agency's administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities.
EPA evaluated the economic effect of
the rule on small entities, here defined
as concerns employing fewer than 50
people. Because of data limitations, this
small business analysis excludes
generators of large quantities of
California list wastes. The small
business population here examined
therefore includes only two groups: all
noncommercial treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities employing fewer than
SO persona, and all small quantity
generators which are also small
businesses. .
One hundred and fifty-four (weighted)
TSDFs are small businesses. Of these.
six (weighted] exceed threshold values
on the cost of production ratio, a figure
that represents four percent of this small
business population. Of the total of 2.046
small quantity generators examined in
this analysis, the vast majority are also
small businesses. A total of five SQGs
(or less than one percent of all small
businesses) exceeded threshold values
on the cost of production ratios.
According to EPA's guidelines for
conducting Regulatory Flexibility
Analyses, if over 20 percent of the) - •
population of small businesses Is likely
to experience financial distress based
on the costs of a rule, then the Agency is
required to consider that the rule wiO
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities and to perform
a formal Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.4 EPA has examined the rule s
potential effects on small businesses as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and has concluded that today's final
rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities. As a result of this finding. EPA
has not prepared a formal Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis document in support
of this rule. More detailed information
on small business impacts Is available
• SM U S EPA. -CuidallnM for Compliance with
iht ReviUlory flaxibUily Act" Febnuiy 19SZ.
in technical background documents
prepared in support of this rulemakmg.
C Review of Supporting Documents
The primary source of information on
current land disposal practices and
industries affected by this rule is EPA's
National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment. Storage, and
Disposal Facilities. Waste stream
characterization data and engineering
costs of waste management are based
on the 1981 RLA Mail Survey and on
reports by the Mitre Corporation.
"Composition of Hazardous Waste
Streams Currently Incinerated." (April
1983). and "The RCRA Risk-Cost
Analysis Model." (U.S. EPA. March
1984). The survey of small quantity
generators has been the maior source of
data on this group. Data used to
characterize generators of mixed PCB/
RCRA hazardous wastes were taken
from an EPA study. "Characterization of
Mixed PCB/RCRA Hazardous Wastes."
(February 198S). For financial and value
of shipment information for the general
screening analysis. 1982 Census data
were used, adjusted by 1983 Annual
Survey of Manufactures data. Producer
price indices were also used to restate
1983 dollars in 1988 terms.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 280.281,
282.284.28S. 288.270. and 271 .
Administrative practice and • • •
procedure. Confidential business-- • '
information. Environmental protection.
Hazardous materials. Hazardous-
materials tronsportatioa Hazardous
waste. Imports; Indian lands. Insurance.
Intergovernmental relations. Labeling,
Packaging and container. Penalties.
Recycling. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Security measures. Surety
measures. Surety bonds* Wast*
treatment and disposal Water pollution
control Water supply:
Dated: July 6.1967. •
LacM. Thomas.
Admiautraur.
Therefore, for reasons set out in the*
preamble. Chapter I of Title 40 is
amended as follows:
PART 262-STANOARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE • • ' '
I. In Part 282:
1. The authority citation foi Part 282 -
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sacs. 1006.2091.3OOX' 300813004*
3005. and 3017. of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act as amended by the Resource, •
Conservation and Racoveiy Act of 1976, aa •
amended (42 U.S.C. 8906.6912.8922.6921.
6924.8925. and 6937).
Subpart E—Special Conditions
2. Section 262.51 is revised to read as
follows:
5282.31 Firm***
A farmer disposing of waste
pesticides from his own use which are
hazardous wastes is not required to
comply with the standards in this part or
other standards in 40 CFR Parts 204. 263.
288. or 270 for those wastes provided he
triple nnses each emptied pesticide
container in accordance with
} 281.7(b](3) and disposes of the
pesticide residues on his own farm in a
manner consistent with the disposal
instructions on the pesticide label.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE. AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
II. In Part 284:
1. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002. 3004. and 3003
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1978. as amended (42 U S.C. 69018911
8924. and 6925).
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
2. In 1284.13. paragraph (b](7](iii) is
revised to read as follows:
S 284.13 General wast* analysis.
• • t • •
fb)' ' '
(7) ' ' '
(iii) The annual removal of residues
which are not delisted under { 260.22 of
this chapter and do not exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste, and
which do not meet the treatment
standards of Part 288 Subpart D of this
chapter or. where no treatment
- standards have been established, the
annual removal of residues which do not
meet the applicable prohibition levels In
Part 288 Subpan C or RCRA section
3004td)."- - .
PART MS-INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE. AND ,
DISPOSAL FACILITIES.
UL In Pan 200:
1. The authority citation for Part 285
continues to read as follows*
Authority: SMS. 1006.200ZKI. 30D4.3006.
and 3015 ol UM Solid Wast* Disposal Act. «»
amended by the Resourca Conservation and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 130 / Wednesday. July a. 1587 / Rule* and Regulation*
Recovery Act of 1*78, as asMnded (4JU.S-C.
em 8B12(a). 6824.6823. and 683S).
Subpart 8-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51 No, 130 / Wednesday. luiv 8. 1987 / Rules and
S 255.221 (a), (c). and (d) of this chapter.
and RCRA section 3005(j)(l); or
• • • • •
(v) The landfill, if disposing of
containerized liquid hazardous wastes
containing PCSs at concentrations
greater than or equal to 30 ppm but less
than 500 ppm. is also in compliance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 761.75 and
Parts 264 and 265.
• • « • •
8. In § 268.8, paragraph (V) is added to
read as follows:
{ 2S8.8 Petitions to allow land disposal of
• waste prohibited under Subpart C of Part
268.
• • • • •
(k) Liquid hazardous wastes
containing polychloruuted biphenyls at
concentrations greater than or equal to
500 ppm are not eligible for aa
exemption under this section.
9L Section 288.7 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text (a)(l) introductory text. (aHl)(u).
(a)(2) introductory text (a)(2)(iJ(B).
)(2)(n). (b) introductory text (b](l)(u).
(b)(2) introductory text (b)(2)(i), and (c)
to read as follows;
§268.7 Waste analysis and recardkeeplne,
(a) Except as specified in | 268.32 of
this part, the generator must test his
waste or aa extract developed nsiog the
test method described in Appendix 1 of
this part, or use knowledge of the waste.
to determine if the waste is restricted
from land disposal under this part
(1) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part arid the waste does not meet the.
applicable treatment standards, or
where the waste does not comply with
the applicable prohibitions set forth ia
] 288J2 of this part or RCRA section
3004(d). with each shipment of waste the
generator must notify the treatment
facility in writing of the appropriate
treatment standard* set forth in Suhpait
D of this part and any applicable
prohibitions set forth ia t 288J2 of this.
part or RCRA section 3004(4 The notice
must include ^^ following ioJoxmalioiiB
• • • t •
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards and all applicable
prohibitions set forth to 128BJ2 at
RCRA sectioa 3004(4);
[2] If a generator detennimee that he to
managing a restricted waste under mis
part and deteranaea that the waste can
be land disposed withoat further
treatment with each shipeaeatof i
be awst sufamit ta the lead dbpotei
facility, a notice and a otrtifkatioB)
stating that the wasle meets the
applicable treatment standards set forth
in Subpart 0 of this part and the
applicable prohibitions set forth in
S 268.32 of this part or RCRA section
3004(d).
(I)'1'
(B) The corresponding treatment
standards and all appplicable
prohibitions set forth in § 288.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d):
• • t • •
(n) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that I
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste through analysis and luting
or through knowledge of the waste to support
this certiGcation that the waste complies with
the treatment standards specified m 40 CFR
Part 268 Subpart 0 and all applicable
prohibitions tet forth in 46 CFR 26S.32 ar
RCRA faction 3CO4(d). I believe that the
information I submitted is true, accurate and
complete. I an aware mat then are
significant penalties for eobmhuog a Cake
certification, including the posaibuty of a fiae
and impnionmeal.
• • • • •
[b) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extract ({ 298.41). the
owner or operator of the treatment
facility must test the treatment residues
or an extract of such residues developed
using the test method described m
Appendix I of this part to assure that Aa
treatment residues or extract meet the
applicable treatment standards. For
wastes prohibited under | 288.32 of this
part or RCRA section 3004(d) which are
not subiect to any treatment standard*
under Subpart D of this part the owner
or operator of the treatment facility most
test the treatment residues
the generater tasting requirements
specified ia 1 288J2 to assure that the
treatment residues comply with the
applicable prolubltlQna. For both
circumstances described above* sues
testing must be performed according to
the tn>f~r"y specified la the facility's
waste analysis plaa as required by
I 284.13 or I 265.13. Where the
treatment residues da not comply with
the BDBUcab&e b^eatmaot staoderde or
prohihni0ns« the treabueat facility muet.
comply with the aotice requiramenta
applicable la gaaacatoa ia paragraph.
(aXlJ of eats sectioa if the treatment
residues will be further managed at a
ttiftnraat treatment faoMrp.
W '
(2) The treatment facility must submit
a certification with each shipment of
waste or treatment residue of a
restricted waste to the land disposal
facility staring that the waste or
treatment residue has been treated in
compliance with the applicable
performance standards specified in
Subpart D of this part and the applicable
prohibitions set forth in 8 288.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d).
(i) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extract or in the waste
(S 268.41 or { 288.43). or for wastes
prohibited under } 268.32 of this part or
RCRA section 3004(d] which are not
subiect to any treatment standards
under Subpart 0 of this part the
certification must be signed by an
authorized representative and must
state the following:
I certify ander penally of law that I have
pcraoiwlly examined aad am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the
treatment praceu used to support this
certification aad thai, baaed oa my inquiry of
those individuals immediately respooiibU tat
obtaining this information. I believe that the
treatment process has been operated and
maintained properly 10 as to comply wnh the
performance lords specified m 40 CFR Pert
208 Sebpeit D and efl appMeabfe prohibitions
set forth in 40 CFR aa.3* or RCRA Mcoea
3OM(
-------
25790
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. up / Wednesday. [j!y 3. !3g" /
q-d 3-v;..: J
J 288.30 Wast* specific prohibitions .
Solvent wastes.
(a)'' *
(4J The solvent waste is a residue
from treating a waste described in
paragraphs (a](l). (a](2). or (a|{3) of this
section: or the solvent waste is a residue
From treating a waste not described m
paragraphs (aj(l|. (a|(3). or (a|(3| of this
section provided such residue belongs to
a different trealability group than the
waste as initially generated and wastes
belonging to such a treatability group
are descnbed in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
• • • • •
11. In Subpart C 9 288.32 is added to
read as follows:
9 268.32 WMM specific prohibitions—
California Hit wanes.
(a) Effective July 8.1987. ihe following
hazardous wastes are prohibited from
land disposal (except in injection wells]:
(1) Liquid hazardous wastes having a pH
less than or equal to two (2.0):
(2] Liquid hazardous wastes
containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) at concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm:
(3) Liquid hazardous wastes that are
primarily water and contain
halogenated organic compounds (HOCs}
in total concentration greater than or
equal to 1.000 mg/l and less than 10.000
mg/l HOC*.
(b)-(c) [Reserved]
fd) The requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section do not apply until
November 8,1988 where the wastes are
contaminated soil or debris resulting
from a response action taken under
section 104 or 106 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act or a
corrective action required under RCRA
Subtitle H- -
(e) Effective July 8.1989. the following
hazardous wastes are prohibited from
land disposal (subject to any regulations
that may be promulgated with respect to
disposal in injection wells): .
(1) Liquid hazardous wastes that
contain HOCs in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1.000 mg/l and
are not prohibited under paragraph
(a )(3) of this section: and
(2) Nonliquid hazardous wastes
containing HOCs in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1.000 mg/k
7) Between July 8.1987 and July
1989. the wastes descnbed in
paragraphs (e)(l) and (e)(2) of this
section may be disposed of in a landfill
or surface impoundment only if the-
facility is in compliance with the
^...pp^Bpti Wrified in 8 2BB.5fhU2l.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (e) of this section do not apply ifi
(1) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.8. with respect
to those wastes and units covered by
the petition (except for liquid hazardous
wastes containing polychlonnated
biphenyls at concentrations greater than
or equal to 500 ppm which are not
eligible for such exemptions): or
(2) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to } 268.3. with
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension: or
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
standards specified in Subpart 0 of this
part or, where treatment standards are
not specified, the wastes are in
compliance with the applicable
prohibitions set forth in this section or
RCRA section 3004(d).
[h] The prohibitions and effective
dates specified in paragraphs (a)(3) and
(e) of this section do not apply where
the waste is subject to a Part 286
Subpart C prohibition and effective date
for a for a specified HOC (such as a
hazardous waste chlorinated solvent.
see e.g~ I 208.30(8}).
(I) To determine whether or not a
waste Is a liquid under paragraphs (a)
and (e) of this section and under RCRA
section 3004(d). the following lest must
be used: Method 9095 (Paint Filter
Liquids Test) as descnbed in "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes.
Physical/Chemical Methods." EPA
Publication No. SW-848.
(j) Except as otherwise provided In
this paragraph, the waste analysis and
recordkeeping requirements of 1288.7
are applicable to wastes prohibited
under this Fart or RCRA section 3004(d):
(1) The Initial generator of a liquid
hazardous waste must lest bis waste
(not an extract or filtrate) En accordance
-with the procedures specified in
1281 J2(a)(l). or use knowledge of the
waste, to determine If Ihe waste has a
pH leas than or equal to two (20}. If the
liquid waste has a pH less than or equal
to two (tO). it la restricted from land
disposal and all requirements of Part 268
are applicable, except as otherwise
specified In this section.
(2) The initial generator of either a
liquid hazardous waste containing
porychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or *
liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste
containing halogenated organic
(HOCs) must test his waste
(not an extract or filtrate), or use-
knowledge of the waste, to determine
whether the concentration levels in the
waste equal or exceed the prohibition-
levels specified in this section. If the •
concentration of PCBs or HOCs in th»
waste is greater than or equal to the-
prohibition levels specified in this
section, the waste is restricted from land
disposal and all requirements of Part C63
are applicable, except as otherwise
specified in this section.
Subpart 0—Treatment Standards
12. Section 268.40 is revised to read as
follows:
} 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
(a) A restricted waste identified in
this subpart may be land disposed
without further treatment only if an
extract of the waste or of the treatment
residue of the waste developed using the
test method in Appendix I of this part
does not exceed the value shown in
Table CCWE of { 268.41 for any
hazardous constituent listed in the Table
CCWE for that waste.
(b) A restricted waste for which a
treatment technology is specified under
3 28B.42(a) may be land disposed after it
Is treated using that specified
technology or an equivalent treatment
method approved by the Administrator
under the procedures set forth in
t 268.42(b).
13. In I 288.42. paragraph (a) is
amended by adding paragraphs (a)(l)
and (a)(2) and paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
S26S.43 TrMtnwnt standards eiprvsMd
as specified technoloales.
W • '
(I) Liquid hazardous wastes
containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) at concentrations greater than or
equal to SO ppm but less than 500 ppm
must be incinerated in accordance with
the technical requirements of 40 CFR
781 JO or burned in high efficiency
boilers in accordance with the technical
requirements of 40 CFR 761.60, Liquid
hazardous wastes containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at
concentrations greater than or equal to
500 ppm must be incinerated hi
accordance with the technical
requirements of 40 CFR 781.70. Thermal
treatment under this section must also
be in compliance with applicable
regulations in Parts 284. 285, and 266.
(2) Nonliquid; hazardous wastes
containing halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs) Intetak
concentration greater-man or equal to
1.000 mg/kg and liquid HOC-containing
wastes that an prohibited under
9 26U3(eHUoC Una part must be
indnerated in accordance with the*
requiremeataoiParl 284 Subpart O or
Pan 208 Sobpart Ct These treatment
standards do not apply where the wasta
is subject to a Part 268 Subpart C
treatment standard for a specific HOC
-------
Federal Roister / Vol. 52. Xo. 130 / Wednesday, fdv 3. 1387 / R-jIsi and
(such a* a hazardous waste chlorinated
solvent for winch • treatment standard
n established under i S8.41(a|J.
(b| Any person may submit an
application to the Administrator
demonstrating that an alternative
treatment method can achieve a
measure of perfonrance equivalent to
that achievable by methods specified in
paragraph (a) of this section. The
applicant mast submit information
demonstrating that his treatment method
is in compliance with Federal, state, and
local requirements and is protective of
human health and the environment. On
the basis of such information and any
other available information, the
Administrator may approve the use of
the alternative treatment method if ho
finds that the alternative treatment
method provides a measure of
performance equivalent to that achieved
by method* specified in paragraph (a) of
this section. Any approval must t»
stated in writing and may contain such
provision! and condition* as tha
Adirrinialrator deems appropriate. Tha
person to wbom such approval is iswed
must comply with all limitation*
contained in such a determination.
14. In 1 268.50. paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (e) are revised
and paragraph (0 is added to read as
fallows:
3264.50 Prohibition* on storsge at
restricted waste*.
(a) Except as provided hi thts section,
the storage of hazardous wastes
restricted from land disposal under
Subpatt C of this part of RCRA section
3004 is prohibited, unless the following
conditions are met:
V • « • •
(e) The prohibition In paragraph (a] of
this section does not apply to hazardous
wastes that meet the treatment
standards specified under ijai8.ni
208.42. and 268.43 or tuo treatment
standards specified ander the variance
in } 268.44. or. where treatment
standards have not been specified, is in
compliance with the appIicabU
prohibitions specified in | 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004.-
(F) Liquid hazardous wastes
containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) at concentrations greater than or
equal to SO ppm must be stored at a
facility that meets the requirements of
40 CFR 78l.85(b) and must be removed
from storage and treated or disposed as
the date when such waste* an first
placed into storage. Tha provisions of
paragraph (c) of this section do not
apply to such PCS wastes prohibited
under { 288.32 of this part
15. After Subpart E, Appendix 111 ia
added to Part 2ES to read at follows:
Appendix III to Part 268— List of
Halogenatad Qrgaauc Compounds
Regulated Under i 268J2
In detemuiuuj the concentration of HOCi
in a hazardous waste for purpose* of the
) :6B J2 land disposal prohibition EPA ha
defined the HOC* tlm (mi* be included at
the calculdiiaa as any coapouods having a
carbon-halogen bond which ars listed in this
Appendix (see } OT82|. Appendix Ul lo Part
:68 consuh of the following compounds:
Volatile*
Bromodiehtoroiuethane
Bromooc thane
Carbon Telrachlonda
Oilorobeazena
Z Chloro-1.3-butad1ene
Chloradibromoaieihaa*
CHoroethane
2-Chloroethv4 vmyJ ether
Chloroform
Chloromithane
I-Cruoroflfopen*
1.2-Dibromo-3-cMoropropaaa
1.2-DibromomeihaiM
Oibromonurhaa*
Tram-1.4-Dfchtoi9-<-«a1ene
l.l-Oidrioroediaii*
1.2-Diebloiwuuo»
1.2-DichloropreparM
Tran*-1.3-DicMoropropeM
lodomediane
Methylene chloride
T.M.Z-TBUaUiluiueriiane
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloraelhau
Teirachloroethena
Tnbramomethan*
U.l-Trichloroeihane
t .1 .2*T\ IthluiiMiiiua1
Trichloroethene
TncaloromonafluaromeihaM
Ii3-Trtehtoiojiiuu«ii*
Vinyl chloride
Blf«nt
flla(Z-ehloro€lhyl)«ther
Bisiz-cBloroisoproftxU ether.
Chfotobeosilatt
pCasara-Avcresal
2-Chloranapnhalena
3^hloropropiomtrle
ni*Dlchlorobenzen*
o-Dtchlorobtnxan*
p-Olchloroorasene
2.4-Oicalorophenol
2.8-Dlchloraphenol
Hexachlorobenxeo*
HexachlorobutadlMi*
Hexachlorocyclopentadlen*
HeuchJoroautan*
Hexachlorapraphen*
Ke
Psniachlaroethane
Pentachloroniirobenzeae
Pentacbloropheaal
Praia nide
1 .2.4.5-Tetrachlorabenuae
2.3.4 8-Telrachloroptenol
1 .2.4-Tnchterobentene
2.4 5-Tnchlorophenol
2,4.9-Tnchlorophenol
Tns(U-dibramopropyl1phoiphate
OrggaochSanna Peitiadei
Aldrm
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
della-BHC
gamoM-BHC
ODD
ODE
DDT
Dieldnn
EndusulTMi I
Endrm
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor eBoiid*1
Itodnn
Kepone
Methoxyclor
Toxaphene
Phewrooeoc Acid Hefbiodea
Z.VDichlorophenox>acetic acid
Sdvr«
2.4,9-T
KB*
Aroclor 1018
Aroclor 1221
Andoriaz
Aroclor 1242
AradorlZO
Aroclor 1294
Aroclor UIO
PCBs aaioibarwiM ipaafivd
Dioxin* and Rimu
4.41.MeuiyIen«bli(2
-------
25792
Federal Register / Vol. ;;. \JQ. 130 / Wednasday, [uly 3. igcr / Ruies ar.d Rer-la;:ors
Subpart 0—Changes to Permits
2. In S 270.42. paragraphs (o)(l) and
(o){2) are revised and paragraph (p) ts
added to read as follows:
3 270.42 Minor modifications of permits.
to)'' '
(1) The hazardous waste has been
prohibited from one or more methods of
land disposal under Part 268 Subpart C
or RCRA section 3004;
(2) Treatment is in accordance with
§ :68.4 (if applicable). } 268.3. and:
(i) Treatment is in accordance with
applicable standards established under
} 268.41. ] 268.42. or S 268.44: or
(u) Where no treatment standards
have been established, treatment
renders the waste no longer subject to
the applicable prohibitions sec forth in
S 268.32 or RCRA section 3004.
• • • • •
(p) Allow permitted facilities to
change their operations to treat or store
hazardous wastes subject to land
disposal restrictions imposed by Part
268 or RCRA S 3004 provided such
treatment or storage occurs in
containers or tanks and the permittee;
(1) Requests a major permit
modification pursuant to ] 124.5 and
i 270.41:
(2) Demonstrates in the major permit
modification request that the treatment
or storage is necessary to comply with
the land disposal restrictions of Part 268
or RCRA section 3004: and
(3) Ensures that the treatment or
storage units comply with the applicable
Part 265 and part 268 standards pending
final administrative disposition of the
major modification request. The
authorization to make changes
conferred in this paragraph shall
terminate upon final administrative
disposition of the permittee's major
modification request under S 270.41 or
termination of the permit under } 270.43.
Subpart G—Interim Status
3. In { 270.72(e). paragraph (e) is
revised to read as follows:
J 270.72 Changes during Interim status.
• • • • •
(e) In no event shall changes be made
to an HWM facility during interim status
which amount to reconstruction of the
facility. Reconstruction occurs when the
capital investment in the changes to the
facility exceeds fifty percent of the
capital cost of a comparable entirely
new HWM facility. Changes prohibited
under this paragraph do not include
changes to treat or store m containers or
tanks hazardous wastes subject to land
disposal restrictions imposed by Part
268or RCRA section 3004. provided that
such changes are made solely for the
purpose of complying with Part :w or
RCRA section 3004.
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
VI. In Part 271:
1. The authority citation for Part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1000.2002(a), and 3008 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 197a as amended (42 U.S.C. 6903.6912U),
and 6928).
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
2. Section 271.l(j] is amended by
adding the fallowing entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication:
§ 271.1 Purpose and scop*.
• • • • •
(i) ' ' '
TABLE t.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Data of promulgation
Tills o« regulabon
Federal Register reference
Effective data
Julys. 1987.
Land disposal restrictions lor Cattforrn list wastes 52 FR 23760.
July S. 1987.
3. Section 27l.l(j) is amended by
changing the sixth line from the bottom
in table 2 by adding the publication date and the FR page number to read as
follows:
TABLE ^-SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OP 1984
Effective date
SelfHfflplemenang pr
won
RCRAataoofl
Federal Regmter reference
1987..
Land)
iforCattomlaastwas
3004
-------
|