Overview of the Land Disposal Restrictions


1%
Land Disposal
Restrictions
Third Third Training
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
I

-------
INTRODUCTION NOTES
RCRA Enforcement Division (RED) ______
• Inspector Training
• Enforcement Strategies
• Guidance
2. Rulemaking Role
• Enforceability of rule _______
3. Third Third Rule _____
• Improve WA? language
• Characteristics ______
• Tables
• Mixed radioactive waste _______
• Regulatory language vs. preamble
4. Current LDR Projects
• Interactive video
• Enforcement Strategy
• Updated Inspection Manual
• Updated WA? Guidance _____
5. Agenda
• Violations _______
• Priorities
• Enforcement concerns ______
• Case Study
• Questions!!!
6. What We Expect/Don’t Expect/Hope
(1) Expect to uncover problem areas
(2) Expect to help you learn where to _______
find answers
(3) Don’t expect to make LDR ex- _____
perts
(4) Hope to clarify dilution, WAPs ______
and characteristics
Enforcement Concerns—i

-------
ENFORCEMENT CONCERNS NOTES
7. LDR Violations ______
Recordkeeping 77%
Treatment Standards 14% ______
Storage 8%
Dilution 1% ______
8. LDR Inspection Priorities
• On-site TSDFs ______
• Commercial Treaters
• Generators ______
• Commercial Storage and Disposal
Facilities ______
• Transporters
9. Third Third- Good NewsfBad News
• No more soft hammer ______
• All wastes are restricted
• Characteristic wastes are covered ______
10. Is the Waste Restricted Under.
• Solvents and Dioxins? _____
• CA list?
• Scheduled Thirds? ______
11. Waste MisidentificationlMisclassifi-
cation ______
12. Potential for Misclassification Exists
• To avoid prohibitions.
• To apply less stringent treatment
standards. ______
• Utile emphasis previous to LDR.
Enforcement Concerns—2

-------
,
13. Misclassification for Purposes of NOTES
Avoiding Prohibitions
• Mixing of similar waste streams
and nondesignation of all waste ______
codes.
• Wastes with national capacity
variances.
• Failure to identify characteristic ______
wastes which already meet a
listing. _____
14. 3 Month National Capacity Variance
for All Third Third Wastes -(August
8,1990 —p, - - -
15. Restricted vs. Prohibited _______
16. Misclassification to Apply Less _______
Stringent Treatment Standards
• Switching treatability groups.
• Identifying waste with less strirt-
gent treatment standard. _______
— F-solvents as DOOl.
— F-solvents as P- and U-listed ______
wastes.
17. Identify Appropriate Treatability
Group
Wastewater vs. nonwastewater. ________
18. Soil and Debri:
• Inorganic Solid Debris ____
c 1 (c(cf Z_ 1
-
19. Identify Appropriate Subcategory
Example: DOOl (Ignitable Liquids)
Enforcement Concerns—3

-------
F
20. Identify Appropriate Subcategory NOTES
(Cont’d)
(1) Low TOC Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory (< 10% TOC); or
(2) High TOC Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory ( 10% TOC).
21. Wastes Subject to More than One
Treatment Standard for a Constitu-
ent Must Meet the More Stringent
Standard
• Listed wastes’-Caiifornia list
HOCs
• Mixtures
• Listed wastes which also exhibit a
characteristic
—Treatment standard for the listed
waste will operate in lieu of char-
acteristic provided the treatment
standard for the listed waste in
cludes a treatment standard for
the constituent that causes the
waste to exhibit the characteristic.
If it doesn’t, the waste must meet
both treatment standards.
22. Misdassification to allow dilution
• Identify waste as characteristic vs.
listed
23. Multi-source Leachate
• New waste code F039.
• Derived-from rule no longer ap-
plies.
Permit modifications.
Enforcement Concerns—4

-------
24. Incinerator Ash
• Derived-from rule applies.
25. Knowledge of the process is essen-
tial for waste identification.
26. identification of Spent Solvents
• F-listed wastes have same constitu-
ents as 1)001, P- and U-listed
wastes.
• F-listed wastes are generated when
constituents are used to dissolve or __________________________________
mobilize other constituents.
• Solvent constituents must be used _________________________________
for “solvent” properties.
—Degreasers ___________________________________________
—Cleaners
—Diluents
—Extractants
27. Waste Identification Hierarchy
(1) Understand the process.
(2) initial generator must determine
each waste code applicable to the
waste (i.e., listed and characteris-
tic).
(3) Sampling results only indicate
constituent’s concentration.
29. Generator’s Options
(1 ‘ “Apply knowledge”
(2) Testing
30. Evaluate Basis of “Applied Knowl-
edge”
Documentation on file.
—Past waste stream analytical data.
NOTES
28. Waste Analysis Procedures
Enforcement Concerns—5

-------
a-
—Data must reflect proper test
methods and waste stream vari-
ation.
—Must document listed wastes do
not also exhibit a characteristic.
• Inspector must utilize discretion.
• If determination is questionable,
inspector may consider sampling.
31. Key Elements for TSDF and Genera-
tor Waste Analysis
• Sampling Points
• Test Methods
• Frequency
Test Methods for Waste Analysis
• FOO1-F005 solvent wastes— TCLP.
• California list wastes
(1) Metals, cyanides and corro-
sives— Analysis of PFLT filtrate
(2) PCBs and HOCs— Total waste
analysis.
• Treatment standards based on
immobilization technology —
TCLP.
• Treatment standards based on
destruction or removal technolo-
gies—Total waste analysis.
• If treatment standards are based
on both — TCLP and total waste
analysis is required.
33. Characteristic Wastes
EP Toxicity vs. TCLP
34. Generators Who Treat in 90-day
Tanks and Containers and Certify
that Waste Meets the Treatment
Standards Must Have Waste Analy-
sis Plait
NOTES
32.
Enforcement Concerns—6

-------
35. Grab Samples vs. Composite
Samples
NOTES
36. Alternative Analytical Detection
Limit ________________________________
• If the treatment standard is a
combustion process
• ‘ 1 good faith” effort
37. Notifications and Certifications _____________________________
38. Do LDR documents contain all
required information? _________________________________
• Inspector should verify that LDR
documents are complete.
• LDR documentation from cradle-
to-grave.
39. Notification _____________________________________
• Treatment standards may be
referenced as long as the following
is provided:
—EPA hazardous waste number; _______________________________
—Treatabiity group(s);
—Subcategory of waste code; arid _________________________________
—CFR Sections and paragraphs
where applicable standards ap-
pear.
• This provision is not allowed for ____________________________________
treatment, storage facilities that
ship spent solvents, multi-source __________________________________
leachate, or California list wastes
off-site to a disposal facility.
40. Required Documentation for LDR
Waste ______________________________________
• Waste Category 1: Waste meeting
treatment standards or prohibition
levels .
Enforcement Concerns—7

-------
NOTES
—Signed certification statement.
—Properly referenced treatment
standards.
—Manifest #.
—EPA hazardous waste #. ______
—Waste analysis, where available.
41. Documentation for LDR Waste ______
(Cont’d)
• Waste Category 2: Waste not _______
meeting treatment standards or
prohibition levels . ______
—Properly referenced treatment ______
standards.
—Manifest #. _______
—EPA hazardous waste #.
—Waste analysis, where available. ______
42. Documentation for LDR Waste ______
(Cont’d)
• Waste Category 3: Waste granted
a variance, exemption or exten-
sion .
—Properly referenced treatment
standards.
—EPA hazardous waste #. _____
—Manifest #.
—Waste analysis, where available. ______
—The date the waste is subject to
the prohibitions.
43. Documentation for LDR Waste _____
(Cont’d)
• Waste Category 4: Treated re- ______
stricted waste that meets treat
ment standards .
— Properly referenced treatment
standards.
—EPA hazardous waste #. _____
—Manifest #.
Enforcement Concerns—8

-------
r
—Signed certification statement. NOTES
—Waste analysis, where available.
44. Documentation for LDR Waste
(Cont’d)
Waste Category 5: Characteristic
waste, meeting treatment stan-
dards. and i nger exhibitinga
characteristic .
Send the following to either the
Regional Administrator, or state re-
pesentative
—Properly referenced treatment
standards.
—EPA hazardous waste #.
—Signed certification statement
Part 268.7(b)(5) including:
name address of Subtitle D
facility description of waste as
initially generated (including
waste code and treatment stan-
dard).
—Waste analysis, where available.
45. SQG Tolling Agreements
• Notification/certification with
initial shipment only.
• Agreements per 262.20(e).
46. Special Certification for Alternative
Analytical Detection Limit
47. “Soft HammeT’ Provisions (268.8)
• As of May 8, 1990 this section is no
longer applicable.
• Recordkeeping inspections for
wastes handled prior to May 8,
1990 shouid be checked for “soft
hammer” compliance.
48. Lab Packs
h .
Enforcement Concerns—9

-------
,
49. Mixed Waste
• 2 year national capacity variance
(except for FOO1-F005; dioxins; and
CA list).
50. Dilution
51. Is Dilution Used as a Substitute for
Adequate Treatment?
• Dilution prohibited to meet treat-
ment standards, to circumvent
effective dates, or avoid prohibi-
tion.
• Dilution only allowed as part of a
legitimate treatment process.
52. Exceptions to dilution prohibitions:
—Characteristic hazardous
wastes which are treated and
discharged under the Clean
Water Act.
—Characteristic hazardous
waste, which are going for deep
well injection and the characteris-
tic has been removed.
53. Dilution Applicability
• Determine if dilution prohibition is
applicable at point of generation.
• Distinguish when waste is re-
stricted vs. prohibited.
—Is there a national capacity vari-
ance?
—Is the waste going to a unit that
has received a no migration peti-
tion variance?
4-
NOTES
Enforcement Concerns—i 0

-------
54. Possible Dilution Activities NOTES
• Commingling of processed and
nonprocessed wastes.
• Sorbtion of wastes, without chang-
ing the waste’s physical or chemi-
cal properties.
• Centralized treatment involving
incompatible wastestreams is
inappropriate treatment.
Enforcement Concerns—il

-------
NOTES NOTES
Enforcement Concerns—i’

-------
DILUTION
Is waste or a
treatment residue with
the same treatability
group, going for land disposal?
Dilution Is
[ prohibited
I lsWaste
I Characteristic
L’ injected
Deactivation Is
sped fled
technology and
dilution is not
prohibited
nis
L )
‘Toxic only lncludes
DOOl (high TOC NWW), D003
(cyanides and suluides), D004-17
Note: Dilution prohibition does not apply
to wastes with national capacity extension
or to wastes going to no migration units
Treatment standard is expressed
as a concentration level and
dilution is not prohibited

-------
Example of a Typical Waste (F006)
Waste Analysis Data (mg/I) CCW! Table (mg/ft
Cd 0.05 Cd 0.066
Waste Cr 6.30 ,
Pb 0.61 Pb 0.51
generated: NI 1.05 Ni 0.32
Ag 0.07 Ag 0.072
Waste Analysis Data (mg/I) CCWE Table (mg/I )
Cyanide. (total) 720 CyanIde. (total) 890
Cyarddes (amenable) 50 CyanIde. (amenable) 30
Gen.rator ..nds to tvatm•nt facility:
• manifest
• nolification
• wast• analysis data
Waste Analysis Data (mg/fl CCWE Table (mg/I )
Cd 0.04 Cd 0.066
Cr 5.00 Cr 5.20
Waste p 0.40 Pb o.si
after NI 0.31 NI 0.32
treatment: Ag 0.06 Ag 0.072
Waste Analysis Data (ma/I) CCWE Table (mg/I )
Cyanides (total) 550 Cyanide. (total) 590
Cyanldes (amenable) 27 Cyarild.s (am.nabie) SO
Treatment facility send.:
• manifest
• nofificatlon
• crtlflcatton
• wast. analysi, data

-------
Faculty
Kate Anderson Ms. Anderson is an Environmental Specialist with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement. Her responsibilities include
developing guidance and training for EPA and State
personnel mvolved in hazardous waste enforcement
activities. Prior to Joining EPA. Ms. Anderson was a
section manager for the RCRA/Superfund Flotline.
Reggie Cheatham Mr. Cheatham Is a civil engineer with the U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agencys Office of Waste Pro-
grams Enforcement (OWPE). His responsibilities In-
clude: representing enforcement concerns In areas
such as the wood preservative listings and the definl-
tion of solid waste: editing the quarterly RCPA Inspec-
tor Newsletter ; and Implementing the mandatory In-
spection training requirements. Prior to joining EPA.
Mr. Cheatham was a civil engineer for a major cement
company.
Ken Gigliello Mr. GIgliello is the Acting Branch Chief for the Tech-
nical Assistance and Training Branch (TATh) with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Head-
quarters In the Office of Waste Programs Enforce-
ment. His responsibilities Include developing guid-
ance documents and training programs for EPA and
State personnel involved in hazardous waste en-
forcement activities. Previously, Mr. Gigilello had
eight years experience as an inspector with EPA
Region II, one year as an Environmental Engineer
with a major corporation, and three years working at
EPA Headquarters on RCRA training and guidance
development. Mr. Gigliello has had extensive train-
ing and experience in technical Issues involved with
the management of hazardous waste including
safety and sampling procedures.
OWPE—WR TRAINING
OVER ‘

-------
# -
Faculty
Jim Thompson Mr. Thompson Is all Environmental Specialist with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Head-
quarters In the Office of Waste Programs Enforce-
ment (OWPE). Mr. Thompson is the National Coordi-
nator for implementation and enforcement of the
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Program. Prior to
joining OWPE, Mr. Thompson worked In the Office of
Solid Waste where he assisted In the development
arid writing of the Land Disposal Restrictions regula-
tions. Previously, Mr. Thompson had eleven years
experience as a Regional Coordinator and Assistant
Manager of Environmental Services for two major
corporations. He has a B.S. In Professional Chemis-
try from South Carolina State College.
OPE—ZDR ThAIIVTh’G

-------
OWPE LDR TRAINING
EVALUATION FORM
Please take a moment to complete this evaluation form: it will help us
better focus future courses. Thank you.
(Only evaluate Day 2 - Enforcement Concerns on this form.)
U Overall, how would you rate the qualily of this section?(Circle the
point on the bar that most closely matches your opinion.)
Fair
14 )
Excellent
2) What two (2) things did you
1.
2.
LIKE BEST
about this section?
3) What would you CHANGE
to improve this section?
Poor
I
1 (Please Turn The Page Over)

-------
OWPE LDR TRAINING
EVALUATION FORM
4) How do you rate ne effectiveness of the case study in helping you
understand regulatory and enforcement sues?
In effective
Very Effective
I
5) Do you feel the instructors selected to teach this section were
qualified (i.e., did they show a command of the subject matter, havE
suitable field experience, etc.)?
Unqualified
Very Qualified
LI
None
Moderate
LI
Great
6) How great is the need for LDR training and other RCRA training like
this course in your organization?
Name: (optional
Years in Environmental Field: —
Years Experience in Enforcement: —
Have you had previous LDR Training?
Yes No
Effective
I
I
Qualified
I
2

-------
AGENDA
lAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS TRAINING
1990
Day One
8:45 opening Comments
9:00 Framework of the LDRs
o Overview
- Statutory Background
- Definition of Land Disposal
- Applicability of LDRs
o LDR Technical Requirements
- Treatment Standards
- Storage Prohibition
— Surface Impoundment Exemption
- Dilution Prohibition
— Variances and Extensions
10:15 Break
10:30 Framework (continued)
o Administrative Requirements
— Waste Analysis
- Recordkeeping
— Certification
11:00 Review Exercise
11:15 Contaminated Soil and Debris
o Placement
o Treatability Variances
o Effective Dates
o Interim Guidance Levels
12:00 Soil and Debris Example
12:15 Lunch
1:30 Third Third Final,Rule
o Treatment Standards for Characteristic Wastes
o Dilution Prohibition
- Characteristic Wastes
- Aggregation for Centralized Treatment
2:30 Break

-------
2:45 Third Third (continued)
o Mixed Hazardous and Radioactive Waste
o Multi-source Leachate
o Lab Packs
o D004—D01l Inorganic Solid Debris
o Petroleum Refining Wastes
o Application of Standards
o Effective Dates
4:00 Review Exercise
4:15 Closing Remarks
4:30 Open Discussion
Day Two
8:30 Enforcement Introduction
o Review of Current LDR Violations
o OWPE Activity Update
— Revised Enforcement Strategy
- Updated Inspection Manual
- Interactive Video Training
- Revised Waste Analysis Plan Guidance
9:00 Third Third Implementation Issues and Enforcement
Concerns
10:30 Break
10:45 Case Study
12:00 Closing Remarks

-------
REVIEW OF LDR FRAIIEWORK
TRUE OR FALSE
1. Placement into a unit includes:
c or F a. Removal of wastes from a land disposal unit,
treatment, and redeposition of the wastes in the unit
T or -F’ b. Capping waste in place
T or I c. Treatment in situ
or F d. Consolidation of wastes from other units or
contaminated areas into a land disposal unit
2. Restricted wastes:
c or F a. are those hazardous wastes for which an effective date
has passed, but a treatment standard is not in effect
I or F b. are always subject to the prohibitions on storage and
dilution c- -’- (Qt /t& C c9 &
or F c. v be prohibited by May 8, 1992 — L
3. A treater incinerates a high TOC ignitable waste and sends the ash to a
j2 - )( Subtitle D landfill and must send notificati and certification to both
EPA and the landfill. (!) or F C ,- -- /
q ’3 r
4. Storage of a DOO ’ nonwastewater lead acid battery stored on May 8, 1990
is permitted. or F -& , /t&t, -i
5. Treatment facilities may not use generator or treater-provided
information. I or , -- ‘ i
6. Waste analysis plans are rea ired for wastes treated to the treatment
standards in 90-day tanks. (nor F

-------
MULTIPLE CHOICE
7. Treatment standards do not apply to the following:
a. Wastes disposed of prior to the LDRs
b. Small quantity generators exempt from RCRA
c. Waste identified as hazardous solely due to a new characteristic
All of the above
8. A national capacity variance:
applies to wastes that differ significantly from those used to
determine BDAT treatment standards
, b. may be granted for a period of 2 years, with no renewal option - -.--- 4
c. exempts the specific waste from all LDR. requirements
9. A facility is treating K042 wastewaters by solvent extraction and
achieves a pentachlorobenzene concentration of 0.04 mg/l. The BDAT for
this waste is incineration. The treatment standard for
pentachloroben.zene in 1 (042 is set at 0.055 mg/i. The facility is
already in compliance with the LDRs and no further treatment is
required. — ‘i-”- “-‘7 S
not in compliance with the LDRs and must incinerate its waste.
not in compliance with the LDRs and additional solvent extraction
treatment is required.
10. Which, if any of the following generators is fully exempted from the
notification requirements?
a. Generator A generates a D007 nonwastewater and treats it on-site
to meet the treatment standard and sends the residual to a
/ - -/- 1 Subtitle D landfill. ‘ ‘ ‘
b. Generator B is a small quantity generator and has a signed tolling
agreement with a recylcier.
c. Generator C generator is a 90-day generator and sends a partially
treated EP toxic nonwastewater to a co iercia1 Subtitle C facility
for final treatment and disposal
None of the above.

-------
11. Small Quantity Generators (SQG) with tolling agreements are:
exempt from the dilution prohibition
subject to one-time notification and certification requirements
required to maintain notifications and certifications for five
years
d. exempted from the land disposal restrictions
12. A treater receives a D007 nonwastewater that it treats to meet the
treatment standard and sends to a Subtitle D landfill. The treater also
generates a wastewater that does not exhibit a characteristic. Which of
the following statements are true?
a. notification and certification is required for both wastes
generated
b. notification and certification are sent to the Subtitle D
landfill ‘- 1’ -- -- ‘ ‘S
notification and certification is required only for the residual
sent to the Subtitle D facility. —
bandc

-------
C c ) r
—
—
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
______ WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460

A Rt7j
/
/ O R D Ct1 347.l Le?
NDUM
SUBJECT: Policy for Superfund Compliance With the RCRA Land D p sa1
Re s r i c 0 - ‘ T 3 m
FROM: Jor 4A _
Aching As istant Administrator C)
0
TO: Regional Administrators Regions i—x
Puroose
To transmit the Superfund policy for complying with the RCR .A land
disposal restrictions (LDRs) at Superfund Sites.
CERCLA section 121(d) requires on—site Superfirid remedial actions to
comply with Federal, and more stringent State, environmental requirements that
are determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). Section 121 also identifies six ARAR waivers: 1) interim remedy;
2) greater risk to human health and the environment; 3) technical
impracticability; 4) equivalent standard of performance; 5) inconsistent
application of State standard; and 6) Fund—balancing.
With regard to Superfund removal actions, the current NCP requires on—site
removal actions to comply with Federal ARARs to the extent practicable,
considering the exigencies of the Situation. The preamble to the proposed NCP
contains guidance on how to determine whether compliance is “practicable.”
On—site removal and remedial actions must comply with substantive aspects
of both appl(a. le and relevant and appropriate requirements. Off—site removal
and remedial actions must comply with both substantive and administrative
aspects of applicable requirements only.
The RCR .A land disposal restrictions are a potential ARAR for Superfund
actions. As you may know, OERR is developing a guidance document to assist the
Regions in complying with the LDRs. Although several i ssues must be resolved

-------
—2— 9347.1—02
before thisgu.id ce is issued, this memorandum will summarize one of the major
issues that. h.a been decided, namely, how to determine whether the LDRs are
“applicable” to a Superfund response action. This policy will be discussed in
greater detail in the guidance document.
Objective -
In order to assist Regional removal and remedial staff in making current
site decisions about the LDRs, this memorandum will explain: I) how to
determine when the LDRs are “applicable” to a Superfund removal or remedial
action, and 2) the Superfund approach for complying with the LDRs when they are
determined to be applicable. (This memorandum does not address how to make
“relevant and appropriate” determinations.)
Imo].ementaUon
Section A below explains how site managers (OSCs, RPM5) should determine
whether the LDRs are “applicable” to a Superfund response action. Section B
explains how Superfund intends to comply with the LDRs when they are
determined to be applicable.
A. Application of the LDRs to CERCLA respon.se actions
To determine if the LDRs are applicable to a given response action at a
Superfund site, the site manager must answer three questions. The answer to
each question must be “yes” for the LDRs to be applicable.
1. Does the CERCLA action constitute “olacement” ?
The LDRs are triggered as applicable requirements by “placement” of
restricted RCRA hazardous wastes in land—based units. 1 Placement occurs when
wastes are land disposed (or placed) in land—based RCRA units, such as
landfills, surface im undments, waste piles, and land treatment facilities.
Placement does not occur if wastes are moved within a unit or are left in place
(e.g., capping, in—situ treatment, consolidation within a unit). Placement
does occur when wastes are moved from one unit and placed in another unit. For
example, if wastes from a C CLA site are disposed at an off—site landfill,
this action constitutes placement.
However, the concept of a RCRA unit may be less useful for uncontrolled
hazardous wa,S eites, which often involve widespread and dispersed
contaminatjoj , Therefore, to assist in defining when placement occurs for on—
site disposal at Superfund sites, the Agency has developed the concept of an
Several LDR requirements (the storage restrictions, dilution prohibition,
and off—site notification requirements, in particular) are triggered when
restricted wastes are generated, or picked up, rather than when the wastes
are “placed.” However, the major LDR restrictions discussed in the
remainder of this memorandum are triggered only if wastes are “placed.”

-------
—3— 9347.1—02 - -
“area of c tamii tion” (AOC). An AOC is delineated by the extent of
continuOus contamination, although one AOC may contain varying types and
concentratidna of contamination. For xample, a waste pit with the surrounding
contaminated soil is one AOC and may be viewed as a single “unit,” e.g., a
single landfill. For the purposes of the LDRs, therefore, AOCs are equivalent
to RCRA units.
Movement of waste within the AOC does not constitute placement, but
movement of waste out of the AOC into another unit will trigger placement.
Placement would occur if wastes from different AOCs are consolidated into one
AOC or if wastes are removed and treated outside the AOC and returned to the
same or a different AOC. Placement would also occur if wastes are excavated
from the AOC, placed in an incinerator or tank located within the AOC, and then
redeposited into the AOC, because the incinerator and tank are considered
separate units from the AOC.
2. Is the CERCL A waste also a RCRA hazardous wastei
The LDRs are applicable only to RCRA hazardou wastes (i.e., listed and
characteristic wastes identified under §261). However, not all wastes at
Superfund sites are RCRA hazardous wastes. Therefore, the site manager must
decide if it is reasonably ascertainable, within the scope of the Superfund
site investigation, that the CERCLA waste is also a RCRA hazardous waste.
Reasonable efforts must be used to collect the information needed to determine
if a waste is a RCRA listed or characteristic waste. (It is expected that
current data collection efforts at Superfund sites should be sufficient for
this purpose.) The site manager should have affirmative evidence (e.g.,
manifests, records, knowledge of process) to demonstrate that the Superfund
waste is a RCRA hazardous waste for tht LDRs to be potentially applicable.
To determihe whether a CERCLA waste is a RCRA characteristic waste, site
managers may test the waste or use their knowledge of the properties of the
waste. To determine if a waste is a listed waste, sampling alone will not be
sufficient. The RCRA listing descriptions will generally require that the site
manager have knowledge about the source of the waste (for example, did the
sludge on site result from a wastewater treatment operation?) or its prior use
(e.g., was the waste unused ..hen it was discarded?).
If the site manager determines that the site waste is a RCRA hazardous
waste, hefabs iat also determine if that waste is a “California list” waste.
The Califd D list wastes are a distinct category of RCRA hazardous wastes
regulated undi r the LDR.s. The LDR regulations describe the California list
wastes and they will be discussed in the forthcoming guidance document.
3. Is the RCRA waste restricted under the LDRs at the time of ulacemeflti
The land disposal restrictionS are being phased in for the RCRA hazardous
wastes over a period of time. Attachment 1 presents the LDR statutory
deadlines established by section 3004 of the 1984 RCRA amendments. A RCRA
waste becomes a restricted waste under the LDRs on its statutory deadline, or
earlier if EPA chooses to promulgate treatment standards for a waste prior to
this deadline. Note that after May 1990, RCRA hazardous wastes (that were

-------
- —4— 9347.1—02
listed or charact ristic as of the 1984 RCR.A amendments) will be restricted
under the LDR8.
d
To determine if the LDRs are applicable, site managers should determine if
the RCR.A was-te will be restricted under the LDRs at the time the waste is to be
placed.
To summarize Section A, the LDRs are applicable when three conditions are
met: 1) the CERCLA action constitutes placement, 2) the CERCLA waste is a RCRA
hazardous waste, and 3) the RCRA waste is restricted at the time of placement.
If these conditions are met, the CERCLA action must comply with the LDRs,
unless an ARAR waiver is granted (remedial actions) or compliance with the LDRs
is determined not to be “practicable” (removal actions).
S. Superfund compliance with the LDRs
Section B briefly describes the different types of LDR requirements and
provides an overview of the Superfund approach for complying with these LDR
requirements when they are determined to be “applicable.” Section B describes
only the major LDR restrictions; the upcoming guidance document will give a
complete description of all LDR provisions.
1. Summary of the major LDR reQuirements
When a waste becomes “restricted” on its statutory deadline (or possibly
earlier), one of four types of restrictions will take effect:
Treatment standard ( 268.40—43) — T e RCRA amendments direct EPA to
promulgate treatment standards for all RCRA hazardous wastes by the
statutory deadlines. To date, most of the standards set by EPA are
concentration levels that must be achieved prior to land disposal. (The
regulations specify whether a total waste analysis or the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) must be used to measure the
concentration levels.) For concentration—based treatment standards, any
technology may be used to achieve these standards. However, in limited
cases, EPA has also promulgated a specific technology as a treatment
standard, or has established a “no land disposal” treatment standard where
a waste waa no longer generated, no longer being land disposed, or was
capable at bein.g totally recycled.
National ca acitv extenSion ( 268.30—33) — When EPA sets a treatment
standard for a waste, it must also determine if there is sufficient
capacity available nationwide to treat the waste to that standard. If
not, EPA may grant a nationwide capacity extension for the waste for up to
two years. During the extension, the waste does not have to meet the
treatment standard. However, if waste that does not meet the standard is
disposed in a landfill or surface impou.ndment, the receiving unit must
meet the RCRA §3004(o) minimum technology requirements (e.g., double
liner, leachate collection system, ground water monitoring). Because of
these limitations on disposal, wastes are still considered “restricted”
during national capacity extensions.

-------
93 7.1—02
Attachment 2 highlights the national capacity extensions that EPA has
granted to date for C cI.A soil and debris wastes that are contaminated
with R RA restricted wastes.
Soft hammer ( 268.8) — If EPA fails to set a treatment standard for a
First or Second Third waste on the statutory deadline, the soft hammer
goes into effect automatically. The soft hammer places two requirements
on the disposal of wastes in landfills and surface impoundments: 1) the
receiving unit must meet the RCRA minimum technology requirements, and
2) the generator must demonstrate and certify that he has investigated
treatment options for the waste, and, where treatment is practically
available, that the waste has been treated using the best practically
available treatment method. The soft hammer remains in effect until EPA
sets a treatment standard for the waste, or until the hard hammer falls in
May 1990, whichever comes first.
Hard hammer (RCRA §300’e(g)(6)(C)) — If EPA fails to set a treatment
standard for a solvent, dioxin, or California list waste by the statutory
deadlines for these wastes, or for any “Third”. waste by May 1990, the hard
hammer falls. The hard hammer prohibits all land disposal of the affected
waste.
Compliance with RCRA and the LDRs may also be obtained through several
options other than meeting the restrictions above. It is important to note
that these options constitute compliance with RCR.A; they do not require an ARAR
waiver under CERCLA.
A Treatability Variance ( 268.44) , .,s available when a treatment standard
has been set for a waste. The variance can be used where, because the
site manager’s waste is significantly different from the waste used by EPA
to set the treatment standard, the standard cannot be met or the BDAT
technology is inappropriate. The variance can be granted either
administratively, for a particular waste at a particular site, or through
a rule—making procedure, which establishes a new nationwide waste category
and associated treatment standard.
An Eaujvalent Treatment Method Petition ( 268.42) can be used where a
treatment etandard is a specified technology, but the site manager cai
demonarr that another technology can achieve an equivalent measure of
perfor t. w .
A No— 11zrption Petition ( 268.6) can be used as an alternative to any of
the four restrictions above. The site manager must demonstrate that there
will be no migration of hazardous constituents above health—based levels
from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as the waste remains
hazardous.
Deljsting ( 260.2O and §260.22) can be used as an alternative to any of
the four restrictions above, when the RCRA hazardous waste is a listed
waste. The site manager must demonstrate that: 1) the waste does not ‘neet
any of the criteria under which the waste was listed, and 2) other factors

-------
—6— 9347.1—02
(including a itionai. constituents) would not cause the waste to be
hazard u*.
2 _ . Superfund aDoroach for cor ], 4 /ing with the LDR requirements
The pr-esent Superfund approach for complying with the LDRs when they are
applicable requiremen is illustrated below:
CASE A: CERCLA liqu.id or sludge wastes that are also RCRA restricted
hazardous wastes
CERCLA liquid ÷ RCRA restricted + Placement = LDR is applicable. Must
or sludge hazardous waste comply (unless CERCLA
ARAR waiver is granted).
If the LDR restriction is
a treatment standard,
evaluate whether it can
be met. If not,
determine if a
Treatability Variance :0r
other RCRA option is -
appropriate.
CASE B: CERCLA Soil or debris wastes that contain RCRA restricted
hazardous wastes
CERCLA soil + RCR.A restricted + Placement LDR is applicable. Must
or debris hazardous waste comply (unless CERCLA
ARAR waiver is granted).
If LDR restriction is a
treatment standard, will
generally be appropriate
to seek a Treatability
Variance. Other RCRA
options may also be
appropriate.
CERclAreaponae actions often address waste matrices, such as contaminated
soil and debris, that are different from the RCRA industrial wastes used to set
the LDR treatment standards. Therefore, the Agency is undertaking a rulemaking
that will set LDR treatment standards specifically for contaminated soil and
debris. Until that rulemaking is completed, site managers should use the data
collected during the removal and remedial site investigations to support a
Treatability Variance for soil and debris where necessary. As part of this
interim approach, the Agency is developing specific guidance for obtaining a
Treatability Variance for soil and debris, which establishes alternate
treatment levels or methods for soil and debris.

-------
9347.1—02
If yo i have T’urther questions, you may call the Headquarters Superfu d
Carolyn Offutt of the CERCLA program (FrS 75—976O), or
Michaelle Wjla of the RCRA land disposal restrictions program (FTS 382—4770).
Attachments
cc: Regional Counsel, Regions I—X
Director, Waste Management Division, Regions I, IV, V , VII, and VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Regions III and VI
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division, Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I, VI, and VII
Henry Longest
Sylvia Lowrance
Bruce Diamond
Lisa Friedman
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
Oil and Hazardous Materials Coordinators, Regions t—X
Bettie Van Epps, OERR Document Coordinator

-------
Attachment 1.
LDR STATU1 ORY DEADLINES
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE STATUTORY DEADLINEC
Spent solvent wastes (FOOl-F005) November 8, 1986
Dioxin wastes (F020-F023 and F026-F028) November 8, 1986
California list wastes July 8, 1987
- Any RCRA hazardous waste, and
- Liquid (except for HOCs), and
• Exceeds statutory prohibition level for
certain cyanides, metals, corrosives,
PCBs or HOCs
CERCLA/RCRA corrective action soil and debris November 8, 1988
(Solvent-containing, dioxin-containing, and
California list wastes only)
First Third wastes (listed RCRA hazardous wastes) August 8, 1988
Second Third wastes (listed RCRA hazardous wastes) June 8, 1989
Third Third wastes (listed and characteristic May 8, 1990
RCRA hazardous wastes)
New RCRA wastes (any RCRA hazardous waste listed Within 6 months
or identified under RCRA 3001 after of listing or
November 8, 1984) identification**
* These dates are statutory deadlines in HSWA. On this date, some type
of LDR . estriction will apply (i.e., treatment standard, minimum
requir t during national capacity extension, soft hammer, hard
hanznie Rovever, the Agency also has the authority to restrict a waste
earlier th i its statutory deadline. Currently, the Agency is planning
to restrict certain Third Third wastes in the June 1989 Second Third rule,
so individual regulations must be checked.
** If EPA misses the 6 month deadline, the waste will not be restricted under
the LDRs because HSWA contained no hammer provisions for newly identified
wastes.

-------
Attachment 2
1DR NATIONAL CAPACI1 Y EXTENSIONS FOR CERCLA SOIL AND DEBRIS
Waste Category
Statutory
Deadline
Treatment Standard
Effective Dafe
Solvent (F0Ol-F005)
November 8, 1988
November
8, 1990*
Dioxin (F020-F023 and F026-F028)
November 8, 1988
November
8, 1990*
California list (HOCs)
November 8, 1988
November
8, 1990*
First Third:
Wastes where BDAT is incineration
August 8, 1988
August 8,
1990*
Wastes where BDAT is other than incineration
August 8, 1988
August 8,
1988**
Soft hammer wastes - treatment standard not
set; must meet soft hammer restrictions as of
8/8/88
August 8, 1988
N/A
* The effective date is based on the granting of a national capacity extension. During the capacity
extension, the soil and debris do not have to meet the promulgated treatment standards. However, if soil
or debris that does not meet the standard is disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, the receiving
unit must meet the RCRA minimum technology requirements (double liner, leachate collection system, ground
water monitoring).
** Except for K048-K052 and K071, which were granted capacity extensions until Augu .t 8, 1990

-------
... N
• — _ 1—
II

-------
United States June 1989
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (05-520 )
EPA Land Disposal
Restrictions
Summary of
Requirements
DISCLAIMER
This handbook presents only a summary of the Land
Disposal Res iction regulations. In order to determine the
specific requirements, consult the appropriate Federal Regis-
ter publications cited in the handbook.

-------
Contents
Section Page
Introduction 1
1. General Provisions of the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) Program 3
Applicability 3
Prohibition on Dilution 3
Storage 4
Testing and Recordkeeping 5
Generator Responsibilities
Treatment Facility Responsibilities
Permit Program 8
Jnterin Status Facilities
Permitted Facilities
Variances, Extensions, and Exemptions 9
National Capacity Extension
Treatability Variance
Case-by-case Extension
No Misration Petition
Surface Imooundment Exemption
2. Solvent - Dioxin Rule
Treatment Standards
Solvent Treatment Standards
Dioxin Treatment Standards
3. California List Rule 19
Cyanides and Metals 21
Halogenated Organic Compounds 21
Corrosives 21
Polychiorinated Biphenyls 21
4. First Third Rule 23
Soft - Hammer Resirictions 24
Testing Requirements 25

-------
Land Disposal Restrictions
Summary of Requirements
INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 1984, the President signed into law
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Among other things, these Amendments require EPA to
evaluate all listed and characteristic hazardous wastes ac-
cording to a strict schedule to determine which wastes should
be restricted from land disposal. For wastes that are restricted,
the Amendments require EPA to set levels or methods of
treatment that substantially diminish the toxicity of wastes
or reduce the likelihood that hazardous constituents from
wastes will migrate from the disposal site. Beyond the dates
specified in the schedule, restricted wastes that do not meet
the treatment requirements are prohibited from land disposal.
According to HSWA, if EPA fails to set the treatment
standards for a particular waste by the specified deadline,
that waste is automatically subject to land disposal restric-
tions specified in the statute.
In the first rule implementing the land disposal
restrictions, published on November 7, 1986, EPA defined
land disposal to include, but not be limited to, any placement
of hazardous waste in:
• Landfills
• Surface impoundments
• Waste piles
• Injection wells
• Land treatment facilities
1

-------
• Salt domes or salt bed formations
• Underground mines or caves
• Concrete vaults or bunkers, intended for
disposal purposes
The following final land disposal rules have been
published to date:
DATE FEDERAL REGISTER REGULATiNG
May 28. 1986 51 FR 19300 provtdes 3cheduie
Novernbe 7, 1986 51 FR 40572 solvents and dioains
June 4, 1987 52 FR 21010 corrccs s to November
7, 1986 nile
Juiy 8. 1987 52 FR 2S760 Cahfon i Li t’ wastes-
halogenated wastes,
cenain metal-bearing
wastes, polychiorinated
b oheny1s (PCBs), and
cyamde and corroetve
wastes
July 26, 1988 53 FR 28118 Underground lnjc icn
Con oi (UIC). solvents and
dioains
August 16, 1988 53 FR 30908 UIC: “California List” and
some “First Third’ waste,5
(specific F. K, P and U
wastes)
August 17, 1988 53 FR 31138 “Fi.rst ‘Third” wastes
Other scheduled rules in the LDR program
include:
June 8, 1989 ‘Second Third’ (see 26S 11)
May 8, 1990 ‘ flurs3 Tlurd ” and all
charactenas c wastes
(see 268.l2)
The general provisions applicable to all rules will
be described in the first half of the pamphlet. Informa-
tion presented in this pamphlet describes all LDR regulations
promulgated as of August, 1988. Notations appearing in
parentheses after a topic heading indicate the specific part
of the Federal Regulations dealing with the particular subject
(e.g., §268.30 denotes Section 268.30 in Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations).
2

-------
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE
LDR PROGRAM
APPLICABILITY
The LDR rule applies to hazardous wastes placed
into land disposal units after the effective dates of the pro-
hibitions. Wastes disposed of before November 8, 1986,
do not have to be removed from a land disposal unit for
treatment. However, if wastes are removed from land
disposal, the wastes must meet the applicable treatment
standards before subsequent placement in or on the land.
In addition, wastes disposed in underground injection wells
were not covered by the LDR until August 8, 1988.
PROHIBITION ON DILUTION ( 268.3)
The LDR rule prohibits the dilution of restricted
wastes as a substitute for adequate treatment. This pro-
vision ensures that no individual avoids the intent of EPA’s
regulations by simply adding material to a waste that does
not meet the treatment standards, rather than actually treating
the waste.
Dilution as a necessary part of the waste tre a.tment
process is allowed in the LDR program. For example, the
addition of an acid or basic reagent to a waste in a neu-
tralization pond does not merely dilute the waste into a larger
volume of waste; rather, the addition of the reagent is a
normal process of physically or chemically altering the waste
to render it less hazardous.
3

-------
STORAGE ( 268.5O)
Under the LDR program, permitted or interim status
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities may store restricted
wastes as long as needed provided that such storage is
solely for the purpose of accumulating sufficient quantities
of waste to facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or disposal.
If the facility stored a restricted waste for more than one
year, it bears the burden of proof that the storage was
solely for this purpose. For storage of less than one year,
however, EPA would bear the burden of proof. An exception
to this is liquid hazardous waste containing PCBs at
concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm, which cannot
be stored for greater than one year.
For generators without a RCRA permit or interim
status, the rules contained in §262.34 governing accumulation
of hazardous wastes have not changed under the LDR rule.
Transporters may accumulate restricted wastes at a transfer
facility up to 10 days without a permit or interim status.
Large Quantity Generators may accumulate for 90 days
(180 or 270 days for Small Quantity Generators depending
on distance transported) without a permit. Persons holding
wastes under these exemptions do not have to demonstrate
that they meet the “purpose” test described above (storage
of sufficient quantities to facilitate treatment, disposal or
recovery.)
Wastes that are placed in 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
applicable treatment standards prior to land disposal.
4

-------
TESTING AND RECORDKEEPING ( 268.7)
The testing and recordkeeping requirements of the
LDR 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 RCRA
treatment, storage, or disposal facility, are subject to testing
and recordkeeping requirements. These requirements also
apply to non-RCRA recycling facilities because the wastes
they receive and the resulting residues may be subject to
the LDR.
Generator Responsibilities ( 268.7)
The generator must determine:
• Whether the waste is subject to the LDR rules;
• What constituent levels are in the waste;
• Which treatment standards or prohibition levels
apply; and
• Whether the waste must be treated or already
meets the applicable treatment standard or pro-
hibition level upon generation.
The generator can make these determinations based
on either knowledge of the waste, or, as specified in the
regulations, by conducting a total waste analysis or by testing
the waste extract resulting from the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (see 40 CFR 268, Appendix
I). If the generator uses his knowledge of the waste to
5

-------
determine that the applicable treatment standard or prohi-
bition level has been met at the point of generation, the
generator must maintain records at the facility of all
supporting data used to make the determination.
If the waste meets the treatment standards, the gen-
erator may send the waste directly to a disposal facility.
With each shipment, the generator must send a notice that
provides the following information:
1. The EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s);
2. The applicable treatment standard(s);
3. The manifest number associated with the
waste shipment; and
4. The waste analysis data (if available).
The generator must also provide a signed certification
stating 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 (see 40 CFR
268.7(a)(2)). Furthermore, if the treatment standard is not
currently applicable because EPA has granted an extension
to the effective date for a particular waste, the generator
is responsible for notifying the land disposal facility.
Generators must retain copies of all notifications, certifi-
cations, and waste analysis data on-site for at least five years.
Generators who treat, store or dispose of restricted
waste on-site must comply with the recordkeeping require-
ments for treatment, storage and disposal facilities (except
for the manifest number).
6

-------
For restricted wastes that do not meet the treatment
standard, the generator must send a notice, containing the
four items outlined above, with each shipment to the storage!
treatment facility, including recyclers, reclaimers, and
incinerators since residues from these facilities may ulti-
mately require land disposal.
Treatment Facility Responsibilities ( 268.7)
Treatment facilities must treat restricted wastes to
the level specified by the applicable treatment standard(s)
or use the specified treatment method(s). Each treatment
facility is responsible for:
In its operating record, keeping a copy of the
notice and any available waste analysis data
provided by the generator, and,
Revising the waste analysis plan to include
(1) properly testing the restricted waste to
determine which treatment standards apply,
and (2) testing the residual from the treat-
ment process to determine if it meets the treat-
ment standard. These tests must be performed
as specified in the facility’s waste analysis
plan. (Alternatively, d2’a supplied by the
generator can be used.)
The treatment facility, like the generator who ships
directly to a disposal facility, must submit a notice and
certification to the disposal facility. When a treatment facility
ships to another treater for additional treatment, the notice
requirement also applies. Even when the treatment residue
does not go directly to a land disposal facility, the treatment
facility is responsible for keeping the generator’s notice in
the operating record.
7

-------
Land Disposal Facility Responsibilities ( 268.7)
Land disposal facilities disposing of restricted wastes
must maintain generator and treatment facility notices and
certifications. These facilities must also ensure that appropriate
tests of incoming wastes, or extracts of the waste, or treatment
residues using prescribed methods to establish compliance
with the LDR rule are conducted. Such testing must be
performed as specified in the facility’s waste analysis plan.
In cases where the land disposal facility is disposing of a
soft hammer waste, it must ensure compliance with applicable
requirements (see Soft-Hammer Restrictions, p. 24).
PERMIT PROGRAM
Interim Status Facilities ( 27O.72)
Prior to the July 8, 1987 Calfornia List rule, treatment
facilities operating under interim status could increase their
operations provided that the facility alterations and expan-
sions did not exceed 50 percent of the capital cost of a
comparable new facility. Interim status facilities are no
longer limited by the 50 percent ceiling for treatment or
storage of restricted wastes in tanks or containers.
Permitted Facilities ( 27O.42)
On September 28, 1988, EPA established a new
system of procedures for permittee-initiated permit modi-
fications. In that rule, specific facility changes were classified
as either Class 1, 2, or 3 modifications. EPA has amended
that rule to allow, as Class 1 modifications, certain facility
changes that are necessary to comply with the LDR rule.
Class 1 modifications are generally allowed without prior
agency approval although in some cases, prior agency
approval is required.
8

-------
The amendments will allow owners and operators
of peimitted facilities to add new waste codes, or a narrative
description, to a permit as Class 1 modifications for disposal
under certain conditions where the added wastes are: (1)
restricted wastes that have been treated to meet applicable
Part 268 treatment standards; or (2) residues from treating
soft hammer wastes; and (3) certain wastewater treatment
residues and incinerator ash. The rule also allows as a Class
I modification, with prior EPA approval, the addition of new
treatment processes, as long as those processes are necessary
to meet treatment standards and the treatment processes are
to take place in tanks or containers.
It is important to note that a permit does not shield
an owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal
facility from meeting land disposal requirements.
VARIANCES, EXTENSIONS, AND EXEMPTIONS
The statute provides a few limited opportunities for
delaying the effective date of prohibitions or gaining an
exemption from the prohibitions.
National Capacity Extension ( 2683O)
A national capacity extension is provided when EPA
determines that sufficient treatment capacity is not available
on a nationwide basis.
Treatabilit Variance ( 268.44)
Generators whose wastes cannot be treated to the
established treatment standards may petition EPA for a treata-
bility variance. Wastes that may be eligible for a variance
include, for example, exotic wastes, wastes formed by
9

-------
inadvertent mixing, and wastes that otherwise are different
in physical form from those wastes used to set the treatment
standards.
For EPA to grant a variance, a petitioner must not
only successfully demonstrate that the waste is significantly
different from the wastes evaluated by EPA in setting the
treatment standards, but that the waste cannot be treated
to meet the treatment standard. The petitioner must show
that attempts to treat the waste by available technologies
were unsuccessful or that the waste cannot be treated by
the specified technology. In granting a variance, EPA will
establish a new treatabiity group for that waste and set a
new treatment standard.
Case-by-Case Extension ( 268.5)
In cases where alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity cannot reasonably 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 is renewable only once.
To be considered for a case-by-case extension, a
petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) a good faith effort
has been made to locate and contract with hazardous
waste treatment, recovery, or disposal facilities nationwide
to handle the waste, (2) he has entered into a binding
contract to construct or otherwise provide adequate treat-
ment, recovery, or disposal capacity for the waste, and
(3) alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity
cannot reasonably be made available by the effective date
due to circumstances beyond his control.
10

-------
All wastes receiving either of the extensions (two-
year national capacity or case-by-case) must be placed in
a unit that is in compliance with the minimum technological
requirements or a unit for which EPA has granted a waiver
from these requirements. The minimum technology pro-
visions require a double liner, a leachate collection system,
and an adequate ground-water monitoring system.
No Migration Petition ( 268.6)
The fmal petition is the no-migration petition. 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 for as long
as the waste remains hazardous. A successful no-migration
petition will allow land disposal of a specific waste at a
specific site.
Until EPA grants a treatability variance from the
treatment standards, a case-by-case extension, or a no-
migration petition, the LDR regulations continue to apply
to the applicant.
Guidance document from EPA will be made available
in the near future on making demonstrations for case-by-
case extensions, variances from the treatment standards, and
no-migration petitions. (Facilities with underground injec-
tion wells may want to contact the Federal Office of Drinking
Water for information on no-migration petitions in the UTC
program.)
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT EXEMPTION ( 268.4)
EPA will exempt restricted waste treatment in surface
11

-------
impoundments from the LDR under the following conditions:
Liquid and solid treatment residuals not
meeting the treatment standards must be
removed from the surface impoundment at
least once every 12 months. They must be
treated to meet the applicable standards before
being disposed of, and may not be placed in
another surface impoundment; and,
• The surface impoundment meets minimum
technological requirements including a double
liner, leachate collection system and ground-
water monitoring system; or,
• The surface impoundment is operating under
a waiver from the requirement to retrofit
surface impoundments with double liners, or
under a double-liner variance for alternate
systems [ 3OO5(j)(2) and (4), and
§ 264.221(d) and (e), 265.221(c) and
(d), 264.301(d) and (e), and 265.301(c) and
(d)], and
• Evaporation of hazardous constituents is not
being used as the principal method of treat-
ment.
Owners or operators of surface impoundments seek-
ing an exemption for treatment of restricted wastes must
certify to the EPA Regional Administrator that the impound-
ment meets the minimum technological requirements, and
must submit a copy of the facility’s revised waste analysis
plan that outlines methods for representative sampling and
proper testing, frequency of removal, and methods for re-
moval of restricted residuals.
12

-------
2. SOLVENT-DIOXIN RULE
In the November 7, 1986 final rule, EPA established
the framework for implementing the land disposal restrictions
program. Many of the provisions in the general framework
were discussed in the previous section of this pamphlet. A
discussion of the particular wastes included in the Solvent-
Dioxin rule follows.
TREATMENT STANDARDS ( 268.4O)
The regulation promulgated on November 7, 1986,
requires that spent solvent wastes with EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. FOO1-F005, and dioxin wastes with Nos. F020-F023
and F026-F028 be eated prior to land disposal. Only
solvents used to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other
constituents are covered by the FOO1-F005 listing. A solvent
is considered “spent” when it is discarded because it is no
longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or
otherwise reprocessed. Examples of spent solvents include
degreasers, cleaners, fabric scourers, diluents, extractants,
and reaction and synthesis media.
SOLVENT TREATMENT STANDARDS ( 268.41)
Different treatment standards are established for two
separate groups of solvent wastes. The groups of solvent
wastes are:
Wastewaters (defined as solvent-water
mixtures containing less than or equal
to 1 percent total organic carbon (TOC)
by weight.)
13

-------
All other spent solvent waste, including
wastewaters containing greater than 1
percent TOC, solvent-containing solids
and solvent-contaminated soils.
Table 1 presents the solvent treatment standards that
are set as concentration levels. These standards are based
on the demonstrated performance of treatment technologies
such as steam stripping, biological treatment, activated car-
bon treatment, and incineration.
EPA is not requiring that specific technologies be
used to meet the treatment standards, only that the wastes
meet the concentration standards prior to land disposal,
providing that impermissible dilution is not used to meet
the treatment standard.
14

-------
TABLE 1: SOLVENT TREATMENT STANDARDS’
CONSTITUENTS OF
EXTRACT CONCENTRATIONSb
F0O1-F005
SPENT SOLVENT WASTES
(mg/1)
WASTEWATER
OTHERC
Acetone 0.05 0.59
n-Butyl alcohol 5.00 5.00
Carbon disulfide 1.05 4.81
Carbon tetrach]oride 0.05 0.96
Chlorobenzene 0.15 0.05
Cresols (cresylic acid) 2.82 0.75
Cyclohexanone 0.125 0.75
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.65 0.125
Ethyl acetate 0.05 0.75
Ethylbenzene 0.05 0.05 3
Ethyl ether 0.05 0.75
Isobutanol 5.00 5.00
Methanol 0.25 0.75
Methylene chiorided 0.20 0.96
Methyl ethyl ketone 0.05 0.75
Methyl isobutyl ketone 0.05 0.33
Nitrobenzene 0.66 0.125
Pyridine 1.12 0.33
Tetrachloroethylene 0.079 0.05
Toluene 1.12 033
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.05 0 -U
1,l,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 1 05 0.96
Trichioroethylene 0.062 0.09 1
Trichiorofluoromethane 0.05 0.96
Xylene 0.05 0 15
a For determining the aDplicable treatment standard, F-solvent wastewaters
are defined as solvent-water mixtures containing less than or equal to 1 percent
total organic carbon.
b An extract of the waste is obtained by employing the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The TCLP is an analytical method used to determine
whether the concentrations of hazardous constituents in the waste extract or
an extract of the treatment residual meet the treatment standards.
C Wastewaters that contain >1% TOC, solvent-containing solids, solvent-
containing sludges, and solvent-contaminated soils.
The treatment standard for methylene chloride in wastewaters generated
from pharmaceutical plants is 44mg/i.
15

-------
DIOXIN TREATMENT STANDARDS ( 268.41)
The dioxin standards are based on incineration that
achieves a 99.9999 percent destruction and removal effi-
ciency. Table 2 shows the treatment standards expressed
as concentrations in the treatment residual extract.
TABLE
2: DIOXIN
TREATh [ ENT
STANDARDS
F020-F023 AND
F026-F028
EXTRACT a
DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
CONCENTRATIONS
HxCDD - All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
HXCDF - All Hexachlorodibenzofurans
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
Pentachiorophenol
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
< 1 ppb
<0.05 ppm
< 0.05 ppm
< 0.10 ppm
<0.01 ppm
a As with the solvent wastes, the TCLP method is used to derive a
waste extract which is anal vzed to determine if treatment standards have
been met.
The effective dates for the solvent-dioxin rule, in-
cluding variances for specific categories of wastes, are
provided in Table 3. (See Section 1 for a discussion of
variances.)
16

-------
TABLE 3: EFFECTIVE DATES FOR SOLVENT-DIOXIN RULE
WASTE EFFECTIVE DATE(S)
F0O1-F005 Solvent Wastes
FOOl - F005 11/08/86
FOOl - F005 from Small Quantity Generators 11/08/88
(100-1000 kg/mo)
FOOl - F005 generated via RCRA corrective
actions or CERCLA response actions 11/08/88
<1% total FOOl - F005 solvent 11/08/88
constituents
FOOl - F005 soil and debris resulting
from RCRA corrective actions or
CERCLA response actions 11/08/901
Dioxin-Containing Wastes
Dioxin wastes F020 - F023, F026 - F028 11/08/88
F020 - F023, F026 - F028 soil and debris
resulting from RCRA corrective actions
or CERCLA response actions 11/08/901
a Between 11/08/88-11/08/90, if disposed in landfill or surface
impoundment, the unit must meet minimum technology requirements.
( 268.5 (h)(2))
17

-------
3. CALIFORNIA LIST RULE
On July 8, 1987, the EPA promulgated the second
phase of the LDR program which restricts the land disposal
of the California List wastes. The California List consists
of liquid hazardous wastes containing certain metals, free
cyanides, polychiorinated biphenyls (PCB), corrosives with
a pH of less than or equal to 2.0, and liquid and non-liquid
hazardous wastes containing halogenated organic compounds
(HOCs) as described below:
* (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 mg/I.
* (B) Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liquids
associated with any solid or sludge, containing
any of the following metals (or elements) or
compounds of these metals (or elements) at
concentrations greater than or equal to those
sDecified below:
Arsenic (as As) 500 mg/I
Cadmium (as Cd) 100 mg/I
Chromium (as Cr VI) 500 mg,1
Lead (as Pb) 500 mg/I
Mercury (as Hg) 20 mg/i
Nickel (as Ni) 134 mg/I
Selenium (as Se) 100 mg/I
Thallium (as TI) 130 mg/I
19

-------
* (C) Liquid hazardous wastes having a pH less
than or equal to 2.0.
(D) Liquid hazardous wastes containing PCBs
at concentrations greater than or equal to
50 ppm.
(E) Hazardous wastes containing HOCs in
total concentration greater than or equal
to 1,000 mg/I.
* Although these liquid wastes can be treated using solidi-
fication techniques such that they are no longer liquid and, therefore,
no longer meet the statutory definitions of California List wastes, it
is not EPA’s intent that simple absorption be used instead of permanent
treatment. Where physical or chemical changes do not occur, or where
hazardous constitutents are not otherwise immobilized, “solidification”
techniques may possibly be considered “dilution as a substitute for
adequate treatment,” aprohibited activity in the LDR program. Solidifcation
can not be substituted for treatment of wastes with specified treatment
standards or technologies (e.g. (1)) and (E) above), unless solidification
achieves the treatment standard or is the specified technology.
The rule requires that the Paint Filter Liquids Test
be used to determine whether a waste is considered to be
a liquid or nonliquid. This procedure is method 9095 in
EPA Publication No. SW-846, “Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste.”
Collectively, these hazardous wastes are referred to
as the California List because the State of California de-
veloped regulations to restrict the land disposal of hazardous
wastes containing these constituents and Congress adopted
these prohibitions in the 1984 Amendments to RCRA.
20

-------
Cyanides and Metals
Liquid cyanide waste and liquid metals wastes
containing constituent levels listed above may not be land
disposed after July 8, 1987. EPA did not set a specific
treatment method or treatment standard. Any treatment
method, except imperrnissible dilution, may be used to treat
these wastes to achieve these levels prior to land disposal.
Halogenated Organic Compounds
Under the July 8, 1987 California List rule, the HOCs
subject to the LDR are in Appendix III of Part 268. The
final rule specifies that hazardous wastes containing HOCs
in total concentrations greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/I,
must be incinerated or burned in boilers or industrial furnaces
in accordance with existing RCRA regulations, if, however,
the HOC waste is also subject to the F-solvent restrictions,
the F-solvent treatment standard applies.
Corrosives
On July 8, 1987, liquid wastes having a pH of 2.0
or less were prohibited from land disposal. EPA did not set
a specific treatment method or treatment standard. Any
treatment method (except dilution) may be used to achieve
a pH greater than 2.0 prior to land disposal.
Polychiorinated Biphenyls
As of July 8, 1987, liquid hazardous wastes con-
taining PCBs in concentrations exceeding 50 ppm must be
incinerated or burned in high efficiencey boilers in accor-
dance with the technical standards of 40 CFR 761.70.
21

-------
Additionally, restricted wastes with PCBs may only be
stored for up to one year provided such storage complies
with §268.50. Table 4 lists the effective dates for California
wastes, including those with variances. (See Section 1 for
a discussion of variances.)
TABLE 4: EFFECTIVE DATES FOR CALIFORNIA WASTES
Liquid hazardous wastes containing 1000 mg/i
free cyanides 07/08/87
Liquid hazardous wastes having a pH 2.0 07/08/87
Liquid hazardous wastes contaimng 50 ppm PCBs 07/08/87
Liquid hazardous wastes, primarily water, containing
1,000 mg/I HOCs l0,000 mg/i HOCs 07/08/87
California waste contaminated soil and debris resulting from
RCRA corrective actions or CERCLA response actions
Liquid hazardous wastes, not primanly water,
>1,000 mg/I HOCs 11/08/88
Nonliquid (non-RCRA/CERCLA) hazardous wastes
1 0OO mg/kg HOCs 11/08/88
a Between 11/08/88- 1 1/08 0, if disposed in a landfill or surface impoundmenL
unit must meet minimum technology requirements ( 268.5(h)(2)).
22

-------
4. FIRST THIRD RULE
EPA published the First Third rule in the land disposal
restrictions program in the August 17, 1988 Federal Register,
its effective date, however, was August 8, 1988. It is known
as the “First Third” rule because it contains provisions for
one-third of the listed RCRA wastes, excluding those wastes
already covered by the previous two rules. The Second
Third and Third Third rules will be published according to
a schedule set out in the statute. The three groupings
published in the May 28, 1986 Federal Register, were based
on toxicity and volume considerations, with the “worst”
wastes to be restricted first. The Second Third wastes are
to be evaluated by June 8, 1989; the Third Third wastes
by May 8, 1990. EPA will evaluate wastewater treatment
residues and leachates from soft-hammer wastes (discussed
below) in the Third Third Rule.
The lengthy list of First Third wastes for which
standards were set is provided in §268.41 and §268.43. The
list includes:
Some of the “F’-coded wastes--wastes from
non-specific sources, such as bath solutions
from electroplating operations
• Some of the “K”-coded wastes--wastes from
industry-specific sources, such as acetonitrile
production wastes
Some of the “P” and “U”-coded wastes--
discarded commercial chemical products, such
as formaldehyde. (The “P” wastes have been
determined to be acutely hazardous.)
23

-------
SOFT-HAMMER RESTRICTIONS
The First Third rule provisions are similar to the other
two rules with regard to exemptions, variances, and exten-
sions. A new set of management standards were, however,
established for First Third wastes for which specific treatment
standards were not set. A list of these wastes is provided
in Appendix 1 of this pamphlet. Certain automatic statutory
restrictions came into effect for these wastes, but these
restrictions are considered “soft-hammer” provisions because
they do not prohibit land disposal altogether. Rather, land
disposal is allowed, although disposal in surface impound-
ments and landfills is subject to several conditions, per
§268.8(a). These soft-hammer provisions remain effective
only until treatment standards are set or May 8, 1990,
whichever comes first.
Generators who intend to use a landfill or surface
impoundment for disposal of soft hammer wastes must certify
that no other practical alternatives are available. Generators
must submit a written demonstration and certification to the
EPA Regional Administrator and receiving facility. The
demonstration must list the alternative facilities contacted,
their addresses and telephone numbers, and contact dates,
and provide a brief discussion of efforts to find treatment
alternatives, per §268.8. Also, a notification must be sub-
mitted to the receiving facility, per §268.7(a)(4), provid-
ing the hazardous waste number, the soft-hammer prohi-
bitions, the manifest number, and any waste analysis data.
No certification is required for “soft hammer” wastes that
are going to be placed in land disposal units other than surface
impoundments and landfills.
24

-------
Any landfill or surface impoundment used for disposal of
soft hammer wastes must be in compliance with ground-
water monitoring and minimum technology requirements
(MTR) (double liners and leachate collection systems), unless
a waiver from the MTR has been obtained.
Generators and owner/operators of treatment, storage,
c r disposal facilities (TSDF) must keep copies of notifica-
tions, certifications, and demonstrations (if applicable), per
§268.8 (c). In addition, the owner/operator of a treatment
or recovery facility must certify that the soft-hammer wastes
were treated in accordance with the generator’s demonstra-
tion. (A summary of notification, certification, and dem-
onstrated requirements is provided in Appendices 2 and 3).
TESTING REQUIREMENTS
The testing requirements for First Third wastes are
based on the goals of the technology that was used in setting
the treatment standards. If, for example, stabilization was
used as the treatment technology, then the TCLP (extract
method) must be used to show that the treatment standard
was obtained. If incineration, a thermal destruction tech-
nology, was used, however, a total waste analysis of the
treatment residue is required.
In cases where waste mixtures are subject to more
than one treatment standard because of the specific con-
stituents in the mixture, the treatment standards for all of
the constituents will apply. In fact, it may be necessary
to test a waste using more than one method to certify that
all applicable treatment standards have been met.
25

-------
If a soft-hammer waste is mixed with another First Third
waste for which treatment standards have been set, the
mixture is subject to the treatment standards. Residues from
the treatment remain subject, however, to the soft-hammer
disposal provisions.
Table 5 provides effective dates for First Third wastes,
including those with variances. (See Section 1 fora discussion
of variances.)
26

-------
TABLE 5: k±F.ECUVE DATES FOR FIRST THIRD WASTES
F006 (nonwastewaler) 08 108/88
KOOl 08,08/88
K004 (nonwastewaler) 08/08/88
K008 (nonwastewazer) 08/08/88
K015 08/08/88
K016 08/08/88
K018 08/08/88
K019 08/08/88
K020 08/08/88
K021 (nonwastewaler) 08/08/88
K022 (nonwastewaler) 08/08/88
K024 08108/88
K025 08/08/88
K030 08/08/8 8
K036 (nonwastewaler) 08/08/88
K037 08/08/88
Nonexplosive K046 (noriwastewaier) 08/08/88
K047 08i08/8 8
K060 (nonwastewaler) 08/08/88
K061 (nonwastewaler less than 15% Zn) 08,08/88
K062 08/08/88
Non-CaSo 4 K069 (nonwastewaler) 08/08/88
K083 (nonwastewaler) 08/08/88
K086 (solvent washes) 08/08/88
K087 08/08/88
K099 08/08/88
K100 08/08/88
KiOl 08/08/88
K102 08/08/88
K103 08/08/88
K104 08/08/88
K061 (nonwastewater contaiinng grealer than 15% Zn) 08/08/88 - 08 A)8/90a
K048 - K052 08/08/90
K07 1 08 / 08 / 90 b
Soil and debris contarmnaxed with First Third wastes b
thai have t.reaiment standards based on incineration 08/08/90
All other First Third wastes not explicitly listed above are 05/08/90 or as
“Soft Hammered” unless other ise covered by California eaxment standards
List Program axe established,
______________________ whichever is earlier
a After 08/08/90, subject to a different standard based on High Temperanire
Metals Recoveiy - No Land Disposal
b Between 11/08/88 -08/08/90, if disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment,
unit must meet minimum tecl mology requirements ( 268.5(h)(2)).
27

-------
For aLlditional information on the Land Disposal
Restrictions program, contact the RCRA/ Superfund Hodine
at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or (202) 382-3000, or the EPA
Regional contacts listed below:
EPA Regional Land Ban Contacts
EPA Region 2
RCRA Compliance Section
(212) 264-1785
New Jersey, New York Puerto Rico.
Virgin Islands
EPA Region 3
RCRA Compliance Section
(215) 597 -9 84
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
EPA Region 4
RCRA Compliance Section
(404) 347-7603
Alabama Florida. Georgia, Ken tucki ’,
Mississippi, North Carolina Sou ti;
Carolina, Tennessee
EPA Region 5
RCRA Compliance Section
(312) 886-4463
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin
New Mexico,
EPA Region 7
RCRA Compliance Section
(913) 236-2891
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
EPA Region 8
RCRA Compliance Section
(303) 293-1669
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
EPA Region 9
RCRA Compliance Section
(415) 974-8124
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
American Samoa, Guam, Trust Terntories
of the Pacific
EPA Region 10
RCRA Compliance Section
(206) 442-5153
Alaska. Idaho, Oregon, Washington
EPA Region 1
RCRA Compliance Section
(617) 573-5700
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
EPA Region 6
RCRA Compliance Section
(214) 655-6794
Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Texas
28

-------
APPENDIX 1
SOFT HAMMER WASTES IN FIRST THIRD
§261.31 Wastes
F007--Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations.
F008--Plating bath sludges from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating
operations where cyanides are used in the process.
F009--Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations
where cyanides are used in the process.
F019--Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating
of aluminum.
§261.32 Wastes
K004--Wa.stewaier treatment sludge from the production of zinc yellow pigments.
K008--Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide green pigments.
KOll--Bottom stream from the wastewater stnpper in the production of
acrylonitrile.
K013--Bottom stream from the acetonitnie column in the production of
acrylonitrile.
K014--Bottoms from the acetomrrile purification column in the production of
acrylonitrile.
K017--Heavy ends (still bottoms) from the purification column in the production
of epichiorohydrin.
K02 1--Aqueous spent antimony catalyst waste from fluoromethanes production.
K022--Distillauon bottom tars from the production of phenol/acetone from
cumene
K031--By-product salts generated in the production of ti-ichioroethylene arid
perchioroethylene.
K035--Wastewater treatment sludges generated in the production of creosote.
K036--Still bottoms from toluerie reclamation distillation in the production of
disulfoton.
K046--Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing, formulation and
loading of lead-base initiating compounds.
K060--Ammonia still lime sludge from coking operations.
K061--Ernission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in
electric furnaces.
K069--Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.
K073--Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from the purification step of the diaphragm
cell process using graphite anodes.
K083--Distillauon bottoms from aniline production.
K084--Wasr .ew ater treatment sludges generated during the production of veterinary
pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-arsenic compounds.
29

-------
K085--Distillatjon of fractionation column bottoms from the production of
chlorobenzenes.
K086--Solvent washes and sludges; caustic washes and sludges, or water washes
and sludges from cleaning tubs and eq’ ipmern used in the formulation of
ink from pigments, driers, soaps, arid stabilizers containing chromium and
lead.
K1O1--Djstillatjon tar residues from the distillation of aniline-based compounds
in the production of veterinary pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-arsen.ic
compounds.
K102--Residue from the use of activated carbon for decolorization in the
production of veterinary pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-arsenic
compounds.
K106--Wastewater treatment sludge from the mercury cell process in chlorine
production.
§ 26 1.33(e) Wastes
POO1--Warfann, when present at concentration greater than 0.3%
P004--Aldrjn
P005--Ally! alcohol
P010--Arsenic acid
P011--Arsenic (V) oxide
P012--Arsenic (Ill) oxide
P015--Beryllium dust
P016--Bis-(chloromethyl) ether
P018--Brucine
P020--Dinoseb
P030--Soluble cyanide salts not elsewhere sDecified
PO 36 --Dichlorophenylarsine
P037--Die ldr in
P039--Disulfoton
PO41--Diethyl-p.nitrophenyl phosDhate
P048- -2,4-Dinitrophenol
P050--Endosulfan
P058--Fluoracetjc acid, sodium salt
P059--Heptachior
P063--Hydrogen cyanide
P068--Methyl Hydrazine
PO69--2-Methyllacto nitrile
P070--Aid icarb
P071--Methyl parathion
P081--Nitroglycerine
P082--N-Ni trosodimethylanime
PO 84 --N-Nitrosomethylvinylan ijne
P087--Osmium tetraoxide
30

-------
P089--Parathion
P092--Phenylmercuric acetate
P094--Phorate
P097--Famphur
P102--Propargyl alcohol
P105--Sodium azide
P108--Strychnine and salts
P1 10--Tetraethyl lead
P115--Thallium (I) sulfate
P120--Vanadium pentoxide
P122--Zinc phosphide, when present at concentrations greater than 10%
P123--Toxaphene
§261.33(f) Wastes
U007--Acrvlainide
U009--Ac r ylonitrile
U010--Mitomycin C
U012--Aniline
U016--Bemz(c)ac idine
U01 8—Benz(a)anthracene
U019--Benzene
U022--Benzo(a)pyrene
U029--Methyl bromide
U031--n-Butanol
U036--Chiordane, technical
U037--Chlorobenzene
U041--n-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane
U043--Vinyl chionde
U044--Ch loroform
U046--Chloromethyl methyl ether
UO5O--Chrysene
U05 1--Creosote
U053--Crotonaldehyde
U061--DDT
U063--Dibenzo (a, h) anthracene
U064--1 ,2:7,8 Dibenzopyrene
U066--Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2-
U067--Ethylene dibromide
U074-- 1 ,4-Dichioro-2-butene
U077--Ethane, 1,2-dichioro-
U078--Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
U086--N,N Diethyihydrazine
U089—Diethylstilbestrol
U103--Dimethyl sulfate
31

-------
Ui 05 —2,4-Dinitmtoluene
U108--Dioxane, 1 ,4-
Ui 15--Ethylene oxide
U 122--Formaldehyde
U124--Furan
U129--Lindane
U 1 30--Hex achlorocyclopentadiene
U133--Hydrazine
U134--Hydrofluoric acid
U 1 37—Indeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
U151--Mercuiy
U154--Methario l
U155--Methapyri lene
U 157- -3-Methylcholanthrene
Ui 58 --4 ,4-Methylene-bis-(2-chloroaniline)
U 159--Methyl ethyl ketone
U171--Niuopropane, 2-
U 1 77--N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
U 1 80--N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Ui 85--Pentach1oronj obej zene
U188--Phenol
U192--Pronarnjde
U200--Reserpine
U209--Tet.rachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
U210--Tetrachloroethylene
U21 1--Carbon tetrachioride
U219--Thiourea
U220--Toluene
U22 1--Toluenedjamjrie
U223--Toluene dusocyanate
U226--Methylchloroforrn
U227--Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
U228--Trichloroethylene
U237--Uracjj mustard
U238--Ethyl carbamate
U248--Warfarin, when present at concentrations of 0.3% or less
U249--Zinc phosphide, when present at concentrations of 10% or less
32

-------
Appendix 2 Notification and Certification Requirements
• Generator manages a re-
stricted waste that does not
meet the treatment standards/
prohibition levels; sends it
off-site for storage or treat-
ment ( 268.7(a)(1))
• Generator manages a re-
stricted waste, determines
waste can be land disposed
without further treatment
(*268.7(a)(2))
• Generator’s waste is sub-
ject to a case-by-case exten-
sion under §2685, exemp-
lion under §268.6, or a na-
tionwide variance under
Subpart C ( 268.7(a)(3))
Treatment,
storage. or
(Iistn)Sal ía—
cii ity
NotUication Must Include
- EPA 11W number
- Corresponding treatment standard or
prohibition level
- Manifest number
- Waste analysis data, where available
- EPA 11W number
- Corresponding treatment standaid or
prohibition level
- Manifest number
- Waste analysis data, where available
- EPA 11W number
-Corresponding treatment standard and
all applicahle prohibit ioiis
- Manifest number
- Vaste analysis data, where available
- The date the waste is subject to the
prohibitions
- Statement that waste is not prohibited
from land disposal
Statement that
waste meets appli-
cable treatment
standards/prohibi -
tion levels. Sec
‘A’’.
- EPA 11W number
- Applicable prohibitions set loilti in
268.33(f)
- Manifest number
- Waste analysis data, where available
Scenario
Nolifi cation
No1 /ies
Whom?
Treatment or
storage facil-
ity
Certjfication
Certifies how Certification
to Often? Must Include
how
Often?
With cacti
shipment
With cacti
shipiiirnt
With each
shipment
Whom?
TSDF Witheach
shipment
Facility
receiving
waste
• Generator subject to
§268.33(1) waste-specific
prohibitions (soft hammer)
and not subject to §268.32
( 268.7(a)(4))
TSDF With cacti
shipment
33

-------
Appendix 2 (Continued) Notification and Certification Requirements
• TSDs sending restricted
waste off-site, for additional
treat ment or storage
( 268.7(b)(6))
Must meet same notice and
certification requirements
applicable to generators
• Treatment facilities send-
ing restricted wastes off-site
to land disposal facilities
(LDPs) ( 268.7(b)(4))
LDFs
\Vi tF i each — EI’i I 1W number
shipn ieimt - Corresponding Treatment Sirmdamd
- Manifest number
- Waste analysis data, where available
LDFs
With each For wastes with
shipment treatment stan-
dards expressed as
concentrations, Sec
“B”
For wastes with
treatment stan-
(lards expressed as
technologies, see
‘‘C”
Scenarü Not Wes how
Whom? Often?
Nolificalion
Not jJicalion Must Include
Cert ficaIion
Cert J7es flow
1 Often?
) ‘hom
Ceri fica1ion
Must Include
34

-------
Appendix 3 Additional Certification and Deinons( ral ion Requirements
for Soft-Hammer Wastes
(see preceding pages for notification requiremeffis for soft-hammer wastes)
Soft Ilanuner Scenarios
Cerljfications
To Whom? how Often?
Certification Must
Include:
For
Whom?
Demonstration Must
include:
• If generalordetermines
there is a practically
available treatment
§268.8(a)(2)(ii),
§268 8(a)(4)
Generator’s
Regional Ad-
ministrator
and
r ccciv in g
facility
Prior I o (II sposal
With each ship-
nicnt
Sec L ’
Generator’s
R c g ion a I
Adininistra-
tor
Receiving
Facility
Prior to - Statement that no treat-
disposal ment is available
- Discussion of why unable
to obtain treatment/recov-
ery of waste
- List of facilities and facil-
ity official contacted, ad-
dresses, telephone numbers,
and contact dates
Prior to - Statement that the practi-
treat ment cal ly available technology
thalyields the greatest benc-
Upon first fit was sdected
shipment - List of facih es and facil-
ity official contacted, ad-
dresses, telephone numbers,
and contact dates
• Owner/operator of
treatment storage or re-
covery facility treats the
wastes
Facility re-
ceiving treat-
ment residue
See “F”
Demonstrations
how
Often?
• Generator determines
Generator’s
Prior
to
disposal
See “D”
Generator’s
there is no practically
RegionalAd-
Regional
available treatment
ministrator
Administra-
§ 2 6 8 8 (a) (2) (i),
and
With
cacti
ship-
See “D”
br
§268 8(a)(3)
receiving
facility
nicilt
Receiving
Facility
Withthe
initial
shipment
only
35

-------
Applicable Certification Statements
A. I certify under penalty of law that I personally have examined and am familiar with
the waste through analysis and testing or through knowledge of the waste to support this
certification that the waste complies with the treatrnentstandards specified in4O CFR Part 268
Subpart D. I believe that the information I submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for submitting a false certification, including the
possibility of a fine and imprisonment. ( 268.7 (a)(ii))
B. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the treatment process used to support this
certification and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining this information, I believe that the treatment process has been operated and
maintained properly so as to achieve the performance levels specified in 40 CFR Part 268
Subpart D without dilution of the prohibited waste. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting a false certification, including the posssibiity of fine and impnson-
merit. ( 268.7 (b)(2)(i))
C. I certify under penalty of law that the waste has been treated in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 268.42. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting
a false certification, including the possibility of fme and imprisonment. ( 268. 7 (b)(2 )(ii)).
D. I certify under penalty of law that the requirements of 40 CFR 268.8 (a)(1) have been
met and that disposal in a landfill or surface impoundment is the only practical alternative to
treatment currently available. I believe that the information submitted is true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false inforniation,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. ( 268.8(a)(2)(i))
E. I certify underpenalty of law that the requirements of 40 CFR 268.8(a)(l) have been
met and that I have contracted to treat my waste (or wall otnerwise provide treatment) by the
practically available technology which yields the greatest environmental benefit, as indicated
in my demonstration. I believe that the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete.
I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment. ( 268.8(a)(2)(ii))
F. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the treatment process used to support this
certification and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining this information, I believe that the treatment process has been operated and
maintained properly so as to comply with treatment as specified in the generator’s demonstra-
tion. Jam aware that there are significantpenalties for submitting false information, including
the possibility of fine and impnsonment. ( 268.8(cXl))

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9347.3-O1FS
July 1989
Overview of RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs)
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery 4ct (RCRA)
- P.1,. 98-616, signed on November 8, 1984. - include specific provisions restricting the land disposal of RCRA’
hazardous wastes. The purpose of these HSWA provisions is to minimi7e the potential of future risk to human health
and the environment by requiring the treatment of hazardous wastes prior to their land disposal. This guide
summarizes the major components of the land disposal restrictions (LDRs), outlines the types of restrictions
Imposed, and presents the compliance options specified In the regulation. Other Superfund LDR Guides are listed
at the end of this guide. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
DEFINITION OF LAND DISPOSAL
The LDRs place restrictions on the land disposal
)f RCRA hazardous wastes. The definition of land
Jisposal (or “placement,” which is synonymous with
‘land disposal”) under RCRA includes, but is not
limited to:
any ‘olacement” of hazardous waste in a landfil4
surface impoundment, waste pile, injection welt
land treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt
bed formation, underground mine or cave and
concrete bunker or vault. (RCRA §3004(k))
The LDRs apply only to RCRA hazardous wastes
that are land disposed or placed. They do not apply
to wastes that are discharged to surface waters (where
National Pollutant Discharge Flimination System
(NPDES) requirements apply) or to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (where pretreatment requirements
apply). The LDRs also do not apply to contaminated
ground water treated and supplied directly to
households (where Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) generally apply).
It is important to note that the LDRs apply
prospectively to wastes that are land disposed ft j the
effective date of the restrictions (i.e., the LDRs do
not require that wastes land disposed prior to the date
of the restrictions be removed and treated),
STATUTORY DEADLINES
HSWA directed EPA to establish treatment
standards for each of seven groups of RCRA
hazardous wastes by specific dates. These dates,
referred to as statutory deadlines, will eventually
restrict land disposal of all RCRA hazardous wastes,
as shown in Highlight 1.
Waste Statutory Drmdline
a’
Superfund LDR Guide #1
Highlight 1 LDR STATUTORY DEADLINES
Spent Solvcot and Diositi-
Conlaining Wastes
California lAst Wasics
Fust Thud Wastes
Spent Solvcnt, Diox in-
Containing, and California
List Soil and Debris Fran
c RaA/acRA Cor
A aox
Second Thud Wastes
Third Third Wastes
Newly Wcn 4
Wastes
November 8, 1986
July 8, 1987
August 8, 1988
Novcmbcr 8 . 1988
June 8, 1989
May 8, 1998
Within 6 months at
idcatiScation as a
baxaldo c

-------
The statutory deadlines are important because they
are the dates on which RCRA wastes become
“restricted,” although EPA has the authority to restrict
a waste before its statutory deadline. For example, the
Agency has restricted certain Second Third wastes in
the First Third rule and certain Third Third wastes in
the June 1989 Second Third rule.
STATUTORY WASTE CATEGORIES
The first category of wastes (refer to Highlight 1)
includes: the F001-F005 spent solvent-containing RCRA
wastes and the F020-F023 and F026-F028 dioxin-
containing RCRA wastes. The second category, the
California list wastes, is a distinct category of RCRA
hazardous wastes described further in Superfund LDR
Guide #2. The three categories of scheduled wastes
(i.e., First Third, Second Third, Third Third wastes)
include all listed and characteristic hazardous wastes
identified as of November 8, 1984 (excluding the
solvent and dioxin wastes mentioned above). EPA
ranked the scheduled wastes based on their toxicity
and volume and placed the highest toxicity/volume
wastes in the “First Third.” Soil and debris (see
Highlight 2) contaminated with spent solvent- or
dioxin-containing and California list wastes generated
during CERCI.A response and RCRA corrective
actions were given a separate statutory deadline.
Finally, wastes newly identified or listed after 1984
must have standards set within six months of their
identification or listing as a hazardous waste.
TYPES OF LDR RESTRICTIONS
As discussed above, a RCRA hazardous waste
becomes “restricted’ under the LDRs on its statutory
deadline (or earlier if EPA promulgates the restriction
ahead of schedule). On that date, one of four types of
restrictions will apply:
1. Treatment standards : EPA may set one of three
types of treatment standards for restricted wastes:
• A concentration level to be achieved prior to
disposal (the most common type of treatment
standard);
• A specified technology to be used prior to
disposal; or
• A “no land disposal’ designation when the
waste is no longer generated, is totally recycled,
is not currently being land disposed, or no
residuals are produced from treatment.
All three types of treatment standards are
established based on the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) identified for that waste.
2. Minimum technology requirements during a national
capacity extension : When EPA sets a treatment
standard, it may grant a national capacity extension
(for up to two years) if sufficient treatment capacity
is not available for that waste. During a national
capacity extension, the treatment standards set for
a waste do not have to be met. However, if wastes
that do not meet the standards are disposed of in
a landfill or $urface impoundment , the receiving ll.nl
must meet the RCRA minimum technology
requirements (i.e., double liner, leachate collection
system, and ground-water monitoring).
When EPA sets treatment standards for Third Third
wastes in May 1990, it may grant a national capacity
extension, but only for up to two years. Therefore,
by May 1992, all national capacity extensions will
have expired. The only exception may be if EPA
grants an extension when it sets treatment standards
for newly identified wastes. Superfund LDR Guide
#3 provides additional information on the minimum
technology requirements.
3. Soft hammer restrictions : If EPA fails to set a
treatment standard for a First or Second Third
Highlight 2: DEFINITIONS OF SOIL AND
DEBRIS
is defined as materials that are
primarily of geologic origin such as sand, silt,
loam, or clay that are indigenous to the natural
geological environment at or near the
CERCL.A site. (In many cases, soil is mixed
with liquids, sludges, and/or debris.)
Debris is defined as materials that are
primarily non-geologic in origin such as grass,
trees, stumps, and man-made materials such as
concrete, clothing, partially buried whole or
empty drums, capacitors, and other synthetic
manufacturing items, such as liners. (It does
not include synthetic organic chemicals, but
may include materials contaminated with these
chemicals.)

-------
waste by its statutory deadline, soft hammer
restrictions apply. The soft hammer requirements
place the following restrictions on the disposal of
wastes in landfills and surface impoundments :
• The receiving unit must meet minimum
technology requirements; and
• Site managers (OSCs, RPMs as generators)
must determine if treatment is practically
available. If treatment is practically available, the
site manager must use the practically
available treatment to treat wastes before
disposal; if treatment is not practically available,
the wastes may be disposed of without
treatment.
Land disposal in other types of units, such as land
treatment units and waste piles, is restricted
under soft hammers, although an LDR notification
will be required for actions involving off-site
disposal in such units.
Soft hammer restrictions remain in effect until
EPA sets a treatment standard, or until May 1990,
when the hard hammer restrictions become
effective.
4. Hard hammer restrictions : If EPA fails to set a
treatment standard by the statutory deadlines for
solvent- and dioxin-containing and California list
wastes, or by May 8, 1990, for any of the scheduled
wastes, the hard hammer restrictions prohibit all
land disposal of the affected waste until a
treatment standard is promulgated. To date, the
hard hammer has only fallen for certain California
list wastes.
Superfund LDR Guide #4 provides more
information on soft and hard hammer restrictions.
LDR COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
EPA recognizes that not all wastes can be treated
to the LDR treatment standards and that alternative
treatment standards and methods of land disposal may
provide significant reduction in the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of wastes and be protective of human health
and the environment. The LDRs, therefore, provide
the following compliance options to meeting the
restrictions discussed above.
standara, the promulgated treatment standard cannot
be met the BDAT technology is inappropriate for
that waste. (For the purposes of the LDRs,
CERCLA site managers are considered generators
of hazardous waste.) Under a Treatability Variance,
EPA approves an alternate treatment standard that
must be met before that waste can be land
disposed. Superfund LDR Guides #6A and #6B
provide more information for obtaining Treatability
Variances for remedial and removal actions.
• Equivalent Treatment Method Petition : This option
is available when EPA has set a treatment standard
that is a specified technology (e.g., incineration).
Generators may use a different technology (e.g.,
chemical treatment) if they can demonstrate that
this technology will achieve a measure of
performance equivalent to that of the specified
technology.
• Np Migration Petition : This option may be used to
meet any of the four types of LDR restrictions.
Under this option, generators may land dispose
wastes that do not meet the LDR restrictions if
they can demonstrate that there will be ‘no
migration” of hazardous constituents above health-
based levels from the disposal unit or injection zone
for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
• Delisting . This option may be used to demonstrate
that a waste is nonhazardous and, therefore, not
subject to any of the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
waste regulations, including the LDRs. Delisting
only applies when the CERCLA waste is a listed
RCRA hazardous waste. (Characteristic wastes
need not be delisted, but they can be treated to no
longer exhibit the characteristic.) Generators must
demonstrate that: (1) the waste does not meet any
of the criteria for which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste, and (2) other factors (including
additional constituents) do not cause the waste to
be hazardous.
The LDRs also permit a case-by-case extension of
up to two years, which allows a site-specific extension
of the effective date if a generator has a binding
contractual commitment for treatment capacity and can
show that no capacity currently exists anywhere in the
United States. This option, however, is generally not
appropriate for Superfund response actions.
SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
• Treatabilitv Variance : This option is available when
EPA has set a treatment standard as a
concentration level, but because a generator’s waste
differs significantly from the waste used to set the
As discussed earlier, the LDRs apply to soil and
debris when they arc contaminated with a restricted
RCRA hazardous waste. Because of the complex

-------
nature of many soil and debris matrices (as compared
with the industrial process wastes upon which the LDR
treatment standards were based), it may be difficult to
meet these standards for wastes mixed with soil and
debris. Consequently, the Agency is undertaking a
rulemaking that will set LDR treatment standards
specifically for soil and debris. Until that rulemaking
is completed, however, site managers may need to
obtain a Treatability Variance for actions addressing
contaminated soil and debris.
OTHER LDR REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the four types of restrictions
described above, the LDRs also include the following
requirements:
• Storage Prohibition : The LDRs prohibit the
storage of restricted wastes (including soft hammer
wastes) unless storage is solely for the purpose of
accumulating sufficient quantities of wastes to
facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or disposal.
For periods of up to one year, the burden is
generally on EPA to prove that storage is not
needed to facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal; after one year, the burden of proof shifts
to the storage facility. Temporary storage used
during CERCLA actions to facilitate proper
disposal (e.g., storage while awaiting sampling
results, or while selecting and designing a remedy)
is allowable under the storage prohibition.
• Exemntion for Trcatm ii
in Surfacc
Impoundments : Placing untreated wastes in surface
impoundments (that meet the minimum technology
requirements) for treatment is permissible, provided
the treatment residues that do not meet the LDR
treatment standards or prohibition levels are
removed for subsequent management (through any
treatment other than treatment in another surface
impoundment) within one year of placement into
the surface impoundment.
• Dilution Prohibition : Dilution of a waste as a
means to comply with the LDRs is prohibited.
However, “dilution” that is part of treatment (e.g.,
mixing for immobilization) is permissible.
The LDRs also establish requirements for testing,
notification, and certification of compliance.
• Testing : “Onàe it is determined that a waste is
restricted under the LDRs, generators, treatment
facilities, or disposal facilities must test the waste
at a frequency specified in the facility’s waste
analysis plan to demonstrate compliance with LDR
treatment standards or California list prohibition
levels prior to land disposal.
• Notification : All restricted wastes that are shipped
to an off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facility
must be accompanied by a notification that includes
the EPA hazardous waste number and the
• applicable LDR restriction that is in effect for those
wastes.
• Certification : A treatment facility must certify that
the LDR treatment standards are attained before a
restricted waste is land disposed off-site. (There are
also certification requirements specifically for soft
hammer wastes; see Superfund LDR Guide #4.)
OTHER AVAILABLE SUPERFUND/LDR
GUIDES
#2 Complying with the California List
Restrictions Under LDRs
#3 Treatment Standards and Minimum
Technology Requirements Under LDRs
#4 Complying With the Hammer Restrictions
Under LDRs
#5 Determining When LDRs are Applicable
to CERCLA Response Actions
#6A Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability
Variance for Remedial Actions
#‘6B Obtn’ming a Soil and D bri TtM ilky
Variance for Removal Actions’
#7 Determining When LDRs Are Relevant
and Appropriate to CERCLA Response
Actions’
1 Currently being prepared in OSWER

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9347.3-O2FS
July 1989
Superfund LDR Guide #2
Complying With the California
List Restrictions Under Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
include specific restrictions on the land disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes. California list wastes are a distinct
category of RCRA hazardous wastes that are restricted under the land disposal restrictions (LDRs). This guide
defines the California list wastes, summarizes their respective restrictions, and discusses their potential overlap with
other LDR treatment standards. More detailed guidance on California list waste restrictions and Superfund
compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
DEFINITION OF CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
To be classified as a California list waste, three
onditions must be met:
1) The waste must be a RCR.A listed or characteristic
waste ;
(2) The waste must be a liquid (i.e., it fails method
9095 Paint Filter Liquids Test [ FFLT]), except for
1-lalogenated Organic Compounds (HOCs) , which
may be liquid or non-liquid; and
(3) The waste must exceed statutory prohibition levels
for specified constituents.
The types of wastes that may be California list
wastes are: free cyanides, certain metals, corrosive
wastes PCBs and HOCs. (HOCs are compounds
containing carbon and a halogen, such as fluorine,
chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine, in their
molecular formula). The Agency has limited the
restricted HOCs to approximately 100 HOCs listed in
Appendix III to 40 CFR Part 268. These restricted
HOCs include solvents, pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins.
These hazardous wastes are referred to as
California list wastes because the State of California
developed regulations to restrict the land disposal of
wastes cont lining these constituents, and Congress
subsequently incorporated these provisions into the
1984 HSWA amendments to RCRA. Even if LDR
eatment standards have not been promulgated for
rtain RCRA wastes (e.g., Third Third wastes), these
wastes may be subject to California list restrictions.
If the Agency has promulgated a treatment standard
for a California list hazardous waste, the waste must
attain that treatment standard before land disposal. If
the Agency has not set a treatment standard, the waste
must be treated to below the prohibition level (or
rendered non-liquid if a non-HOC waste) before it
may be land disposed.
CALIFORNIA LIST LDR RESTRICTIONS
The Agency has promulgated treatment standards
for PCB-containing wastes and HOC-containing wastes
(except for dilute HOC wastewaters). The treatment
standards for PCBs and some HOCs became effective
on July 8, 1987.
The Agency has not set treatment standards for
the remaining California list wastes. Instead, the
Agency codified the statutory prohibition levels for
corrosive wastes and dilute HOC wastewaters and
allowed the hard hammer provisions to take effect for
free cyanides and California list metals. The
prohibitions on these wastes became effective on July
8, 1987. The effects of these restrictions are the same:
prohibiting the land disposal of these wastes above the
prohibition levels.
Based on a finding of inadequate treatment capacity,
EPA granted a nationwide extension to the effective
date for treating California list HOC wastes until July
8, 1989. The Agency subsequently rescinded the
variance, and the restriction for HOC wastes became
effective November 8, 1988. The Agency also granted

-------
an ettension of the effective date for HOC-containing
soil and debris wastes until July 8, 1989, for soil and
debris wastes not from CERCLA/RCRA corrective
actions, and until November 8, 1990, for soil and debris
astes f CERCLA/RCRA corrective actions.
alifornia list wastes granted a national capacity
uiance from the treatment standards may be disposed
of in a landfill or surface impoundment only if the
receiving unit complies with minimum technology
requirements (See Superfund LDR Guide #3). The
prohibition levels, treatment standards, and effective
dates for the California list wastes are presented in
Highlight 1.
OVERLAP WITH OTHER TREATMENT STANDARDS
As noted earlier, wastes must be RCRA listed or
characteristic wastes to be California list wastes.
Therefore, California list wastes may also be restricted
as solvent- or dioxin-containing wastes or as scheduled
wastes. For wastes covered by more than one LDR
standard, the LDR restrictions for the more specific
waste stream generally take precedence , once the
standard is promulgated. For example, F006 non-
wastewaters may be restricted under the California list
rule because the waste is a liquid and may contain
nickel above the statutory prohibition level. The F006
treatment standard, which is expressed as a
concentration level, however, takes precedence over the
California list restriction (i.e., codified prohibition
level).
The Agency has detennined that soft hammer
wastes and wastes for which national capacity variances
have been granted remain subject to California list
prohibitions (i.e., if either of these waste types is
subject to a California list treatment standard or
statutory prohibition level, that treatment standard or
statutory level must be met before the waste can be
land disposed). If a California list treatment standard
is promulgated for a soft hammer waste, the more
stringent of the restrictions apply. For example, if a
non-liquid soft hammer waste contains 1,100 mg/kg
total HOCs, the waste must meet the California list
treatment standard of incineration or burning in a
boiler or industrial furnace before land disposal. If a
liquid soft hammer waste contains 510 mg/I lead (for
which no California list treatment standard exists), the
soft hammer restrictions apply. If treatment is not
available, the waste must at least be treated below the
prohibition level (i.e., 500 mg/l) or rendered non-liquid
and can only be disposed of in a surface impoundment
or landfill if the receiving unit meets minimum
technology requirements or has an equivalent waiver.
Free Cyanide!
Metals
Ar! enic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Corrosive!
Pens
500 ppn
1000 mg/I
500 m8f1
100 mg/I
500 mg/I
500 mg/I
20 mgfl
134 mg/I
100 mg/I
130 mg/I
pH < 2.0
INCINERATION as speci-
fied under TSCA,
99.99992 ORE
INCINERATION OR THERMAL
DESTRUCTION in Boiler,
99.99992 DRE
Halogenated Organic Caspounda (HOCs)
Dilute Wastewatere
(<10.000 mg/kg)
1000 mg/kg
NONE -- Codified
prohibition levels
July 8, 1987
Non-Dilute Wastewaters
and Non-Liquids
Non-RCRA/CERCLA Soil
end Debris
1000 mg/kg
1000 mg/kg
INCIN ATION 99.992 DRE
INCINERATION 99.99% ORE
Nov. 8. 1988
July 8, 1989
R RA/CERCLA Soil and
Debris
HighlIght 1 - PROHIBITION LEVELS AND TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
California List Frohthition Level Treatment Standard Effective Dato
Constituent
NONE -- hard hai,iner
NONE -- hard hannier
NONE -- Codified
prohibition levels
> 50 ppn and < 500 p xn
July 8, 1987
July 8, 1987
July 8, 1987
July 8, 1987
July 8, 1987
50 p
50 ppn
1000 mg/kg INCINERATION 99.992 DRE
Nov. 8, 1990

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9347.3-O3FS
July 1989
Treatment Standards and
Minimum Technology
Requirements Under Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs )
CERCLA section 1.21(d)(2) requires that Superfund response actions comply with other environmental laws that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). A potential ARAR for CERCLA responses is
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions (LDRs) established under the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (1-ISWA). The LDRs prohibit the land disposal of restricted RCRA
hazardous wastes unless these wastes meet treatment standards specified in 40 CFR Part 268, meet the minimum
technology requirements during a national treatment capacity extension, or satisfy the requirements of one of the other
available compliance options (i.e., Treatability Variance, Equivalent Treatment Method Petition, No Migration Petition,
or Delisting). This guide summarizes the types and effective dates of treatment standards and outlines how to
comply with the treatment standards and the minimum technology requirements set during national capacity
extensions. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
TYPES OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
EPA has established treatment standards under
he LDRs on the basis of the best demonstrated
‘available technology (BDAT) rather than risk-based
or health-based standards. “ j” is defined as that
technology which offers the greatest reduction (based
on a statistical analysis) of toxicity, mobility, or volume
of the waste. To be “ dempnstrated, a treatment
technology must be demonstrated to work at a fall
scale level (i.e., technologies available only on a pilot-
or bench-scale are not considered demonstrated). To
be “ available, ” a treatment technology must be
commercially available.
Within this framework, the Agency has established
three types of LDR treatment standards:
• Concentration levels -- which must be attained
before the wastes or treatment residuals may be
land disposed;
• Specified technologies -- which must be applied to
the waste before the residuals may be land
disposed; and
• No land disposal -- which prohibits land disposal
of certain restricted hazardous wastes.
Concentration Levels
The majority of the LDR treatment standards
promulgated to date are concentration levels. For
wastes with treatment standards expressed as
concentrations, any technology that can achieve the
required levels may be used unless the technology is
otherwise prohibited (i.e., the BDAT used by EPA to
set the standards need not be used).
To establish a concentration level(s) for a specific
waste code (e.g., K062), the Agency selects a subset of
the hazardous constituents found in the waste (known
as “BDAT constituents”) and sets treatment standards
for each of these constituents. Although these wastes
may contain additional constituents, only the treatment
standards for the “BDAT constituents” must be met
before the wastes can be land disposed. The residues
from treatment of an originally listed waste (e.g., ash,
scrubber water) are also listed RCRA hazardous wastes
(because of the “derived from” rule), and therefore,
also are prohibited from land disposal unless they meet
treatment standards for the waste code(s) of the
original listed waste(s) from which they derive.
EPA has promulgated separate standards for
wastewaters and nonwastewaters for treatment
standards expressed as concentration levels. For LDRs,
wastewaters normally are defined as wastes containing
less than one percent total organic carbon (TOC) and
less than one percent total suspended solids. All other
materials (including soil arid debris) are classified as
nonwastewaters, except for FO01-F005 wastes, for which
only the TOC is used to define wastewaters.
Concentrations of BDAT constituents in solid
residues from treatment must not exceed the
Superfund LDR Guide #3

-------
nonwastcwater concentrations. Similarly, the
concentration of BDAT constituents in wastewaters
from treatment (e.g., incineration scrubber water) must
not exceed the wastewater concentrations. Highlight 1
provides an example of standards expressed as
concentration levels for K062 waste.
Constituent
Treatmen
Total Wast
t Standard
c TCLP
•
Nonwastewater
(m Jkg)
(mgjfl —
Total chromium
Lead
NA
NA
0 094
0.37
Wastewater
Total chromium
Nickel
032
0.44
NA
Lead
0.04
NA
NA
Specified Technolo ç
If a treatment standard is promulgated as a
specified technology, that technology must be used to
treat the waste unless an Equivalent Treatment Method
Petition is approved by the Administrator. To be
granted, such a petition must demonstrate that the
alternative technology achieves an equivalent measure
of performance. For example, the Agency has set the
treatment standard for California list PCB wastes
containing greater than 500 ppm PCBs as thermal
destruction. These wastes must be incinerated to
99.9999 percent destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) under the LDRs before the ash from treatment
may be land disposed unless a Petition allowing an
equivalent treatment method is granted.
N Land Disposal
EPA sets a standard of no land disposal when,
after examining available data, the Agency has
determined that: the waste can be totally recycled
(e.g., on-site, closed loop recycling); the waste is not
currently being land disposed; the waste is no longer
generated; or no residuals are anticipated from the use
of the BDAT.
Although certain wastes may no longer be
generated or land disposed, these wastes may still be
found at Superfund sites. EPA has amended most of
these waste codes, however, to apply only to wastes
generated from the process described in the listing
description and disposed of after the effective date of
the prohibition (see 54 FR 18836, May 2, 1989).
Therefore, CERCLA wastes ordinarily would not be
subject to these standards.
COMPLYING WITH LDR TREATME r S’FADAJWS
There are two types of tests for evaluating
compliance that may be required, depending on how
the treatment standards are promulgated: the Total
Waste Analysis (TWA) measures the total concentration
levels of the hazardous constituents in the waste or
treatment residuals; and the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) measures concentration
levels in the waste extract as a result of the TCLP test.
The TWA test generally is used for organic
constituents when a removal or destruction technology
is the BDAT. The TCLP generally is used for
inorganics when an immobilization BDAT is the basis
for the standard. However, the TCLP is also used for
the solvent- and dioxin-containing waste LDR treatment
standards and TWA is used for metals when BDAT is
based on metals recovery. Site managers (OSCs and
RPMs for on-site treatment and disposal actions) or
treatment facilities (for off-site disposal actions) must
test wastes after treatment and before land disposal to
determine if the LDR treatment standards are met.
TREATMENT STANDARDS IN EFFECT FOR RCRA
HAZARDOUS WASTES
Once a determination that the LDRs are ARARs
has been made (see Superfund LDR guide #5), site
managers must determine which of the specific LDR
restrictions are in effect for their waste(s) of concern.
If the Agency has promulgated a treatment standard
for a restricted RCRA hazardous waste, either the
LDR treatment standards or the minimum technology
requirements will be in effect. If EPA has not set a
treatment standard for a restricted RCRA hazardous
waste, either the soft or hard hammer provisions will
be in effect (see Superfund LDR Guide #4). The
Agency has promulgated treatment standards for the
following wastes:
S lvent-Cpntainincz RCRA Hazardous Wastes
For solvent-containing RCRA hazardous wastes
(F001-F005), EPA has promulgated treatment standards
expressed as concentration levels. Unlike most of the
treatment standards for wastes containing organic
constituents, the standards for the F001-F005 wastes are
expressed as TCLP concentrations (40 CFR 268.41).
HighlIght 1 - TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR K062 WASTE*
* K062 waste is spent pwkle liquor generated by
the steel finishing operations of facilities
within the iron and steel industry.

-------
Dipxin-Cpntainin RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Dioxin-conthining wastes (F020-F023 and F026-
F028), include chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs),
chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs), and chiorophenols.
The treatment standards expressed as concentration
levels are based on incineration of contaminated soil.
Because current analytical methods cannot measure the
concentration levels attainable by the BDAT, EPA set
the treatment standards at the practical detection limits
(i.e., 1 ppb) for most wastes. These standards are also
based on a TCLP analysis (40 CFR 268.41).
Although the LDR treatment standards for dioxin-
containing wastes are concentration levels, the dioxin-
listing rule (SO FR 1978) requires special management
standards for certain types of units:
• Incineration in accordance th 40 CFR 264.343
and 40 CFR 265352;
• Thermal treatment to 99.9999 percent DRE in
accordance with 40 CFR 265.383; or
• Tank treatment, in accordance with 40 CFR
264.200.
Highlight 2 describes the LDR restrictions in effect
solvent- and dioxin-containing RCRA hazardous
California List Hazardous Wastes
The California list rule established specified
technologies as the treatment standards for certain
California list wastes. Specifically, California list PCB
and halogenated organic compound (HOC) wastes
(except dilute HOC wastewaters) must be incinerated
or burned in high-efficiency boilers or industrial
furnaces.’ Highlight 3 provides the LDR restrictions in
effect for California list wastes.
First Third Wastes
The First Third scheduled wastes include those
listed wastes that are intrinsically hazardous or are
high-volume wastes. EPA promulgated treatment
standards expressed as concentration levels and no land
disposal based on TWA and TCLP for certain First
Third wastes on August 17, 1988. First Third wastes
that do not have promulgated treatment standards are
restricted under the “soft hammer” provisions.
Highlight 4 describes the LDR restrictions in effect for
certain First Third wastes for which the Agency has set
treatment standards.
MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
THAT APPLY DURING A NATIONAL CAPACITY
EXTENSION
If during the promulgation of treatment standards
the Agency determines that insufficient treatment
capacity exists, the Agency may grant a national
capacity extension for a period of up to two years.
During the extension period, if wastes are to be land
disposed in surface impoundments or landfills, the units
must comply with the RCRA Subtitle C minimum
technology requirements (i.e., double liner, leachate
collection system, and ground-water monitoring) under
RCRA 3005(j)(2) or (j)(4) or the receiving units must
have a retrofitting waiver under RCRA 3004(o)(2) or
3005(j) to be considered equivalent to the minimum
technology requirements.
TYPE
OP RESTRICT
TREA11 T
STANDARD
LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT
RC 1A
HAZARDOUS WASTE
EFF XVE
DATE
AS OP !IOV IB ( 8 • 1988
for
wastes.
Highlight 2 - EFFECTWE DATES AND LDR RESTRICTIONS FOR SOLVENTS AND DIOXINS
FOOl to P005 (spent
November 8,
1986
Treatment standards as concentration
solvent-containing
or November 8. 1988*
levels (TCLP)
wastes)
P020 to P023,
November 8, 1988
Treatment standards as concentration
F026 to F028 (dioxin-
levels (TCLP)
containin8 wastes)
Soil and debris
November 8. 1988
Treatment standards as concentration
contaminated with,
levels (TCLP)
solvent/dioxin
QI from CESCLA/R RA
corrective actions
Soil, and debris
November 8, 1990
Minimum technology requirements if
contaminated with
disposed of in landfill or surface
solvent/dtoxin
impoundment
from C CLAfRCRA
corrective actions
Soil and debris contamined with solvent-containing wastes were granted a statutory two-year extension to
November 8, 1988 All other solvent-containing wastes became restricted on November 8, 1986.

-------
HIghlight 3 - EFFECTIVE DATES AND LDR RESTRICTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES 8 ’
‘‘1 (
Soil and debris contaminated
with HOCS NOT from CERCLA/RCRA
corrective actions
July 8, 1989
Treatment stardards as specified
technolo8y(ies)
Treatment standards as specified
technology(ies)
Minimum technology requirements if
disposed of in landfill or surface
impoundment
Soil and debris contaminated
with HOCs from CERCLA/RCRA
corrective actions
November 8, 1990
Minimum technology requirements if
disposed of in landfilL or surface
impoundment
See Superfund LDR Guide 74 for soft and hard harr er restrictions In effect for remaining California list
Was tea
National capacity extensions for several types of
wastes currently are in effect under the LDRs. For
example, soil and debris from CERCLA and RCRA
corrective actions that are contaminated with solvent,
dioxin, and California list wastes have received an
extension until November 8, 1990. Jj soil and debris
contaminated with First Third wastes for which the
BDAT is based on solids incineration have received an
extension until August 8, 1990. Land disposal of
wastes subject to national capacity extensions in units
other than surface impoundments and landfills (e.g.,
waste piles, land treatment units) is not subject to the
minimum technology requirements during such an
extension.
TYPE
OF P.ESTRICTEI)
TP .EAThENT STANDARD
LDR R}STRICT ION IN EFFF.CT
RCRA
BAZARDOUS WASTE
EFFECTIVE DATE
AS OF NOVE 1BER 8. 1988
TYPE
OF RESTRICTED
TREATMENT STANDARD
LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT
RCRA
BAZARDOUS WASTE
EFF rIVE DATE
AS 0 1 NOVt]IBEN 8. 1988
California list PCBs July 8, 1987
Liquid and non—liquid HOCs November 8, 1988
Highlight 4 - EFFECTIVE DATES AND LDR RESTRICTIONS FOR CERTAIN FIRST THIRD
WASTESOI
First Third wastes (not
otherwise accounted for)kl’
August 8, 1988
Treatment standards as concentration
Levels (TWA and TCLP) and (for a few
waste codes) ‘no land disposal’
Soil and debris contaminated
August 8. 1988
Treatment standards as concentration
with First Third wastes
Levels (TWA and TCLP) and “no Land
for which BOAT is other than
disposal”
solids incineration
Soil and debris contaminated
August 8, 1990
Minimum technology requirements if
with First Third wastes
disposed of in landfill or surface
for which BDAT is solids
impoundment
incineration
See Superfund LDR Guide #4 for soft, and hard haniner restrictions
in effect for First Third wastes
b_I Except K048-K052 and K071, which were granted a two-year extension until August 8. 1990

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Complying With the Hammer
Restrictions Under Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
CERCLA response actions must comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) when they are determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). Compliance with the LDRs will involve meeting the LDR treatment standards, minimum technology
requirements during a national capacity extension, the soft or hard hammer restrictions, or satisfying the requirements
of one of the other LDR compliance options (i.e., Treatability Variance, Equivalent Treatment Method Petition, No
Migration Petition, or Delisting). This guide discusses complying with LDR soft hammer and hard hammer
provisions, which are restrictions on the disposal of hazardous wastes if EPA does not promulgate standards by the
statutory deadlines. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
SOFT HAMMER WASTES
If the Agency fails to set treatment standards for
First or Second Third wastes by their specified
statutory deadline (August 8, 1988, and June 8, 1989,
respectively), the wastes become restricted under the
soft hammer provisions until EPA sets a treatment
standard for them, or until May 8, 1990, when the
‘hard hammer’ provisions will fall. The soft hammer
provisions specify certain restrictions that may have to
be met before the wastes can be land disposed. The
hard hammer provisions prohibit all land disposal of
the wastes. Highlight I lists F- and K-wastes that are
soft hammer wastes (as of June 8, 1989).
Soft Hammer Restrictions
The LDR soft hammer provisions prohibit the
disposal of wastes in surface impoundment or landfill
units unless:
(1) The receiving unit meets the RCRA minimum
technology requirements (i.e., the unit must have
two or more liners, a leachate collection system,
and a ground-water monitoring system) or have an
equivalent RCRA retrofitting waiver. These
waivers are described in RCRA §3005(j)(2), which
requires that a unit be at least one-quarter of a
mile from an underground drinking source, and
a’
Superfund LDR Guide #4
DirectIve: 9347.3-O4FS
July 1989
Highlight 1 - F and K SOFT HAMMER WASTES (as of June 8, 1989)*
Wvi et.
Weete
Code
Plrjeicel PorTs
hysica1 Form
P006
wastewaters
1(046
wastewatere and
nonwastawaters
P019
westewetere
end
nonwestewaters
1(060
weateweters
1(004
wastewatere
end
nonweatewators
1(061
weetewaters
1(005
wastewatere
and
nonweetewatera
1(069
wastewaters end
nonwastewaters
1(011
wastewaters
1(073
wastowaters and
nonwasteweters
1(013
wasteweters
1(083
wastewaters and
nonwasteweters
1(014
wastewaters
1(084
wastewaters and
nonwastewaters
1(017
westeweters
and
nonwastewaters
1(085
wastewaters and
nonwastewatara
1(021
wastewaters
1(086
wastewaters
1(022
wastewatera
K095
wastewaters
1(025
westewaters
1(096
wastewaters
1(029
wastewaters
1(097
wastewaters and
nonwasteweters
1(031
wastewaters
and
noriwestewaters
1(098
wastewatars and
nonwastawetare
1(035
wastewatere
and
nonwastewaters
1(101
nonwa,tewater
1(036
wastawaters
1(102
nonwastewaters
1(041
westowatera
end
nonwastewatere
1(105
westewaters end
nonwastewaters
1(042
wastewaters
and
nonwastewaters
1(106
westowaters and
nonwastowetere
* For a complete listing of soft has ner waste restrictions, including all. P and U wastes that are restricted,
consult with EPA Headquarters.

-------
RCRA §3005(j)(4), which requires that the unit be
designed and operated such that there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents into ground or
surface water.
Waivers granted to Units utilizing aggressive
biological treatment (RCRA §3005(j)(3)) or
undergoing corrective action (RCRA §3005(j)(13))
are not automatically considered equivalent to Units
in compliance with the minimum technology
requirements. However, they may satisfy the
§3004(o)(2) equivalency standard on a unit-by-unit
basis.
(2) Site managers (OSCs, RPMs) certify that they have
made a good faith effort to locate and to contract
with treatment and recovery facilities for treatment
that is “practically available.” If such treatment is
“practically available,” the manager must use the
practically available treatment (see Highlight
2) to treat the wastes before they are land
disposed. If there is no “practically available”
treatment, the soft hammer wastes may be disposed
of without treatment in units meeting the
requirements listed in (1).
Soft hammer wastes disposed of in units other than
surface impoundments or landfills do j j have to meet
the soft hammer restrictions before land disposal.
However, these wastes must comply with the LDR
notification requirements and other LDR restrictions,
such as storage prohibition. (The storage prohibition
restricts the storage of soft hammer wastes unless it is
solely for the purpose of accumulating sufficient
quantities to facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal.)
Soft Hammer Requirements for
Certifications, and Demonstrations
Notifications,
When soft hammer wastes are land disposed or
treated off-site , site managers must comply with the
LDR notification, certification, and demonstration
requirements. When treatment and land disposal occur
on-site , Site managers must only meet the
demonstration requirements. (The notification and
certification requirements are administrative
requirements and do not have to be met for on-site
actions.) The specific notification requirements,
including to whom and when they must be sent and
the required language from 40 CFR Part 268, are
shown in Highlight 3 for each of these categories.
California List and Soft Hammer Overlap
Certain soft hammer wastes also may be California
list wastes, in which case they may be subject either to
the California list or soft hammer requirements. If a
waste is restricted by soft hammer and California list
restrictions, site managers should meet the more
stringent standard for the waste.
• If treatment standards have been promulgated for
a California list waste that is also a soft hammer,
the California list treatment standard must be met
for the waste before it is land disposed of into y
type of unit. In this case, the soft hammer
restrictions and notification, certification, and
demonstration requirements do not apply.
• If treatment standards have ! Q!. been promulgated
for a California list waste that is also a soft
hammer, and the waste is to be land disposed in
a surface impoundment or landfill , one of two
situations may arise:
(1) If treatment is “practically available,” a site
manager must use the “best” treatment to meet
the soft hammer requirements.
(2) If treatment is not ‘practically available,” the
waste still must, at a minimum, be treated to
below the California list prohibition levels
before being land disposed to satisfy the
California list restrictions.
HIghlight 2 GUIDE TO “PRACTICALLY
AVAILABLE” AND “BEsr TREATMENT
‘ Practically Available — Site managers may
consider cost in determining what treatments
are “practically available” according to the
following cost ratio.
Cost of treatment. hij snent. and dispo a1
Cost of shipsent and disposal
- A ratio of 2 0 or greater Ci e , the cost
of treatment at least doubles the coat of
disposing of the waste without treatment)
generally is not “practical”;
- A ratio between 1.5 and 2.0 generally is
practical unless, on a case-by-case basis,
the site manager can demonatrate why this
treatment should not be considered
practical; and
- A ratio of 1.5 or Leas generally is
practical.
This cost ratio is only a guideline for making
decisions about practically available
treatments; it is not a rule.
•Best Treatment - Of the treatment technologies
that are “practically available,” site managers
are reciuired to use the technology that yields
the greatest environmental benefit In
general, EPA favors recycling/recovery as the
best method for treating a waste The next
best general category of treatment is
destruction (thermal or chemicaL), especially
for organic wastes. Where neither recovery nor
destruction is available or appropriate,
imobilization of the wastes may be considered
“beat,” especially for inorganic wastes

-------
Highlight 3 - SOFT HAMMER NOTIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, AND DEMONSTRATION
REQUIREMENTS
R IR T S T TO WREN RE UIRND I1 Ai’ION
IF LAND DISPOSAL OCXURS IN SUPPACE D UN1 T LANDFILL UNITS
Treatment or
disposal
fec ili ty
receiving
waste
Notification that the waste is a soft hassner
waste. Specific information includes:
- EPA hazardous waste number;
- Any applicable prohibitions (e.g., soft
hazmner provision),
— Manifest number associated with shipment of
waste; and
- Waste analysis data, where available.
CERTIFICATION -
If treatment is
practically
available
(off—site only)
CERTIFICATION -
If treatment is
practically
available
(off—site only)
EPA Regional
Administrator
and
Disposal
facility
receiving
waste
EPA Regional
Administrator
and
Treatment
facility
receiving
was to
At time of
first waste
shipment and
copy with
each waste
shipment
At time of
first waste
shipment and
copy with
each waste
shipment
Certification should appear as follows.
“EPA certifies under penalty of law that the
requirements of 40 CFR 268.8(a)(l) have been iret
and that disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practical alternative to
treatment currently available. EPA believes that
the information submitted is true, accurate, and
complete. EPA is aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.”
Certification should appear as follows.
“EPA certifies under penalty of law that the
requirements of 40 CFR 268 8(a)(l) have been
met and that the agency has contracted to treat
its waste (or will otherwise provide treatment)
by the practically available technology which
yields the greatest environmental benefit, as
indicated in its demonstration, EPA believes that
the information submitted is true, accurate, nd
complete. EPA is aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.”
DENONSTRATION -
If no treatment
is available
(off-site and
on-site)
4
D I IONSTRATION -
If treatment
is available
(off-site and
on-site)
EPA Regional
Administrator
EPA Regional
Administrator
At time of
first waste
shipment
At time of
first waste
shipment
In both cases, site managers must meet the
appropriate soft hammer notification, certification,
and demonstration requirements.
If the waste will be land disposed in a unit other
han a surface impoundment or landfill (e.g., waste
,ile), the waste must, at a minimum, be treated below
he California list prohibition level before being land
lisposed. The soft hammer restrictions do not apply,
and a site manager does not have to meet the soft
hammer notification, certification, and demonstration
requirements.
More information on California list wastes and
their overlap with soft hammer wastes is found in LDR
Guide #2. A step-by-step process to comply with the
soft hammer restrictions is shown in Highlight 4.
NOTIFICATION
(off—site only)
With each
waste
shipment
List of facilities and facility officials
contacted, addresses, telephone numbers, and
contact dates. Also, a written discussion of
when treatment or recovery is not practical
for the waste
List of facilities and facility officials
contacted, addresses, telephone numbers, and
contact dates. Provide information on the
chosen treatment technology selected because
it provides the greatest environmental benefit

-------
The hard hammer provisions prohibit land disposal
of restricted wastes if EPA fails to promulgate
treatment standards by the statutory deadlines for
solvent- and dioxin-containing and California list wastes
and by May 8, 1990, for of the scheduled wastes.
The deadlines for these wastes are shown in Highlight
S. At present, the hard hammer provisions have only
fallen for California list cyanides and metals. EPA has
also codified statutory prohibition levels for California
list corrosive wastes and dilute HOC wastewaters.
Codification of the prohibition levels has the same
effect as letting the hard hammer fall: land disposal
of these wastes is prohibited when wastes are found in
concentrations above the prohibition levels.
There are only two exceptions to the prohibition
on land disposal of the hard hammer wastes: delisting
and a No-Migration Petition. Delisting is a general
option for demonstrating that a listed waste is no
longer hazardous that is available under RCRA §260.20
and §260.22. The process to obtain No-Migration
Petitions is specified in RCRA §268.6. To obtain a
Petition, disposal facilities demonstrate that there will
be no migration of hazardous constituents from the
isposal unit or injection zone for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. This is a rulemaking petition and
is expected to require extensive documentation.
Highlight 5: HARD HAMMER DEADLINES
Hard Hammer Statutory
Waste Deadline
Solvent & November 8, 1986
dioxin wastes
California July 8, 1987
list wastes
CERCLA/RCRA
corrective action
soil and debris
contaminated with
solvent and dioxin
and California
list wastes
Scheduled wa tcs May 8, 1990
(1st Third, 2nd
Third, and 3rd
Third wastes)
November 8, 1988
HARD HAMMER WASTES

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9347 3-O5FS
July 1989
Superfund LDR Guide #5
Determining When Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
Are Applicable to CERCLA
Response Actions
CERCLA Section 121(d)(2) specifies that on-site Superfund remedial actions shall attain “other Federal standards,
requirements, criteria, limitations, or more stringent State requirements that are determined to be legally applicable
or relevant and appropriate (ARAR) to the specified circumstances at the site.” In addition, the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) requires that on-site removal actions attain ARARs to the extent practicable. Off-site removal and
remedial actions must comply with legally applicable requirements. This guide outlines the process used to determine
whether the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions (LDRs) established under
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are applicable” to a CERCLA response action. More detailed
guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER).
For the LDRs to be applicable to a CERCLA
response, the action must constitute placement of a
restricted RCRA hazardous waste . Therefore, site
managers (OSCs, RPMs) must answer three separate
iuestions to determine if the LDRs are applicable:
(1) Does the response action constitute
placement?
(2) Is the CERCLA substance being placed
also a RCRA hazardous waste? and if so
(3) Is the RCRA waste restricted under the
LDRs?
Site managers also must determine if the CERCLA
substances are California list wastes, which are a
distinct category of RCRA hazardous wastes restricted
under the LDR. (see Superfund LDR Guide #2).
(1) DOES THE
PLACEMEN1I
RESPONSE CONSTITUTE
The LD1 .s place specific restrictions (e.g., treatment
of waste to concentration levels) on RCRA hazardous
wastes prior to their placement in land disposal units.
Therefore, a key determination i whether the response
action will constitute placement of wastes into a land
disposal unit. As defined by RCRA, land disposal
units include landfills, surface impoundments, waste
piles, injection wells, land treatment facilities, salt dome
formations, underground mines or caves, and concrete
bunkers or vaults. If a CERCLA response includes
Lllsposal of wastes in any of these types of off-site land
disposal units, placement will occur. However,
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites often have
widespread and dispersed contamination, making the
concept of a RCRA unit less useful for actions
involving on-site disposal of wastes. Therefore, to
assist in defining when “placement” does and does not
occur for CERCLA actions involving on-site disposal
of wastes, EPA uses the concept of “areas of
contamination” (AOCs), which may be viewed as
equivalent to RCRA units, for the purposes of LDR
applicability determinations.
An AOC is delineated by the areal extent (or
boundary) of contiguous contamination. Such
contamination must be continuous, but may contain
varying types and concentrations of hazardous
substances. Depending on site characteristics, one or
more AOCs may be delineated. Highlight 1 provides
some examples of AOCs.
Highlight 1: EXAMPLES OF AREAS OF
CONTAMINATION (AOCs)
a A waste source (e.g.. waste pit, landfill,
waste pile) and the surrounding
contaminated soil.
• A waste source, and the sediments in a
stream contaminated by the source, where
the contamination is continuous from the
source to the sediments. t
• Several lagoons separated only by dikes,
where the dikes are contaminated and the
lagoons share a common liner.
“The AOC does not include any contaminated surface
or ground water that may be associated with the land-
based waste source.

-------
For on-site disposal, placement occurs when wastes
are moved from one AOC (or unit) into another AOC
(or unit). Placement does not occur when wastes are
left in place, or moved within a single AOC. Highlight
2 provides scenarios of when placement does and does
not occur, as defined in the proposed NCP. The
Agency is current reevaluating the definition of
placement prior to the promulgation of the final NCP,
and therefore, these scenarios are subject to change.
In summary, If placement on-site or off-site does
not occur, the LDRS are not applicable to the
Superfund action.
(2) IS THE CERCLA SUBSTANCE A RCRA
HAZARDOUS WASTE?
Because a CERCLA response must constitute
placement of a restricted RCRA hazardous waste for
the LDRs to be applicable, site managers must evaluate
whether the contaminants at the CERCLA site are
RCRA hazardous wastes. Highlight 3 briefly describes
the two types of RCRA hazardous wastes --listed and
characteristic wastes.
Highlight 3: RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTES
A RCRA solid wastes is hazardous if it is
listed or exhibits a hazardous characteristic.
Listed RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Any waste listed in Subpart D of 40
CFR 261, including:
• F waste codes (Part 26131)
a K waste codes (Part 26132)
• P waste codes (Part 26133(e))
• U waste codes (Part 261.33(f))
Characteristic RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Any waste exhibiting one of the following
characteristics, as defined in 40 CFR 261:
Ignitabiity
• Corrosivity
• Reactivity
• Extraction Procedure (EP)
Toxicity
* A solid waste is any material that is discarded or
disposed of (i.e., abandoned, recycled in certain ways, or
considered inherently waste-like). The wacte may be
solid, semi-solid, liquid, or a contained gaseous material.
Exclusions from the definition (e g., domestic sewage
sludge) appear in 40 CFR 261.4(a). Exemptions (e.g.,
household wastes) nrc found In 40 CPR 2 61 .4(b).
Site managers are not required to presume that a
CERCLA hazardous substance is a RCRA hazardous
waste unless there is affirmative evidence to support
such a finding. Site managers, therefore, should use
“reasonable efforts” to determine whether a substance
is a RCRA listed or characteristic waste. (Current
data collection efforts during CERCLA removal and
Highlight 2; PLACEMENT
Placement occur when wastes are:
• Consolidated from different
AOCs into a single AOC;
• Moved outside of an AOC (for
treatment or storage, for
example) and returned to the
same or a different AOC; or
• Excavated from an AOC, placed
in a separate unit, such as an
incinerator or tank that is within
the AOC, nd redeposited into
the same AOC.
Placement does not occur when wastes
are:
• u Treated in situ
• Capped in pince;
• Consolidated withinthe AOC; or
• ‘rocessed within the AOC (but
not in a separate unit, such as a
tank) to improve its structural
stability (e.g., for capping or to
support heavy machinery).

-------
remedial site investigations should be sufficient for this
purpose.) For listed hazardous wastes, if manifests or
labels are not available, this evaluation likely will
require fairly specific information about the waste (e.g.,
source, prior use, process type) that is “reasonably
ascertainable” within the scope of a Superfund
investigation. Such information may be obtained from
facility business records or from an examination of the
processes used at the facility. For characteristic wastes,
site managers may rely on the results of the tests
described in 40 CFR 261.21 - 261.24 for each
characteristic or on knowledge of the propcrtics of the
substance. Site managers should work with Regional
RCRA staff, Regional Counsel, State RCRA staff, and
Superfund enforcement personnel, as appropriate, in
making these determinations.
In addition to understanding the two categories of
RCRA hazardous wastes, site managers will also need
to understand the derived-from rule, the mixture rule,
and the contained-in interpretation to identify correctly
whether a CERCLA substance is a RCRA hazardous
waste. These three principles, as well as an
Lintroduction to the RCRA delisting process, are
described bclow.
Derived-from Rule (40 CFR 26L3(c)(2))
The derived-from rule states that any solid waste
derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a
listed RCRA hazardous waste is itself a listed
hazardous waste (regardless of the concentration of
hazardous constituents). For example, ash and
scrubber water from the incineration of a listed waste
are hazardous wastes on the basis of the derived-from
rule. Solid wastes derived from a characteristic
hazardous waste are hazardous wastes only if they
exhibit a characteristic.
Mixture Rule (40 CFR 2613(n)(2))
Under the mixture rule, when any solid waste and
a jj çd hazardous waste are mixed, the entire mixture
is a listed hazardous waste. For example, if a
generator mixes a drum of listed F006 electroplating
waste with a non-hazardous wastewater (wastewaters
are solid wastes - see Highlight 3), the entire mixture
of the F006 and wastewater is a listed hazardous waste.
Mixtures of solid wastes and characteristic hazardous
wastes are hazardous only if the mixture exhibits a
haracteristic.
Contained-In Interpretation (OSW Memorandum dated
November 13, 1986)
The contained-in interpretation states that any
mixture of a non-solid waste and a RCRA listed
hazardous waste must be managed as a hazardous
waste as long as the material contains (i.e., is above
health-based levels) the listed hazardous waste. For
example, if soil or ground water (i.e., both non-solid
wastes) contain an FOOl spent solvent, that soil or
ground water must be managed as a RCRA hazardous
waste, as long as it “contains” the FOOl spent solvent.
Delisting (40 CFR 260.20 and .22)
To be exempted from the RCP.A hazardous waste
“system,” a listed hazardous waste, a mixture of a listed
and solid waste, or a derived-from waste must be
delisted (according to 40 CFR 260.20 and .22).
Characteristic hazardous wastes never need to be
dclistcd, but can he trcatcd to no longer exhibit the
characteristic. A contained-in waste also does not have
to be delisted; it only has to ‘no longer contain” the
hazardous waste.
If site managers determine that the hazardous
substance(s) at the site is a RCRA hazardous waste(s),
they should also determine whether that RCRA waste
is a California list waste. California list wastes are a
distinct category of RCRA wastes restricted under the
LDRs (see Superfund LDR Guide #2)
(3) IS THE RCRA WASTE RESTRICTED
UNDER THE LDRS?
If a site manager determines that a CERCLA waste
is a RCRA hazardous waste, this waste also must be
restricted for the LDRs to be an applicable
requirement. A RCRA hazardous waste becomes a
restricted waste on its HSWA statutory deadline or
sooner if the Agency promulgates a standard before
the deadline. Because the LDRs arc being phased in
over a period of time (see Highlight 4), site managers
may need to determine what type of restriction is in

-------
HIgJillgtit 4: LDR STAIUI’ORY DEADLINES
Wante Slatutmy Deadline
Spent Solvent and DIoxin- November 8, 1986
Containing Wwes
California L4st Wastes July 8, 1987
Fn t Third Wastes August 8, 1988
Spent Solvent, Dioxin- November 8, 1988
Containing, and California
Ust Soil and Debris From
CERCLA/RCRA Corrective
Actions
Second Third Wastes June 8, 1989
Third Third Wastes May 8, 1990
Newly Identified Within 6 months of
Wastes identification as a
hazardous waste
effect at the time placement is to occur. For example,
if the RCRA hazardous wastes t a site are currently
under a national capacity extension when the CERCLA
decision document is signed, site managers should
evaluate whether the response action will be completed
before the extension expires. If these wastes are
disposed of in surface impoundments or landfills prior
to the expiration of the exttnsion, the receiving unit
would have to meet minimum technology requirements,
but the Wastes would not have to be treated to meet
the LDR treatflient standards.
APPLICABILIIY DETERMINATIONS
if the site manager determines that the LDRs are
applicable to the CERCLA response based on the
previous three questions, the site manager must: (1)
comply with the LDR restriction in effect, (2) comply
with the LDRs by choosing one of the LDR
compliance options (e.g., Treatability Variance, No
Migration Petition), or (3) invoke an ARAR waiver
(available only for on-site actions). If the LDRs are
determined to be applicable, then, for On-site
actions only, the site manager should determine if the
LDRs are relevant and appropriate. The process for
determining whether the LDRs are applicable to a
CERCLA action is summarized in Highlight S.
HighlIght 5 - DETERMINING WHEN LDRS
ARE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directlvo 9347 3-O6FS
July 1989
Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for
Remedial Actions
CERCLA response actions must comply with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) when they are determined to
be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). (The Agency has decided, however, that the LDRs are not
relevant and appropriate for soil and debris wastes at this time.) For the LDRs to be applicable, the CERCLA response action
must constitute placement of a restricted RCRA hazardous waste (see LDR Guide #5). Compliance with the LDRs will involve
either meeting the LDR treatment standards, other LDR rcstrictions (e.g., soft hammers), or catisfying the requirements of onc
of the other alternate LDR Compliance options (e.g., Treatability Variance, Equivalent Treatment Method Petition). This guide
outhnes the process for obtaining and complying with a Treatability Variance for soil and debris that are contaminated with
RCRA hazardous wastes for which the Agency has set treatment standards. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance
with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
BASIS FOR A TREATABILITY VARIANCE
When promulgating the LDR treatment standards, the
Ag tcy recognized that treatment of wastes to the LDR
nt standards would not always be possible or
riate. In addition, the Agency recognized the
nce of ensuring that the LDRs do not unnecessarily
the development and use of alternative and
innovative treatment technologies for remediating hazardous
waste sites. Therefore, a Treatability Variance process (40
CFR §268.44) is available to comply with the LDRs when
a Superfund waste differs significantly from the waste used
to set the LDR treatment standard such that:
• The LDR standard cannot be met; or
• The best demonstrated available technology (BDAT)
used to set the standard is inappropriate for the waste.
Superfund site managers (OSCs, RPM5) may need to
seek a Treatability Variance to comply with the LDRs when
managing restricted soil and debris wastes (see Highlight 1)
because the LDR treatment standards are based on treating
less complex matrices of industrial process wastes (except
for the dioxin standards, which are based on treating
contaminated soil). A Treatability Variance does not
remove the requirement to treat restricted soil and debris
wastes. Rather, under a Treatability Variance, alternate
treatment levels are established based on data from actual
treatment of soil, or best management practices for debris.
Although the specific justification required to obtain a
ility Variance may differ from site-to-site, site
rs generally will make this justification on the basis
vailable information on the performance capabilities
e technology(ie ) being considered; (2) Site-specific
conditions that may affect the implementation or
effectiveness of those technologies; and (3) The remediation
goals of the CERCLA response action.
At many sites, data from treatability studies conducted
during the PJ/FS will suffice as justification for obtaining
a Treatability Variance. For example, if data from
treatability studies indicate that the full-scale operation of
a specific treatment technology cannot consistently meet the
LDR treatment standards for Jj soil and debris (induding
the most contaminated waste areas of the site), site
managers may use those data as justification to obtain a
Treatability Variance for those contaminated soils and debris
that cannot be treated to the standard.
When site-specific treatability study data are not
available, surrogate data from the application of technologies
to wastes of similar types may be used to assess the
effectiveness of treating soil and debris and help site
managers determine whether a Trcatability Variance is
warranted. Potential surrogate data sources include: (1)
Treatability data bases, such as the one developed by EPA’s
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, (2) Results from
FEPA
Superfund LDR Guide #6A
HIghlight 1: SOIL AND DEBRIS
$ Jj. Soil is defined as materials that are
primarily of geologic origin such as sand, silt,
loam, or day, that are indigenous to the natural
geologic environment at or near the CERCLA
site. (In many cases, soil is mixed with liquids,
sludges, and/or debris.)
Debris . Debris is defmed as materials that are
primarily non-geologic in origin, such as grass,
trees, stumps, and man-made materials such as
concrete, clothing, partially buried whole or empty
drums, capacitors, and other synthetic manufac-
tured materials, such as liners. (It does not include
synthetic organic chemicals, but may include
materials contaminated with these chemicals).

-------
rcatability studies and from remedial actions conducted at
sites; and (3) Existing literature that describes the
veness/limitations of specific treatment technologies.
the surrogate data show that a technology operated
at full scale can consistently meet the LDR treatment
standards for all soil and debris that it will be called upon
to treat, site managers should seek a Treatability Variance.
In some cases (especially when treatability studies are
not conducted as part of the RI/FS), data that indicate
whether a treatment technology or process can attain the
LDR treatment standards may not be available. This
situation may arise when an innovative technology is being
considered, or when a “demonstrated” technology is being
applied to wastes for which performance data do not exist.
Under such circumstances, site managers may select a
particular technology as the preferred alternative, if there
are technically sound reasons to believe that it will perform
effectively. The specific selection criteria (e.g., long- and
short-term clTcctivcncss, iniplcmentability) upon which the
rationale would be based should be included when profiling
the alternative in the Detailed Analysis chapter of the FS
report. When there are no actual performance data
available that indicate the LDR treatment standards can be
met consistently for all soil and debris, site managers should
seek a Treatability Variance. Site specific conditions need
to be considered and documented at sites where a
Treatability Variance is sought.
HOW TO OBTAIN A TREATABILITY VARIANCE FOR
SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Once it is determined that a CERCLA waste is a sc
or debris, and that a Treatability Variance will be necessal
(i.e., the LDRs are applicable for the response actiou
addressing soil or debris wastes and there is a reasonable
doubt that the standards can be met consistently for all the
soil and debris wastes requiring treatment), site managers
should initiate the process of obtaining a Variance. For
remedial actions, the need for a Treatability Variance should
be evident during the RI/FS as information on waste types
is collected, potential waste management strategies are
evaluated, and the determination of whether the LDRs are
applicable is made.
Obtaining a Treatability Variance
Obtaining a Treatability Variance for remedial actions
will involve: (1) documenting the rationale and justification
for the Treatabilily Variance in the FS Report ; (2)
announcing the intent to seek a Treatability Variance in the
Proposed Plan ; and (3) granting of the Treatability Variance
by the Regional Administrator or the Assistant
Administrator/OSWER when the ROD is signed.
ON-SIT !
HighUght 2 - INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN TUE DOCUMENTATION OF A SOIL AND DEBRIS
TREATAflILITY VARIANCE IN AN RI/FS REPORT FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE CERCLA RESPONSE ACTIONS
°Description of the Proposed Action Ce g , “Applying for an LDR Treatability Variance under O CFR 268.46),
DA statement of need and justification for the proposed action Ce g , “data do riot indicate that full scale treatment
can consistently attain the LDR treatment standards for all waste areas, including the most contaminated areas, at the
site.”)
DA description of the soil or debris waste Ce 8 , information en the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste,
including waste analysis data) and description of the source of the contamination;
OIf the soil and debris waste has been treated Ce g., treatability study), or surrogate data are available, a description
of the treatment system (e.g., process design, operating conditions) and explanation of why the LOR treatment standard
cannot be achieved using the treatment system or why the BDAT technology is inappropriate for the waste;
°X the soil and debris waste has not been treated , an explanation of why the UDAT treatment technology is inappropriate
or why treatment of the waste will not be able to achieve the LDR treatment standards;
DA description of the methodologies and equipsant used to obtain representative samples, a description of the sample
handling and preparation techniques, and a description of the QA/QC measures for waste analysis and treatment.
DA description of any aLternative treatment methods examined by the petitioner a description of the treatment method that
the petitioner believes is appropriate to treat waste and an identification of the interim “treatment levels” deveLoped
by the lead agency for the waste constituents or best management practices; and
°For each alternative for which a Treatability Variance is required, the specific treatment level range to be achieved
to comply with the LDR8 throu8h a Treatability Variance (see Highlight 5 to determine these treatment levels),
OFF-SITE
For off-site Treat,ebility Variances, the documentation requirements above should be extracted from the RI/FS report
combined with the following information in a separate document’
titionar’s name and address and identification of an authorized contact person (if different);
DStatement of petitioner’s interest in obtaining a Treatebility Variance; and
* This document may be prepared after the ROD is signed (and Treatability Variance granted) but wilL need to be compiled
prior to the first shipuent of wastes (or treatment residuals) to the receiving treatment or disposal facility,

-------
FS Report
FS Report should contain the necessary information
ghlight 2) to justify a Treatability Variance using,
I appropriate, data and findings from the RI Report.
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives chapter of the FS
Report, a general discussion of why a Treatability Variance
is necessary should be included in the description of each
alternative for which a variance is required. This
description also should specify the treatment level range(s)
that the treatment technology would attain for each waste
constituent restricted under the LDRs and the primary
contaminants of concern identified during the Superfund
baseline risk assessment. (The more specific and detailed
information, such as relevant waste analysis data from
sampling, should be placed in an appendix to the report.)
In addition, under the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
section, when discussing the “Compliance with ARARs
Criteria,” site managers should indicate which alternatives
will require a Treatability Variance to comply with the
LDRs.
Highlight 3 - SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR THE
PROPOSED PLAN
Because the Proposed Plan solicits public comment on all
of the alternatives and not just the preferred option, the
intent to obtain a Treatability Variance should be identified
for every alternative for which a Variance is required. This
opportunity for public comment on the Proposed Plan fulfills
the requirements for public notice and comment (off-site
actions only) on the Treatability Variance as required in
RCRA §268.44. Sample language for the Proposed Plan is
provided in Highlight 3.
Record of Decision
A Treatability Variance is granted and becomes effective
when the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed by the
Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator!
OSWER. The documentation provided in the ROD for a
Treatability Variance should be a concise synopsis of the
information provided in the FS Report. In the Description
of Alternatives section, as part of the discussion of major
applicable requirements associated with each remedial
option, site managers should include a statement (as was
done in the FS report) that explains why a Treatability
Variance is justified and should list the treatment level
range(s) that the selected technology will attain for each
constituent. Sample language for the ROD is provided in
Highlight 4.
Description of Alternatives section
alternative will comply with the LDRs through
‘eatability Variance under 40 CFR 268.44. This
ririance will result in the use of (specify technolo J
attain (lie tgcncy’s interim “treatment
levels/ranges” for the contaminated soil at the sitc
(see Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Chapter of the
FS Report for the specific treatment levels for each
constituent).
Evaluation of Alternatives section, under “Compliance
with ARARs”
The LDRs are ARA.Rs for [ Enter number] of [ Enter
total number of alternatives] remedial alternatives
being considered. [ Enter nuniberj of the [ Enter
total number of alternatives] alternatives would
comply with the LDRs through a Treatability
Variance.’
Community’s Role in the Selection Process section
This Proposed Plan also seeks co,nnicnt on 1/ic use
of a Treatabilily Variance to comply with LDRs for
each of the alternatives for which one is required.
Proposed Plan
intent to seek a Treatability Variance for a
tr alternative should be clearly stated in the
ption of Alternatives section of the Proposed Plan.
In the Comparative Analysis section, under “Compliance
with ARARs,” site managers should indicate which of the
alternatives will comply with the LDRs through a
Treatability Variance. Under the Statutory Determination
section (Compliance with ARARs), site managers should
identify the LDRs as an ARAR and indicate that a
Treatability Variance is being used to comply.
Highlight 4: SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR A
RECORD OF DECISION
Description of Alternatives section:
Because existing and available data do not
demonstrate that the full-scale operation of this
treatment techinolo ’ can attain the LDR treatment
standards consistently for all soil and debns Wastes
to be addressed by (his action, this alternative will
comply with the LDRs through a Treatability
Variance for the wastes that cannot be treated to
meet the standard. The freatment level range
established through a Treatability Variance that
[ Enter teclmolog, ’J will attain for each constituent
as detennined by the indicated analyses are:
Banii,n 0.1 - 40ppni (TCLP)
Mercury 0.0002 - 0.008 ppm (TCLP)
Vanadium 0.2 - 22 ppm (TCLP)
TCE 95-99.9% reduction (TWA)
Cresols 90-99.9% reduction (TWA)

-------
‘ TO COMPLY WITH A TREATABILITY VARIANCE
‘AND DEBRIS WASTES
Soil Wastes
Once site managers have identified the RCRA waste
codes present at the site, the next step is to identify the
BDAT constituents of those RCRA waste codes found at
the site, and to divide these constituents into one of the
structural/functional groups shown in column 1 of Highlight
S. After dividing the BDAT constituents into their
respective structural/functional groups, the next step is to
compare the concentration of each constituent with the
threshold concentration (see column 3 of Highlight 5) and
to select the appropriate concentration level or percent
reduction range. If the concentration of the restricted
constituent is less than the threshold concentration, the
waste should be treated to within the concentration range.
If the waste concentration is above the threshold, the waste
should be treated to reduce the concentration of the waste’
to within the specified percent reduction range. Once the
appropriate treatment range is selected, the third step is to
identify and select a specific technology that can achieve the
necessary concentration or percent reduction. Column 5 of
Highlight 5 lists technologies that (based on existing
performance data) can attain the alternative Treatability
Variance levels.
During the implementation of the selected treatment
technology, periodic analysis using the appropriate testing
procedure (i.e., total waste analysis for organics and TCLP
for inorganics) will be required to ensure the alternate
treatment levels for the BDAT constituents requiring control
are being attained and thus can be land disposed without
further treatment.
Highlight 5. ALTERNATE TREATABIUTY VARIANCE LEVELS AND
TECHNOLOGIES FOR STRUCTURAL/FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Structural
Functional
Gi
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
Threshold
Concentration
(ppm)
Percent
Reduction
Range
Technologies that achieved
recommended effluent
concentration uldance ’
MMaiogenated
)fl-POlar
bmatics
05 - 10
100
90 - ggg
BI0IO9ICSJ Trealmont Low Temp Stripping,
Soil Washing. Thermal Destruction
- . . .,oxins
000001 -005
0.5
90-999
Dachiotlnatlon, Soil Washing. Thermal Des ucbon
PCBs
01 - 10
100
90 999
BIological Treatment Dechionnation. Soil Washing,
Then Destruction
Herbicides
0002-002
02
90-999
ThormaiDe s t rucbon
Haiogenated
Phenols
05- 40
400
90 - 99
BiologIcal Treatment. Low Temp Stilp k ç.
Soil Washing. Thermal Destruction
Haiogenated
Aliphatics
05 - 2
40
95- 999
BIological Treatment. 1.cw Temp Stripping. Soil Washing.
Thermal Destruction
HaJogenated
05- 20
200
90 - 999
Thermal Destruction
Cyclics
Nrtrated
Aromatics
25-100
10.000
99-9999
BIological Treatment Soil Washing
Thermal Destruction
Heteincyctics
05- 20
200
90 - 999
BIological Treatment Low Temp Stripping. Sod Washing.
Thermal Destruction
Polynuclear
Aromaties
05-20
400
95-999
Biological Treatment Low Temp Stripping. Soil Washing.
Thermal Destruction
Other Polar
,Orgai cs .
05 - 10
.
100
.
90-999
.
BIological Treatment Low Temp Stripping. Soil Washing,
Thermal Destruction
Antimony
01 -02
2
90-99
ImmobIlization
Arsenic
027 - 1
10
90 - 999
ImmobilIzation, Soil Washing
Bazlum
01 -40
400
90-99
Immobfltza l ion
Chromium
05 - 6
120
95 - 999
Immobilization. Soil Washing
- Nickel
05-1
20
95-999
ImmobIlization. Sod Washing
enium
0005
008
90-99
ImmobilizatIon
adium
02 - 22
200
90 - 99
ImmobIlizatIon
dmium
02 - 2
40
95 - 999
ImmobilIzatIon, Soil WaShIng
Lead
0 1 - 3
300
99 -999
Immobilization. Soil Washing
Mercury
00002-0008
006
90-99
Immobilization
• TCLP also may be used en evaluawig waste wuh relaflve(y tow lewL, of or inia that flaw been treated thmum an unmobthmflo.i
ucess
Oth,r r,chno/or,,s may be uu’d if frt ’otah,/,ty raid:es or other uiformazzon uithcin i that they cwt achieve the neca w,y concenrranon or
- “ “ ‘v

-------
Because of the variable and uncertain charactenstics
associated with unexcavated wastes, from which only
mpling data are available, treatment systems generally
puld be designed to achieve the more stringent end of the
tment range (e.g., 05 for chromium, see column 2 of
,hligbt 5) to ensure that the treatment residuals from the
ITiost contaminated portions of the waste fall below the no
exceedance levels (e.g., 6.0 ppm for chromium). Should
data indicate that the treatment levels set through the
Treatability Variance are not being attained (i e., treatment
residuals are greater than the no exccedance” level), site
managers should consult with Headquarters.
Under some circumstances, the need to obtain a
Treatability Variance may not be evident until after a ROD
is signed. This situation may arise when: (1) Initial
assumptions made during the RI/FS that the LDR
treatment standards would be met are proven to be
incorrect during the remedial design/action (RD/RA) phase;
or (2) previously undiscovered evidence is obtained during
RD/PA that the CERCLA waste contains a RCRA
restricted waste and the LDRs are then determined to be
applicable but cannot be met. In such situations, a site
manager would need to prepare an explanation of significant
differences (ESD) from the ROD and make it available to
the public to explain the need for a Treatability Variance.
In addition, unlike other ESDs that do not require public
comment under CERCLA section 117(c), if the ESD
involves granting a Treatability Variance, an opportunity for
public comment would be required to fulfil] the public
ticc and comment requirements for a Treatability
riance under 40 CFR §268.44.
. bris Wastes
Site managers should use the same process for obtaining
a Treatability Variance described above for types of debris
that are able to be treated to the alternate treatment levels
(e.g., paper, plastic). However, for most types of debris
(e.g., concrete, steel pipes), which generally cannot be
treated, site managers should use best management
practices. Depending on the specific characteristics of the
debris, these practices may include decontamination (e.g.,
triple rinsing) or destruction.
LDRS IN SUPERFUND ACflONS
Because of the important role the LDR.s may play in
Superfund deanups, site managers need to incorporate early
in the PJ/FS the neccesary investigative and analyticai
procedures to determine if the LDRs are applicable for
remedial alternatives that involve the “placement ’ of wastes.
When the LDRs are applicable, site managers should
determine if the treatment processes associated with the
alternatives can attain either the LDR treatment standards
or the alternate levels that would be established under a
Treatability Variance.
Site managers must first evaluate whether restricted
RCRA waste codes are present at the site, identify the
BDAT constituents reqwring control, and compare the
BDAT constituents with the Superfund primary constituents
of concern from the baseline risk assessment. This process
identifies all of the constituents for which remediation may
be required. Once the viable alternatives arc identified in
the FS, site managers should evaluate those involving the
treatment and placement of restricted RCRA hazardous
wastes to ensure their respective technology process(es) will
attain the appropriate treatment levels (i.e., either LDR
treatment standard or Treatability Variance alternate
treatment levels for restricted RCRA hazardous wastes)
and, in accordance with Superfund goals, reductions of 90
percent or greater for Superfund primary contaminants of
concern. The results of these evaluations are documented
in the Proposed Plan and ROD. An illustration of the
integration of LDRs and Superfund is shown in Highlight
6. An example of the process for complying with a
Treatability Variance for contaminated soil and debris is
presented in HIghlight 7.
HighlIght 6.
LDRs In the Rl/FS Process
cen
it

-------
Highlight 7: IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT LEVELS FOR A TREATABILITY VARIANCE
part of the RI, it has been determined that soils in one location at a Site contain F006 wastes and cresols (which site records indicate were
i P004 waste) Arsenic also was round in soils at a separate location. The baseline risk assessment identified cadmium, chromium, lead, and
- utSCfliC as pnmaty contaminants of concern. The concentration range of all of the constituents found at the Site included
Constituent
Total Concentration
(mg/kg’)
TCLP
(mg/I)
Constituent
Total
Concentration
(mg/kg ’ )
TCLP
(mg/I)
Cadmium
2,270 - 16,200
120 - 146
Nickel
100 - 140
1 - 6.5
Chromium
3,160 - 4,390
30 - 56
Silver
I - 3
—
Cyanides
80 - 150
I - 16
Creso ls
50 600
.25 - 4
Lead
500 - 625
2 - 12.5
Arsenic
800
- 1,900
3 - 9
Four remedial alternatives are being considered (1) I.ow temperature thermal stripping of soil contaminated with cresols followed by
stabilization of the ash; (2) Stabilization of the soil in a mobile unit; (3) In-situ stabilization, and (4) Capping of wastes Each of these
alternatives must be evaluated to determine if they will result in significant reduction of the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the waste, whether
‘placement’ occurs, and, if ‘placement’ occurs, whether the treatment will attain LDR treatment standards or alternative treatment levels
established through a Treatability Variance ror the BOAT constituents requiring control.
S1 1: IDEWflPY ThE RESFR1C ED CONS1TJ1JEWIS
• Because P006 and P004 wastes have been identified at the site, the Superfund site manager must meet the treatment standards or
nlternnte treatment levels establiched through a Treatnbiluty Variance for the BDAT conctiiuentc These constituents arc Cadmium,
Oiron,ium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Cyanide for F006 and Cresols for F004
AND DW Il Tim CON flTtJPNI ’S INFO TuTOR lRUCflJRi%I ./VtJNCflONAI. GROUT’S (sec highlight 4)
• All of the F006 constituents arc in the Inorganica structural/functional group
• Cresols arc in the Other Polar Organic Compounds structural/functional group
• In accordance with program goals, the preferred remedy also should result in the effective reduction Ci c, at least 90 percent) of all
primary constituents of concern (i e, Cadmium, Oironuum, Lead, and Arsenic)
STEP 2: COMI’ARE 11IE CONCBNFRA11ON ThRESHOLD FOUND IN HIGIIUGIrr S1 ’O ThE CONCENTRATIONS FOUND AT TI FE
SITE AND CHOOSE E L1LER ThE CONCENTRATION LEVEL RANGE OR PERCENT REDUCTION RANGE FOR EACH
RES R1C1 CONSTrI1JEWr.
Constituent
Sitc
Concentration
Ttircshold
Concentration
Appropriate Range Range to be achicvcd
Concentration PcrccntReduction (compliance analysis)
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Cresols
120 -
30 -
2 -
1 -
50-
146 ppm
56 ppm
123 ppm
6.5 ppm
600 ppm
>
<
<
<
>
40 ppm
120 ppm
300 ppm
20 ppm
100 ppm
,
X
X
X
X
X
95-999 Percent Reduction (TCLP)
0.5 - 6 ppm (TCLP)
0 1 - 3 ppm (TCLP)
0.5 - I ppm (TCLP)
90-999 Percent Reduction (TCLP)
STEP 3: [ DEWITPY TREATh ’ff TECHNOLOGIES ThAT MEEF TILE TREATh RANGES.
• Highlight 5 lists the technologies that achieved the alternate treatment levels for each structural/functional group
• Because cresols are present in relatively low concentrations (assumed for the purposes of this example) a TCLP may be used to
determine if immobilization results in a sufficient reduction of mobility of this restricted RCRA hazardous waste (Measures to address
any volatlzatlon of organics during ImmobIlization processes will be necessary.)
• Immobilization also will result in the effective reduction in leachability (i.e., at least 90 percent) of arsenic, a Superfund primary
contaminant of concern
Alternative o
Elf
f Toxici
cctive Reduction
ty, Mobility, Volume?
Meet LDR Treatment
Placement?’ Standanis for BDAT Constituents
Meet Treatability Variance
Alternate Levels?
1. Low temperature stripping/
Stabilization
Yes
Yes No (not for cresols)’
Yes
2. Stabilization in mobile unit
Yes
Yes No (not for cresols)
Yes
3. In-situ stabilization
Yes (Mobility)
No (LDRs not ARARs) —
—
4 Capping in Place
No -
No (LDRs not AR.AR5) —
—
* Treatability studies conducted during RI/FS indicated the standard could not be met consistently for all soils contaminated with cresols
i After balancing the tradeoffs among alternatives with respect to the nine evaluation criteria, the Agency determined that stabilization
of wastes in a mobile unit is the preferred alternative The next step is to seek and obtain a Treatability Variance for the preferred
alternative in the Proposed Plan and ROD.

-------
On-site CERCL response actions must comply with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) when they are
determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (AR.ARs). On-site CERCLA removal actions must comply
with the LDRs to the enent practicable when they are determined to be ARARs. The t v factors chat determine whether
the LDRs can be practicably complied with during a removal response are: (1) the urgency of the situation and (2) the scope
of the removal action to be taken. For the LDRs to be applicable, the CERCLA removal action mu.st constitute placement
of a restricted RCR.A hazardous waste (see Superfund LDR Guide #5). For the LDRs to be relevant and appropriate, they
must address problems or situations sufficiently c4miI r to the circumstances of the release, or remedial action contemplated,
and be well-suited to the site. (See Superfund LDR Guide #7.) Compliance with the LDRs will involve either meeting the
LDR treatment standards, meeting other LDR restrictions (e.g., soft haii mers), or satisfying the requirements of one of the
other alternate LDR compliance options (e.g., Treatability Variance, Equivalent Treatment Method Petition). This gu1 oudln
the process for obtaining and complying wtth a TreatabWty Varianc, during removal actions for soil and debris co.thmiuated
with RCRA k sz srdous wastes for which the Agency ha.s set treatment standards. More detailed guidance on Sruperfund
compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
BASIS FOR A TREATAB [ LITY VARIANCE
When promulgating the LDR treatment standards, the
Agency recogeized that treatment of wastes to the treatment
standards established using the best demonstrated available
technolo ’ (BDAT) would not always be possible or
appropriate (RCRA §268.44). In addition, the Agency
recogeized the importance of ensuring that the LDRs do
not unnecessarily rew ct the development and use of
alternative and innovative treatment technologies for
remediating hazardous waste sites. Therefore, a Treatability
Variance process is available to comply with the LDRs when
a Superfund waste differs cig!lilcantly from the waste used
to set the LDR treatment standard such that:
• The LDR sx*ndard cannot be met; or
• The BDAT used to set the standard is inappropriate
for the waste.
During on-site removal . ctionL Superfund on-scene
coordinators (OSCs) must comply with the LDR5 if the
LDRs are ARAP.s and compliance with the LDRs is
practicable. For removals involving off-site depomnon, OSCa
must simply determine if the LDRs are applicable. When
n ging restncted soil and debris wastes (see HIg iHght 1),
OSCs may need to seek a Treatability Variance to comply
with the LDRs because, except for the dio n standards
which are based on treating cont ,,iin*ted soil, the LDR
treatment standards are based on treating Less complex
matrices of industrial process wastes. A Treazabilicy
Variance does not remove the requirement to treat
restricted soil and debris wastes. Rather, under a Variance,
an OSC selects alternate treatment levels the Agency has
estabLished, which are based on data from actual treatment
of soil or best management practices for debn.s
Although the specific justification required to obtain a
Treatability Variance may differ from site to site, OSCs
generally will make this justification on the basis of (1)
available information on the performance capabilities of the
treatment technolo (ics) being considered; (2) site-specific
conditions that may affect the implementation or
effectiveness of those technologies, and (3) the goals or
scope of the CERCLA removal action.
EPA
Uruted Stat
Enw n otscXn
O Iiosoi ’
Solid Wags arid
Superfund LDR Guide #6B
Directive 9347 3-O7FS
Decamoer 1989
Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for
Removal Actions
HighlIght 1: SOIL AND DEBRIS
j. Soil is defined as materials that are primarily of
geologic origin such as sand, silt, Loam, or clay, that
are indiritoos to the narw al geologic environment at
or near the CERCLA site. (In many cases, sod is
mixed with liquids, sludges, and/or debris.)
Debris . Debris is defined as materials that are
primarily non-geologic in origin, such as grass trees,
stumps, and man-made materials SUCh as con ece,
ciothiiig. partially-busied whole or empty drums,
capacitors, and other synthetic manufactured materials,
such as liners. (It does not include synthetic organic
chemicals, but may include materials contaminated
with these chemicals.)

-------
At many removal sites, data from treatability studies or
from off-site facilities that test waste samples may provide
justification for obtpining a Treatability Variance. For
example, if data from treatability studies indicate that the
full-scale operation of a specific treatment technology cannot
consistently meet the LDR treatment standards for soil
or debris (including the moat conthmini%ted waste areas of
the site), OSCs may use such data as justification to obtain
a Treatability Variance for the cont2min ted soil and debris
that cannot be treated to the standard.
When site-specific treatability study data arc not available,
surrogate data from the application of technologies to wastes
of similar types may be used to assess the effectiveness of
treating soil and debris, and to help OSCs determine
whether a Treatability Variance is warranted. Potential
surrogate data sources include: (1) Treatability data bases,
such as the one developed by EPA’s Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, (2) Results from treatability studies
and from response actions conducted at other sites; and (3)
Eaisung literature that describes the effectiveness/limitations
of specific treatment technologies. Unless the surrogate
data show that a technology operated at full scale can
con.sistentlv meet the LDR treatment standards for lj soil
or debris, OSCs should seek a Treatabiliry Variance.
In some cases (especially when treatabilicy studies are
not conducted), data that indicate whether a treatment
technology or process can attain the LDR treatment
standards may not be available. This situation may arise
when an innovative technology is being considered, or when
a demonstrated technology is being applied to wastes for
which performance data do not exist. Under such
circumstances, OSCs may select a particular technology as
the preferred alternative, if there are technically sound
reasons to believe that it will perform effectively. When
there are no actual performance data available that indicate
that the LDR treatment standards can be met consistently
for all soil or debris, OSCs should seek a Treatability
Variance.
HOW TO OBTAIN A ThEATABILflY VARIANCE FOR
SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Once it is determined that a CERCLA waste is a soil or
debris, and that a Treatabilhty Variance will be necwory
(i.e., the LDRs are applicable and practicable for the
removal action addressing soil and debris wastes, and there
is a reasonable doubt that the LDR treatment standards can
be met consistently for all the wastes), OSCs should initiate
the process of obtAining a Treatability Variance.
In general, for On-site removal actions, the Treatability
Variance will be in the form of a memorandum attached
to the Action Memorandum, which documents the removal
action to be taken. This attachment should include the
necessary information to justify the need for a Treatability
Variance (see HIghlight 2). Treatability Variances for on-
site removal actions are approved by Regional Adntii’iistacors
or their desigaces.
Ri$hiAght 2 - IEF i6XI TO TP I A tA D .ITY VIiTA * TO OBtAli
A SO 5 D .tS 1ATA ZLITT V1&IA D IP TA CVAL T1
Information to b. included in a Treatabili .ty Var, ,anc. Memorsnd and LE/CA for a soil, and debris Tr.atability Variance
during on-sit. end off-site removal actions is list.d b.Low For off-sit . Tr.atabiLity Variances, thu compl.t. i.ist of
doc e tation r.quiranents should b. combin.d and submitted as a s.parsc. docum.nt
Ot -SIE NP OFF-SITE
•A statement of n..d and justification for thu removal action (. g. • “data do not indicat. th.t full-scale tr.at ent can
ccnaistsnt,ly attain the LDR tr.atm.nt standards for all waste ax.as. including thu most contaminated areas, at th. s tu ).
eA description of th. soil or dubris waits Ci . . thformation on the physical and chemical charact.ristics of thu wait.,
including vast,, analysis data) and description of thu source of the contamination,
•XZ th. soil and debris waste baa bean treated (e.g.. tr.atabtl,ity study), or surrogatu data ar. available, a description
of the treatment system (S $ , process dssign, opsrating conditions) and explanation of why thu LDR treata.nt standard
cannot be achieved using the treatment system or why the BOAT technology is inappropriate for the waste.
SIf thu soil. and debris waate has not, been treated , an •rplanstion of why the BDAT treatment technology is inappropriate
or why there is reasonable doubt that treatment of the waste will be ablu to achieve the LOR tr.stment standards.
•A duscription of any a.Ltsrnattve treatment methods uxaminud by thu petitioner, a description of the treatment method that
the petitioner believes is appropriate to trust waste, and an identification of thu interim “treatment Levels developed
by the lead agency for the waste constituents or beat management practices;
CA description of th. methodologies and .qui ent used to obtain representative s lss, a description of the sample
handling and preparation techniques, and a description of the QA/ C meaauzes for wastu analysis and truatmunt. and
iFor th. selected removal action (.merg.ncy and time-critical) or for each sltsrnativ. for which a Treatability Variance
is required (non-time-critical removals), the specific tr.atment levul. range to be achieved to conpty with the L.DP..s through
a treatability Variance (see ajz LisM. 6 to determine these treatment Levels and w4.h14.ht 0 for an example of the variance
process)
OFT-SITE Ol LY
epetitioner’s name and addzeus and identification of an authorized contact person (it different), and
eStatement of petitioner’s interest in obtaining a Treatability Variance Ce g , ‘This petition is being .u itt.d to Obta fl
e Ireatability Variance to conpl.y with the RCRA land disposal restrictions at thu (Enter namel situ, it which a Superfund
removal action is occurring )

-------
For off-site removal actions, an OSC must submit to
Headquarters a formal Treatability Variance petition
complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.44 for site-
specific variances. Because most removal actions involve
off-site actions, OSCs will generally have to prepare formal
Treatability Variance petition.t The process also should
include local notice and an opportunity for the public to
comment, consistent with the proposed NCP administrative
record requirements.
Processes for obtaining a Treatability Variance depend
upon the type of removal action. These actions are
classified according to the expediency required in a ven
situation: (1) emergency, (2) time-critical, and (3) non-
time-critical. The process for obtaining a Treatability
Variance for each of these removal actions is described
below. Each of these actions are defined in HighlIght 3.
Emer encv and Time-Critical Acuon
There is no formal procedure for identifying and
analyzing alternatives for emergency and time-critical
removal actions. Because of the need for a quick response
to a release, the removal action selection process may occur
at different stages of these removals, depending on the
threats present.
Generally, a request for a Treatability Variance is a
memorandum attached to the Action Memorandum. During
emergency and some time-aitical responses, however, there
may not be sufficient information available about the need
for a Treatability Variance when the Action Memorandum
is signed. In those cases, the request for a Treatability
Variance should be a memorandum (or formal petition, for
off-site actions) that amends the Action Memorandum.
Sample language for this Action Memorandum is provided
in HighlIght 4. In all cases, the Treatabilhty Variance
memorandum should be &om the OSC to Regional
Adniirnctrators or their designee who has the authority to
approve Action Memoranda. Public comment on the
Treatability Variance should be solicited, whenever possible.
given the urgency of the situation, in accordance with the
adminiq jv record and public participation procedures
described in the proposed NCP.
Non-Time-Critical Actions
For these actions, sufficient lead-time is generally
available to conduct a more detailed analysis of alternatives
before the Action Memorandum is signed The process by
which alternatives are analyzed is described through the
steps of the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
process. Sample language for the EE/CA is provided in
Highlight 5. The EE/CA process includes gathering
information that will aid in determining whether an LDR
requirement is applicable and selecting a recommended
action. The EE/CA process is similar to the PJ/FS
process and generally includes six steps
I4lghllght 4 - SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR THE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
Because wsting and available data do not
denionmate that the fill-scale operation of
this beabnen: technolo can again the LDR
trratine,U standards co.uiscen:ty for all soil or
debris wastes to be addressed by this action,
this selected removal altenianve will comply
with the LDRs through a Treatabihty Variance
for the wastes that cannot be treated to meet
the standard. The ea1rnent level range
established through a Treatabilny Variance and
achieved thmugh (specify technolorj/ will
attain the Agency’s interim ‘treaon en:
levels/ranges’ for each constituent restricted
at the sue.
HighlIght 3 - DEFINITIONS 1 OF EMERGENCY,
TIME-CRITICAL, AND NON-TIME CRITICAL
REMOVAL ACTIONS
Emergency • Emergency removal actions are those
responses to releases or threats of releases requiring
initiation of clean-up activity within hours of the lead
agency’s determination that a removal action is
appropriate.
lime-Critical - Time-critical removals are those
releases requiring initiation of on-site clean-up activity
within six months of the lead agency’s determination
that a removal action is appropriate.
Non-Time-Crltkal - Non-time-critical removals are
those releases or threats of releases that do not
require initiation of on-site clean-up activity within six
months of the lead agency’s determination that a
removal action is appropriate
‘Dcrincd in prtamble to proposed ‘JCP
Hlghllgbt S - SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR THE
EE/CA
Description of Alternatives :
Thu removal alternative will comply with the
LDRs through a Treatabthry Vanance under
40 CFR 26&44. This Variance will result in
the use of (specify technolo J to attain the
Agency’s interim ‘b’eatrnens leveLs/ranges” for
the conianunoJed sod at the sue.
Evaluation of Alternatives :
The LDR we applicable and can be
practicably met for (Enter number) of [ Enter
total number of alumarives/ removal
alternatives being considered. [ Enter nwnber/
of the (Enter total number of al:ematives/
alternatives wi,uld comply with the LDRs
through a Treatability Variance.

-------
• Site characterization;
• Identification of removal action objectives;
• Identification of removal action alternatives;
• Analysis of removal action alternatives;
• Comparative analysis of removal action alternatives;
and
• Recommendation of removal action alternative.
For non-time.criticaj removals, the information to justify
a Treatability Variance should be included in a
memorandum attached to the EE/CA. Public comments
on the Treatabiliry Variance should be soliated for a period
of at least 30 days when the EE/CA is made available, in
accordance with the administrative record requirements in
the proposed NCP.
HOW TO COMPLY WITH A TREATAJILrrY vAJj 4a
FOR SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Soil Wastes
Once the OSCs have identified the RCRA waste codes
present ax the site, the nen step is to identify the BDAT
constituents requiring control and to divide these
constituents into one of the structutal/funcsionaj groups
shown in column 1 of Highlight 6. After thviding the
BDAT constituents into their respective structural/functional
groups, the ne step is to compare the concentration of
each constituent with the threshold concentratIon (see
column 3 of HIghlight 6) and to select the appropriate
concentration level or percent reduction range. If the
HIghlight 6. ALTERNATE TREATABILITY VARIANCE LEVELS AND
TECHNOLOGIES FOR STRUC AL/FUNCTIONAL. GROUPS
Structural Concentration Threshold Percent Technologies that achieved
Functional Range Concentration R D I I recommended •ffiuent
C . ( • (ppm) . concentration guldance’

Haiog.na lsC *
Non-Poti, 05-10 100 90-999 Int Low Temp S ipp ’ng .
Dioxins
000001 - 005
05
90 - 999
DscPWo.lnaten Sod Washing. Thtmal Du uc on
PCBs
01 - 10
100
90999
Boogicailruvri.nt. 0icrUonna on. Soil Wasriutg
ierbiciØeg
0002 - 002
02
90 - 999
Thermal 0sevuc on
Piajogenatso
P er,ois
05-40
400
90-99
Bclogcal Trsavnsrn. Low Temp S pp in;.
Sod Waalung, Thermal D.g ’ucton
iaJogenate0
A i haIic
05-2
40
95-999
8OiOgealhsa Int.LowTimp S ipplng. 501 Wasrung
Thermal Destucnon
IiaJoger ate0
Cyclics
05 - 20
200
90 -999
Therm
Nitra t sO
Arorn a cs
25-100
10.000
99-9999
C1TSoiJWas h ing
I -
- t Low Temp S ppu g. Sod Washing.
ii stsrocyclscl
05-20
200
90-999
Polynucisw
Arorn abc a
05-20
400
95-999
Oth erPo lw 05-10 100 90-999
Org ss ica

j -
An rnony 0.1 - 0.2 2 90 - 99 tmnotJl z* on
AWIC
0.27 - 1
10
90 - 999
ImmoCd on. Sod
Banum
01 -40
400
90-99
Chromium
05 - 6
120
96 - 999
Sod
Nickel
05 - 1
20
96- 999
Waaning
Imrn L.lizaton, Sod Washing
Setsniurn
0 005
006
90-99
immobüzabon
Vanadium
02-22
200
90-99
Immo ibzason
Cadmium
02-2
40
95-999
ImmoOdititon, SOW Washing
Lied
0 1 - 3
300
99 - 99 9
Imi ton. Sod
Msccury
0 0002 -0 008
006
90-99
Washing
ImmOCthzabon
Low Temp So’ippirig. Soil Weaning.
jTr, rt Low Temp S ippmg. Sod Weaning.
• TCLF alto may bi wed w*g,, evali aw g i. ’Ogg *ith rilaaviiy 1 L,wLj of o’ ia that Aaw bee ,, e,at.d thiusig a u,wioôilijgnon
VOC1U
Other no1oçt ,,wy be wed if a’vatabday j or oth u4i g that y adue,q pig Zg ), COViCe?lD’ flOfl Of
rce ’iS—,vdijc oi , i np
I

-------
conécetration of the restricted constiruent is less than the
threshold concentration, the waste should be treated to
within the concentration range. If the waste concentranon
is above the threshold, the waste should be treated to
reduce the concentration of the waste to within the specified
percent reduction range. Once the appropriate treatment
range is selected, the third step is to identify and select a
specific technology that can achieve the necessary
concentration or percent reduction. Column 5 of Highlight
6 Lists technoloçes that (based on e sting performance
data) can attain the alternative Treatabilhsy Variance level&
For on-site actions, during the implementation of the
selected treatment technology, periodic analysis using the
appropriate testing procedure (i.e., total waste analysis for
organics and TCLP for inorganics) will be required to
ensure that the alternate treatment Levels for the BDAT
constituents requiring control are being attained, and thus
can be land-disposed without further treatment
Because of the variable and uncertain characteristics
associated with unexcavated wastes, from which only
sampling data are available, treatment systems generally
should be desi ed to achieve the more stringent end of the
treatment range (e.g., 0.5 for chromium, see column 2 of
HighlIght 6) to ensure that the treatment residuals from the
most contaminated portions of the waste fall below the “no
exceedancc ” levels (e.g., 6.0 ppm for chromium). Should
data indicate that the treatment levels set through the
Treatabiliry Variance are not being attained (i.e., treatment
residuals are eater than the “no exceedance” level), OSCs
should consult with Headquarters. HighlIght 8 provides a
specific case example to illwtrate ho to obtain a
Treatability Variance.
Debris Wastes
OSCs should use the same process dcsaibed above for
obt2tnrng a Treatability Variance for types of debris that are
able to be treated to the alternate treatment levels (e.g.,
paper, plastic). However, for most types of debris (e.g..
conante, steel pipes), which generally cannot be treated .
OSCs should use best m gement practices. Depending on
the specific characteristics of the debris, these practices may
include decontamination (e.g., triple rinsing) or destruction..
SUMMARY
Because of the important role the LDRs may play in
Superfund removals early in the removal process. OSCs
need to incorporate the necessary investigative and analytical
procedures to determine if the LDRS are ARARs for on-
site removal alternatives that involve the “placement” of
wastes, and if compliance with the LDRs is practicable.
When the LDRs are ARARs and compliance is practicable
(or for off-site actions, when LDRs are applicable), OSCs
should determine if treatment processes can attain either the
LDR treatment standards or the alternate levels that would
be established under a Treaiabiliry Variance.
Once removal alternatives are identified, OSCs should
determine if alternatives involve placement of restricted
RCRA wastes, and if so, identify the BDAT constituents
requiring controL Ned , OSCs should evaluate those
alternatives that involve treatment and placement of
restricted RCR.A hazardous wastes to ensure the technology
process(ea) will attain the appropriate treatment levels (i.e.,
either the LDR treatment standard or Treatabiliry Variance
alternate treatment levels for restricted RCRA hazardous
wastes), and, in accordance with Superfund goals, reductions
of 90 percent or seater for Superfund primary contaminants
of concern). If a Treatability Variance is necessary, a
request for a Variance must be made in the Action
Memorandum (or in an amendment to the Action
Memorandum) and EE/CA Report, and public comment
solicited. The results of these evalunuons are also
documented in the Action Memorandum and EE/CA
Report. The inregeazion of the LDR.s into the removal
actions is illustrated in HighlIght 7.
HIghlight 7- LDRs IN ra REMOVAL PROCESS
1 1W uz iit at sl
I LD s
-. LaM .
r....l sl in a
o
lmm
r .4y W
LO
asaILII L.l .
I
1111
a LD vs
ism n4&ds
V.dw rn
v 1 .I
O nTr — —
L __ j _
•j ni i-.- u- a

-------
IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT LEVELS FOR A TREATABLLITY VARIANCE
As part o the removal investigation, it
records indicate were an l t04 waste).
identified as contanunanta found in the
has been determined that oils in one location at a site contain l 06 w es and cresots (which site
Arsenic also was found in sods at a separate location. Cadmium, chromium, lead, and arsenic were
highest concentrations. The concentration range of all of the constituents found at the site included
T —---.u

To hip
lmrlfl
Cadmium 2.2 0. 16.200
Chromium 3.160 . 4,390
Cyanides 80 - 150
Lead 500 - 625
120- 146 Nickel 100 - 140 1 - 6.5
30 - 56 Silver I • 3 —
I - 16 Creso l s 50. 600 .25 - 4
2 12.5 Arsenic - 1.900 3 • 9
Three removal aItcrnati es are being considered (1) l.ow temperature thermal stripping of soil contaminated with cresots followed by
stabilization of the ash. (2) Stabilization of the soil in a mobile unit, and (3) In-situ stabilization. Each of these alternatives must be evaluated
to determine if they will result in sigaificant reduction of the tosiaty, mobility, or volume of the waste, whether ‘plaeement occurs and if
placement’ oceurs, whether the treatment wiu attain LDR treatment standards or alternative treatment levels established through a Treatability
Variance for the BDAT constituents requiring control
SIW L lD ’4T1PY ‘nIB R TRIC1 ’ ) P ’ITrUE lTS
• Because F006 and P004 wastes have been identified at the site, the Superfund site manager must meet the treatment standards or alternate
treatment levels estsblis ed through a Treatabiliry Variance for the BDAT constituents These constituents axe Cadmium, Chzoniauiu, Lead,
NickeL S 1Mr. and Cyanide for F006 and Cresob for P004
AND DIVIDE TIIB ITflJU11S iN THUR SI ’RUCflJRAL/PUNCTIONAL GROUPS (see I1 lig ” 4
• All of the P006 constituents are in the lans n sinictural/functional oup
• Cresots are in the O Pn Oe szructural/funcnonal up
• In accordance with pro am goals. the preferred remedy also should result in the effective reduction (i.e. at least 90 percent) of all pnn iy
constituents of concern (i.e. Cadninan, (lzomiuni , Laid, A ) -
&r (X)MPARE ‘ nIB C 3N( 4’I ’RA11ON THR HOLD IOUND N HIGHLIGIII’ 6 ‘m THE (X)N IFRA11O POUND AT ‘nIB
Th AND O4OO UTh THE CONC 4TRATION LEV RANGE OR P 4T RU)UCI’ION RANGE POR EAGI
R TRIC U P IT F.
Site I o ld A,. atc Raage ____
C t Caneenzrase Conmotiation ConmaxtaDon £er __
Ranga to be reves1
(co —
Cadmium
120 -
146 ppm
>
40 ppm
X 95-99
9 Pervert Reduction
(TCLP)
Chromium
30.
56 ppm
<
120 ppm
X
03 - 6 ppm
(1tLP)
Lead
2 .
123 ppm
<
300 ppm
X
01 - 3 ppm
(TCLP)
Nickel
I -
6.5 ppm
<
20 ppm
X
03 - 1 ppm
(1’CLP)
Cresols (Total) SO -
Cresols (TCLP) 25
600 ppm
- 4 ppm
>
100 ppm
X 90-999
Percent
Reduction (TCLP)
• Percent reductions for oxpeics based on stsbiliz tion nave not oeen nevetopea yet Fercent reductions based on total wasie assumed for
example purposes only.
SI 3: ID TIPY ThEA ’ n T TEQ 4OLOGIBS THAT ? I ’ ‘11th TREAT? 4T RAN
• Hl g i1 6 lists the technolc es that achieved the alternate treatment levels for each structwii/funcnocal poup
a Because cresols are present in relatively low concentratIons (aisumed for the purposes of this enample), a TCLP may be used to determine
if immobilization ruul in a sufficient reduction of mobility of this restricted RCRA h rdoua waste. (Measures to address any volat&zation
of oip.nies during immobilmetion pro es will be necessary)
• Immobilization also will temilt in the effective reduction in lcachability (i e.. at least 90 percent) of arsenic, a Superfund pnmarv contaminant
of concern.
AlL 1li of
Eff rsL
T lty,
pAll..:...
Mobility, Vo&mae?
p [ Ta,wu..
1 itk )AT
M Treaisbthty
frI ia
Vazia ce
Levek’
I
Low temperature stripptnzJ
Stabilization
Yes
Yes
No (not for craaols)’
Yes
2
Stabilization in mobile unit
Yes
Yes
No (not for cresols)
Yes
3
In-ama stabilization
Yes (Mobility)
No (LDR5
not AEARs) —
—
Treat.abihty studies indicated the standard could not be met consistently for all soils cont i. atid with cresols.
• The Agency determined that stabilization of wastes in a mobile unit is the preferred alternative. The next step is to seek and Obtain a
Trcatabthry Variance for the preferred alternative in the Action Memorandum or EE/CA Report.

-------
CERCLA Section 121(d)(2) specifies that on-site Superfund remedial . ions shall Jlnnin othgt Federal standards,
reqwrements, aiteria, limitations, or more stringent State requirements that arc determined to be legally applicable
or relevant and appropriate (ARAR) to the specified drcums nces at the tiLe.’ In a 4di1ion , the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) requires that on sizc removal actions IIt?2i1 ARARs to the ement practicable. Off-site removal and
remedial actions must comply with legally applicable requirements. This guide outlines the process used to determine
whether the Resource Cooserviidoa and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal res 1cdoos (LDRs) established under
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are ‘relevant and appropriate’ to en on-site CERCL4 response
action. (See Superfund LDR Guide #5 for dcter nit ii g when LDRs arc applicable to CERCLA response actions.)
The guide also provides examples of when the LDRs are Likely to be relevant and appropriate and when they are not.
With respect to conriiininiired soil and debris, EPA is undertaking a r l.. iiking to establish specific LDRs, until this
ruI nfring i.s completed, EPA generally will not consider the LDRs to be relevant and appropriate for soil and c bria
conr miniuted with hazardous substances that are not RCRA restricted wastes. More detailed guidance on Supe fund
compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
LDR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
DETERMINA1TONS
For on-site CERCLA responses that constitute
placement, and for which the LDRs have been
determined not to be applicable (i.e., the wastes being
placed arc not prohibited or restricted RCRA wastes),
site managers should evaluate whether the LDRs are
relevant and appropriate. As discussed in the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual (EPA.
August 8, 19 ), relevant and appropriate decisions
require best professional judgmnni of site-spca&
factors to determine whether a requ emcnt addresses
problems or dtua suffi’’ntly to the
circumstances of the r Lw . or remedial action
contemplated, and I wall-salted to the site, and
therefore, is bo re3ovai t and appropriate.
Section 3OO.4OO( )(2) of the proposed NCP (53 FR
at 51436 (December 21, t9 8)I 0 mIi ,w’j a number of
factors pertaining to CERCLA situations and pocenti l
ARARS which should be compared to determine
whether a requirement is both relevant and
appropriate. The four pertinent factors to compare
when evaluating the potential relevance and
appropriateness of the LDR3 are: (1) the aedon or
activities regulated by the requirement (e.g., placement
on the land) and the remedial action contemplated; (2)
the purpose of the requirement and the purpose of the
CERCLA adion (3) the substances regulated by the
requirement and the substances found at the CERCLA
site; and (4) the medium regulated or affected by the
requirement and the medium conri ,ninjiced or affected
ax the CERCI.A site. These factors are evaluated to
determine whether the cIrcumstances of the release
and remedial action contemplated are such that use of
the LDR requirements Is well-suited to CERCL.A
rmponit o vu .
The evaluation of the circumstances of a release
is conducted as part of the remedial investigation,
during which informati n is collected on cofirhfnini nf
sources, po’. ’ntiaJ routes of miçation, and potential
human and envuonmental receptors of concern. The
results of tá effort (which is itlriniirely documented
in the site characterization and baseline risk asa ssment
chapters of the RI/PS report) are used to establish
remedial a on objethves for the areas or media
cont.in n tcd at the site that pose a threat to hHn an
h skh and the envizonment. The site-specific
CERCLA response objectives of the remedial action
contemplated should be compared with the purpose or
objectives of the LDRs as a st step in deter’n’ning
the pot.ilr I relevance and appropriateness of the
LDRs (proposed NCP factors (a) and (e)I.
The objective of the LDRs is to achieve
reductions in the toLcixy and/or mobility of a
lEPA
Un tsd Sm
Env onms P on
OMonot
Sofid Wants and
Superfund LDR Guide #7
DirectIve 9347 3-OeFS
Dscsmøer ,989
Determining When Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs) Are Relevant
and ADDroDriate to CERCLA
Response Actions

-------
hazardous waste, based on application of the best
demonstrated available technology (BDAT), prior to its
land disposal. While this objective will often be
compatible with remedial alternatives designed CO
destroy highly concentrated, to c, and mobile materials
such as liquids, other remedial alternatives involving
treatment of the principal threats of a site may have
different objectives to which the LDRs are not well-
suited.
Once a decision is made that achieving BDAT
reductions in the toncixy and/or mobility of a waste
source is compatible with CERCLA response objectives
for the site, site managers should utili7e information on
waste constituents and matrices collected as part of the
site characterization to evaluate whether a CERCLA
waste is “suthciently imiI r ’ to a listed RCRA waste
code or family of waste codes (e.g., K048-K052,
petroleum refining wastes) such that the LDR standard
for that waste code is appropriate for the CERCLA
waste.
In deterTnining whether a CERCLA waste is
sufficiently cimilar , site managers should consider
whether the BDAT used to set the LDR standard
would be effective for the CERCLA waste.
(Technolo es other than those used to set the BDAT
standards may be considered, although they must be
regarded as capable of meeting the promulgated
concentration requirements) Although a constitueni.
by-constituent analysis is not necessary for relevant
and appropriate determinations, a general comparison
of the waste constituents and matrices is useful for
identifying waste codes to which a CERCLA waste may
be 5 irnib ,r , and therefore, helpful in the identification
of technolo es that may be appropriate for
consideration.
If a CERCI.A waste that consists of a complex
miature of several different wastes occurs in a different
medium (e.g , soil) or matrix (BDAT standards may be
established for specified matrices, such as wastewaters,
nonwastewaters, or both) from what is specified for a
particular restricted waste code or Onthinc
incompatible waste constituents, use of BDAT may not
be appropriate for that waste, and therefore, the LDRs
would not be relevant and appropriate [ proposed NCP
factor (b)J. It has been the experience of the
Superfund program that Treatabilicy Variances are
frequently necessary for soil and debris contaminated
with a restricted RCRA waste (see Superfund LDR
Guide #6A), because the promulgated LDR standards
are based on treating less complex matrices of
industrial process wastes. As a logical corollary to this
flndin& the Agency believes that LDRs generally would
not be “relevant and appropriate” requirements for soil
and debris contJlmin ted with fl .RCRA restricted
wastes. However, the Agency plans to undertake a
rulemaking that will presalbc applicable standards for
the treatment of soil and debris contaminated with
RCRA-reatricted wages. In the future, these standards
may be relevant and appropriate to the treatment of
soil and debris colitilniluijed with non-restricted wastes.
Fwnples illustrating the relevant and appropriate
determination process follow:
• A number of drums containing hazardous wastes
are discovered during a site investigation.
Although no written documentation or specific
knowledge of the source is available to identify
with certainty the origins of the wastes, the
Laboratory analyse.s indicate that they contain very
high concentrations of a predominantly Liquid
waste indicative of industrial waste streams.
Therefore, manmum destruction of t he drum
contents is established as the remedial action
objective. Due to the general similarit of the
bulk liquids to the spent solvents kited in the
FOO1-F005 waste codes, the CERCLA site
manager determines that use of incineration (one
of the BDAT identified in the solvent and djo,an
rule for that family of waste codes ou d be
technically suitable. Therefore, the LDRs would
be relevant and appropriate for an alternative
involving the treatment and placement f the
drummed waste.
• A CERCIA waste misture from an unknown
source is found to consist of wastes cimilar to
P021 dioain.containing wastes (i e. ctic’. nIa1n
constituents found in dionn-containing wastes)
and mercury. Because use of incineration . the
BDAT for dioxin-containing wastes ‘uld not
be compatible with a waste also u ’ouining
mercury, application of the LDR treatment
standards to this waste mi ure would no be
appropriate. Therefore, the LDRs would no be
relevant and appropriate to a CERCLA respi’irlse
involving the placement of this wwc mixture
(Alternate methods of treating the ‘iste might
still be necessary to satisfy both the (ER(LA
statutory requirement to utilize treatment i the
maximum estent practicable and the pr ‘iu am
expectations that are outlined in the rr”r” ed
NCP.)
NOTE: If the LDRs are determined to be
relevant and appropriate requirements for a
CERCI.A action (i.e., there is a close match
between the CERCLA and LDR objectives, and
a close match between the constituents/marnx of
the CERCLA waste and the constituents/matrix
of the relevant RCRA waste code), but the
treatment process involved in the remedy does
not achieve BDAT levels in the field as
anticipated, a Treatability Variance estabLishing
alternate treatment levels should be sought.

-------
- w
c__. * CC-14J $
D Sr 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
pqO
OFICE C
SCUD WASTE NO EMEPG NCY ESPQNSE
-
OSWER Directive No. 9347.2—01
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Land Disposal Restrictions as Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements for CERCLA contaminated Soil nd Debrs
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director’2A/’ 1A)’
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Bruce M. Diamond, Directo
Office of Waste Programs En(orcement
TO: Directors, Waste Management Division
Regions I, Iv, V, VII, VIII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Directors, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, vi
Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division
Region IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
PURPOSE
To transmit OSWER policy on the relevance and appropriateness
of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) to CERCLA responses
involving contaminated soil and debris.
BACKGROUND
As clarified in OSWER Directive 9347.1-02 (see attachment),
the LDRs are applicable to CERCLA responses only when such actions
constitute placement of a restricted RCRA waste. Therefore, if no
restricted RCRA wastes are identified in a Superfurid waste that is
being placed, the LDRs would not be applicable. Site-specific
questions have arisen, however, as to the relevance and

-------
f :.-ie LDR3 :c sc . nd •iecr:. fc :1.;: :: _
?C2. :esz::::a wastes. :.n :a.:...: _ar ec:on
: ‘ec :nat :ie con:arn:nazec 3.:... and ceor:.a - e
3:e :._.i c-
n. :es, soucn: :or.s :a::tn g:: e qua : rs on jre:te
snould e : s dered r s ;ant ard acor or:ate ;en :. a :.
n :ne Drocess of eveioc: .a acme :
and debr s vastes separate f:o :ne ::eatrnent szanda:f ogec
for indust::al rocess wastes.
OSWER ?OL:CY
- :m:’:: - t - d
c a CtC , :te _ Rs
-;enerai...v SOCUId -ct e cons:dere’: as relevant anc ccc: r cre
sc::. or deor:s that does not cor.:ain :eszr:cted RCRA wastes. The
‘v!nc iar.guaçe sou.d re cor’ c:ared into feas:c ._:y srid;
d:scs:ons, ::occ ed lens and the “ rnnlianca warn
section of future RODs for situaz: ns samalar to me coove e: arncie:
The Agency is undertakang a rulema ang that wil
specifacaiiv acolv to soil and debris. Since that
rulemak:nc as not vet com lets, EPA does not consider LDR
to be relevant and appropriate at this site to soil and
debris that does not contain RCRA restricted wastes.
Should you nave any questions regarding this polacy, olease
contact you: Reg:onal Coordanators in the Hazardous S:te C3nt:ol
Divasaon, the CERCLA Enforcement Division, or Steve Golian (FTS
475—9750) in the S1Z9 Policy and Guidance Branco.
. ttacnment
cc: Sylvia E.owrance, CSW

-------
OVERVIEW OF THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
CONTENTS
o Training Course
o Appendices
I 40 CFR Part 268 (revised as of July 1,
1989)
II Third Third Preamble and Regulation (55
Fed. Reg. 22520, June 1, 1990)
III Second Third Preamble and Regulation (54
Fed. Reg. 26594, June 23, 1989)
IV First Third Preamble and Regulation (53
Fed. Reg. 31138, August 17, 1988)
V Type of LDR Restriction in Effect for
Each RCPA Hazardous Waste Code
VI Treatment Standards and Effective Dates
VII Superfund LDR Guides
VIII Names and Locations of Commercial
Facilities Operating in 1988
IX Policy Memoranda
x BDAT List Compounds Within Each
Structural Functional Group
XI Course Evaluation Form

-------
COURSE
v )
Q

-------
OVERVIEW OF LDR PROGRAM
06055-78

-------
Statutory Background (cont)
• To achieve these objectives, Congress directed EPA to:
“...promulgate regulations specifying those levels
or methods of treatment, if any, which
substant!ally 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.”
• Congress prohibited land disposal of hazardous wastes
based on a statutorily mandated schedule (i.e., “hammer
provisions”)

-------
Key Provisions of Land Disposal Restrictions
• Treatment standards must be met prior to disposal
• Treatment is not evaded by long-term storage
• There is actual treatment rather than dilution
• Recordkeeping and tracking follow a waste from cradle to
grave
• Certification verifies that the treatment standard has
been met
06055 81

-------
Statutory Background
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984
significantly expand the scope of RCRA, minimize reliance
on land disposal, and restrict wastes that continue to be
land disposed. HSWA’s primary objectives:
-- Protecting human health and the environment
-- Managing hazardous wastes properly in the first
instance; and
-- Minimizing generation and land disposal of
hazardous wastes

-------
Definition of Land Disposal
For purposes of the LDR program, land disposal includes
any placement of hazardous waste in a
-- Landfill
-- Surface impoundment
-- Waste pile
Injection well
-- Land treatment facility unit
-- Salt dome or salt bed formation
-- Underground mine or cave
Placement occurs when restricted wastes are stored,
treated, or disposed of on or in the land
0605582

-------
Overview of the Land Disposal
Restrictions’ Rulemakings
• Solvent and dioxins rule
-- November 7, 1986 (51 FR 40572)
-- Prohibited disposal of certain spent solvent and
dioxin-containing wastes
-- Established the framework of the LDR program
‘3

-------
Overview of the Land Disposal
Restrictions’ Rulemakings (cont )
• “California list” rule
-- July 8, 1987 (52 FR 25760)
-- Prohibited disposal of certain California list
wastes which include liquid hazardous wastes
containing
- Free cyanides greater than or equal to 1000
ppm
- Certain concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, or
thallium
- PCB greater than or equal to 50 ppm
06055 64

-------
Overview of the Land Disposal
Restrictions’ Rulemakings (cont )
-- California list wastes also include:.
- Liquid and nonliquid hazardous wastes
containing halogenated organic compounds
> 1000 mg/I
- Liquid hazardous wastes having a pH <2.0
5 85

-------
Overview of the Land Disposal
Restrictions’ Rulemakings (cont )
• First Third wastes
-- August 17, 1988 (53 FR 31138)
-- Prohibited the disposal of certain wastes contained
in the first third of schedule (Section 268.10)
-- Established “soft hammer” provisions
0605586

-------
Overview of the Land Disposal
Restrictions’ Rulemakings (cont )
• Second Third wastes
-- June 23, 1989 (54 FR 26594)
-- Prohibited the disposal of certain Second Third,
soft-hammer First Third, Third Third wastes, and
newly listed wastes

-------
Overview of the Land Disposal
Restrictions’ Rulemakings (cont )
• Third Third wastes
-- June 1, 1990 (55 FR 22520)
-- Prohibited the disposal of the remaining scheduled
wastes, characteristic wastes, and several newly
listed wastes
-- Included revisions to and clarifications of the LDR
framework
06055 88

-------
Overview of the Land Disposal
Restrictions’ Rulemakings (cont )
With the promulgation of the Third Third final rule:
1. Treatment standards have been promulgated for all
wastes listed or identified as hazardous in 1984,
as well as a number of newly listed wastes
2. All soft hammer provisions disappear
3. Most of the California list prohibitions are
superseded by more specific treatment standards
39

-------
Overview of Land Disposal
Restrictions’ Rulemakings (cont )
• Future LDR rulemakings will address:
-- Newly listed wastes and wastes that exhibit the new
toxicity characteristic (TC)
-- Wastes newly subject to an existing characteristic, such
as mining wastes
-- Contaminated soil and debris
06055 90

-------
Definition of }‘Restrict
• Hazardous wastes for which an eftective date has passed
—.—.—--—--——————- —--——--——-——-—-——---------.-.---—---—-——----———-—-—--—-——-—————----.
but a treatment standard is not in effect (e.g., wastes with
a national capacity variance) - /- - -
Not necessarily subject to the prohibitions on storage
and dilution
O May not be subject to any land disposal prohibitions or
treatment standards because:
-- Exclusions in Sections 261 .2-261 .4
-- Treatability group does not go to a prohibited
form of land disposal

-------
O “Prohibited” wastes are restricted wastes that have a
treatment standard in effect
• Prohibited wastes are not exempt from the treatment
standards if mixed with non-prohibited wastes or
materials
- - Intentional mixing to evade treatment standard or
effective date is impermissible
Definition
0605592

-------
Applicability of LDR
• Treatment standards do not apply to the following:
-- Hazardous wastes disposed of/stored prior to
the effective date unless:
- There is new generation and new placement or
- The waste is removed from storage and destined
for land disposal
- - Wastes identified as hazardous after 11/84 unless standards
have been developed
.93

-------
Applicability of LDR (cont )
-- Generators exempt from RCRA
- Small quantity generators of less than 100
kg/month of hazardous wastes (1 kg/month of
acutely hazardous wastes)
-- Special exemptions
- Farmers disposing of their own waste
pesticides in accordance with Section 262.70
06055 94

-------
Applicability of LDR (cont)
Treatment standards apply not only to hazardous wastes,
but also to:
-- Hazardous wastes mixed with solid wastes
- Wastes derived from hazardous waste
-- Listed hazardous wastes mixed with non-solid wastes
-95

-------
Mixture Rule
Solid Waste Pile
Any mixture of solid waste and a
listed hazardous waste (except wastes
listed solely for a characteristic) is a
listed hazardous waste. Mixtures of
solid wastes and characteristic
hazardous wastes are hazardous only
if the mixture exhibits a characteristic.
Listed Waste
Listed Waste
+
F06033 1

-------
Derived-from Rule
• Any solid waste derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal
of a listed RCRA hazardous waste is itself a listed hazardous
waste. Solid wastes derived from a characteristic hazardous
waste are hazardous wastes only if they exhibit a characteristic.
Incinerator
Listed Waste
Wastewater
Bottom Ash is
Listed Waste
Listed Waste
Sludge is
Listed Waste
Treatment

-------
Contained-in Policy
Any mixture of a non-solid waste (e.g., ground water) and a RCRA
listed hazardous waste must be managed as a hazardous waste
as long as the material “contains” the listed hazardous waste.
The level at which the material no longer contains the waste is
determined by the Regions.
Ground
Treatment
to lO 6 risk
No longer “contains”
listed waste
Ground water contaminated with listed waste, 10-2 risk
FO6 33 3

-------
LDR TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

-------
Treatment Standards
Treatment standards are based on performance of existing
technologies (not risk-based)
O Treatment standards are set for wastewater and
nonwastewater “treatability groups”
- - Wastewaters generally are defined as wastes
containing less than 1 % total organic carbon (TOC)
total suspended solids (TSS)
-- Nonwastewaters generally are defined as wastes
containing greater equal to 1 % TOC or TSS
(except as noted in 268.2)
• Treatability groups may be further subcategorized
O6O5S 55

-------
Treatment Standards (cont )
Treatment standards can be:
-- Concentration levels for specific constituents of
concern, which must be attained prior to land
disposal . _t _ çpPp
-- Specified technologies, which must be used to treat
the waste prior to land disposal
56

-------
Treatment Standards Are Based On
Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT )
“Best”
-- Based on performance_data from well-designed and
well-operated systems
-- Provides st bstantial treatment of waste (i.e.,
substantially diminishes the toxicity of a waste or
iibfflal T TdIi iTFib likelihood of migration
of hazardous constituents)
“Demonstrated”
-- Treatment technologies currently in use
-- Generally full-scale treatment facility
• “Available”
-- Technologies must be available for purchase or lease
06055-57

-------
Concentration-Based Treatment Standards
• Do not specify the use of a particular technology
o Ensure that treatment technologies are operated at
conditions that will result in best demonstrated
performance
Allow the regulated community the greatest flexibility in
choosing treatment technologies
• Do not preclude the development of innovative
technologies

-------
Technology-Based Treatment Standards
Require the use of the specif ied technology for treatment — r
-- The required technologies are now described in Table 1
of Section 268.42
Are established when no analytical method is available to
measure compliance with concentration-based standards
The Agency believes that the technology is the most
appropriate method of treatment
06055 59

-------
, 3 )
Compliance Monitoring
Treatment facilities measure compliance using either an
extraction procedure (TCLP) or Total Waste Analysis
(TWA), as specified in the standard
-- TCLP: generally used for inorganic constituents
when stabilization was used to develop the standard .
A)
-- TWA: generally used for organic constituents when ) JJL f
a destruction or removal technology was used to
develop the standard
• Testing frequency is specified in the Waste Analysis Plan
(WAP)
S-60

-------
Introduction To Other Technical Requirements
0 Due to the complexity involved in the treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous wastes in the LDR program,
further guidance is needed to ensure the proper treatment
and disposal of hazardous wastes, such as for:
-- The storage prohibition
-- The dilution prohibition
-- Treatment in surface impoundments
06055-61

-------
St o rage P ro h I b itlo n — ° -A d- - r 7 -
O Storage in a land-based unit is land disposal £ / WcS - (
• Storage in a tank or container is permissible to accumulate
sufficient quantities necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal 4-- -- - (- ‘ - j L
• EPA has burden of proof on compliance in first year;
storer has burden of proof afterwards
• Wastes placed in storage prior to the effective dates of \ i 1
the LDRs are not subject to this prohibition J
II( 1r
a ‘

-------
Dilution Prohibition
• LDR dilution prohibition serves a twofold purpose:
-- To ensure actual treatment of hazardous
constituents, and
-- To ensure appropriate treatment
• Dilution to avoid an applicable treatment standard or
effective date is impermissible
• Does not preclude the addition of materials as part of a
legitimate treatment process
06055-63

-------
Dilution Prohibition (cont) (jJc ç(
• Dilution is impermissible when:
-- Characteristic is due to toxicity
-- A specific method is required as the treatment
standard
- Unless deactivation is the treatment standard
(except D003 reactive suif ides)
- Specified methods of treatment are not
required for characteristic wastes discharged
to Class I injection wells & - --
S64

-------
Dilution Prohibition (cont )
Dilution is not impermissible when the waste is rendered
non - hazardous i n:
-- A system that discharges to a Class I injection well
-- A system regulated under the Clean Water Act
(unless a specified method is the treatment
standard)
06055-65

-------
Dilution Prohibition/Aggregation for
Centralized Treatment
• Aggregation is not impermissible dilution if:
-- All prohibited wastes are amenable to the same
treatment
-- Treatment meets the appropriate standard
Aggregation is impermissible dilution when:
-- “Treated” by inappropriate methods or not treated
at all
-- Diluted to render the waste delistable

-------
Treatment in Surface Impoundments
Wastes which are otherwise prohibited from land disposal
may be treated in a surface impoundment or series of
impoundments provided that:
r
-- Treatment occurs in the impoundments
-- The surface impoundment meets minimum technological
requirements
-- Treatment residuals not meoting the applicable
treatment standard are,removed for subsequent
management within one year of entry into the
impoundment and are not aced into any other
surface impoundments
06055-67

-------
LDR Alternative Compliance Options
• Exceptions to the treatment standards are provided for
wastes:
-- That are subject to a national capacity variance
-- That are granted a case-by-case extension (268.5)
-- That are placed in an approved “no-migration unit” (268.6)
-- Meeting an alternative standard granted in a
treatability variance (268.44)
-- Meeting an alternative standard granted in an
equivalent treatment method petition (268.42)
-- Delisted
c 68

-------
National Capacity Variance and
Case-By-Case Extensions
Treatment standards are immediately effective unless a
• •••
national capacity variance is granted
• National capacity variances are based on national
treatment capacity
-- New effective date based on the earliest date on
which adequate capacity is available
-- Maximum extension is two years
06055 69

-------
National Capacity Variance and
Case-By-Case Extensions (cont )
EPA, p?L9,rant case-by-case extensions of the ff ye
dateAto generators demonstrating that:
1. Due to circumstances beyond the applicants’
control, capacity cannot reasonably be made
available by the effective date
2. A binding contractual commitment is in place to
provide capacity
Requires a rulemaking

-------
Applicable Provisions During Capacity Variances
The following provisions apply during a national capacity
variance and case-by-case extension if disposal is in a
landfill or surface impoundment:
-- Double liner
-- Leachate collection system
-- Ground-water monitoring
- - Section 268.7 paperwork requirements ( 4 —)
- - Any more generally applicable standards (e.g.,
California list)
0605$- 7 I

-------
No Migration Petitions
• Based on demonstration that there will be “no migration
of hazardous constituents...for as long as the waste
remains hazardous” to:
-- Air
-- Surface water
-- Ground water
—— Soil
Granted through a rulemaking
• Allows disposal of wastes not meeting the treatment
standards
• Facilities awaiting a decision on a petition must comply
with LDRs
72

-------
Variances from the Treatment Standard

A generator or treatment facility can apply for a
variance from the treatment standard (Section 268.44)
• Requires demonstration that waste is significantly
different (physically or chemically) such that treatment
standards cannot be met
O Rulemaking variance (national)
-- Establishes a new treatability group for that waste
and all similar wastes
-- Requires promulgation through Federal Register
06055 73

-------
Variances from the Treatment Standard (cont )
Administrative variance (site-specific)
-- Does not establish a new treatability group; only
applies to the waste at the site
- - Requires local public notice and comment, but is
not promulgated through Federal Register
5-74

-------
Variances from the Treatment Standard (cont)
Requests for a variance must:
-- Identify site and authorized contact person
-- Provide waste description and analysis
-- Describe treatment process believed to be
appropriate for the waste in lieu of BDAT
-- Include quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
information
06055•75

-------
Equivalent Treatment Method Petition
Available when the treatment standard is a specified
method (Section 26&42(b))
• Allows use of a different technology if demonstration is
made of performance equivalency

-------
Delisting
Delisting may be used to demonstrate that a listed waste
is nonhazardous and, therefore, not subject to any of the
RCRA Subtitle C regulations, including the LDRs
• The waste may not be impermissibly diluted to qualify for
delisting
The waste is a restricted hazardous waste until delisted,
subject to LDR prohibitions
06055-77

-------
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
O O55 B

-------
Waste Analysis Plan (WAP)
Regardless of what conditions are included in the permit,
the facility must comply with LDRs
WAP should address LDR requirements with as much
specificity as possible (e.g., include specific language
on testing frequency of various waste streams)
WAP should, however, contain a modification clause which
makes it easier to make future changes (e.g., pick up new
waste streams or make changes in treatment processes for
existing waste streams)
-- For example, the WAP could reference an attached
land ban analysis plan; any changes to the land ban
plan could be made without prior approval
060559

-------
Administrative Requirements
To monitor and enforce proper treatment, the LDR program
requires:
-- Recordkeeping
Notification
-- Certification
These requirements are established in 40 CFR 268.7
1 ---s-1o

-------
Administrative Requirements (cont )
Recordkeeping requirements apply to:
-- Generators
-- Treatment and storage facilities
-- Disposal facilities
Major recordkeeping requirements include:
-- Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest
-- Waste analysis plans (WAPs)
-- Certification
—— Notification
06055 -I I

-------
Generator Responsibilities
Generators must determine if their wastes are restricted
or prohibited
If the wastes are prohibited and do not meet the
applicable treatment standards, notification includes:
-- EPA Hazardous Waste Number
-- All applicable characteristic and listed waste
prohibitions
-- All appropriate treatment standards (most may be
referenced)
If the waste is prohibited and meets the treatment
standards, notification includes all the above plus a
certification that waste meets treatment standards
and has not been improperly diluted
5S-1 2

-------
Generator Responsibilities (cont )
Generator must develop WAPs for on-site treatment in
tanks and containers not subject to permit requirements:
-- Plan is self-implementing
-- Must be maintained as a facility record
- - Must be filed with EPA Region or State within 30
days of the activity
Generators must keep records of:
-- Where the waste was treated, stored, or disposed; or
-- Why the waste is not prohibited
06055 13

-------
Treatment Facility (TF) Responsibilities
TFs must comply with WAPs
TFs may use generator-supplied waste analysis
information, but must conduct independent corroborative
testing
EPA is developing guidance on determining appropriate
corroborative testing frequencies
TFs must certify that applicable treatment standards
have been met and send it to disposal facility

-------
Disposal Facility Responsibilities
Disposal facilities must comply with their WAPs
• The ultimate burden to prove proper treatment falls on
disposal facilities
Disposal facilities must conduct independent
corroborative testing
EPA is developing guidance on determining appropriate
testing frequencies
06055-IS

-------
Recordkeeping Process
. --- —- --- —S -— u- - —“c
Treatment Disposal
Generator Facility Facility
- o — -- —.oo oc.oooo o.
Manifest
Prohibited Wastes
Notification •
Requiring Treatment
Treated Wastes
Certification
Notification & Prohibited Wastes Not Requiring Treatment
Certification
®Must conduct independent and corroborative testing of wastes
17

-------
Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Requirements
SQGs subject to tolling agreements may provide a one-time
notification and certification
Tolling agreements, notification, and certification must
be kept for three years after termination or expiration
of the agreement
06055-16

-------
Requirements Applicable to Characteristic Wastes
Upon compliance with the treatment standard for wastes
that exhibit only a hazardous characteristic, off-site
tracking documents must be:
-- Retained by the generator r treater
-- Submitted to the EPA Re on_or authorized State
For on-site treatment and disposal, all documentation
must be retained in the facility’s operating record
5- 17

-------
TREATABILITY VARIANCES FOR SOIL AND DEBRIS
06055-1

-------
Contaminated Soil and Debris
o LDRs apply to soil and debris contaminated with
restricted wastes
Treatment standards may be inappropriate for soil and
debris
re r flaking will establish treatment standards for
soil and debris
EPA has developed draft guidance for obtaining
administrative treatability variances ?

-------
Placement Into a Unit Includes:
• Removal of wastes from a land disposal unit, treatment, and
redeposition of the wastes in the unit
F06033-7

-------
Placement Into a Unit Includes:
• Consolidation of wastes from other units or contaminated
areas into a land disposal unit
•1
1

-------
Placement Into a Unit is Not:
• Consolidation within a unit
i—i-
F06033 6

-------
Placement Into a Unit is Not:
• Treatment in situ
Microbes
‘4

-------
Placement Into a Unit is Not:
• Capping wastes in place
F06033-8

-------
Treatability Variances for RCRA/CERCLA Actions
Contaminated soil and debris may qualify for a
treatability variance
e
Case-by-case demonstrations hat standards are
inappropriate or unachievable are not necessary
Public notice and comment must be provided — Y - k- )
-- Can be factored into closure plan approval or
corrective action remedy selection process
o As an alternative, soil and debris may meet appropriate
levels or percent reductions outlined in Superfund LDR
Guide #6A (OSWER Directive 9347.3-O6FS, July 1989)
060553

-------
Effective Dates Specific to
Contaminated Soil and Debris
As of 8/8/90, contaminated soil and debris must be
treated to comply with the treatment standards except:
L jj 11/8/90 -- Solvent- and dioxin-containing soil and
debris from CERCLA response or RCRA
corrective actions
11/8/90 -- Soil and debris contaminated with California
list HOCs from CERCLA response actions or
RCRA corrective actions for which treatment
standards are based on incineration
— 6/8/91 -- All soil and debris contaminated with Second
Third wastes for which treatment standards
are based on incineration
06055 4

-------
Effective Dates Specific to
Contaminated Soil and Debris (cont )
5/8/92 - - All soil and debris contaminated with Third
Third wastes for which treatment standards
are based on incineration, mercury retorting,
or vitrification; all “inorganic solid debris”
contaminated with D004 through DOl 1
By 5/8/92, all contaminated soil and debris will be
subject to the LDR treatment standards
c cs- 5

-------
Interim Guidance Levels for Soil
and Debris Treatability Variances
Appendix VIII constituents divided into 12 groups based f
on physical and chemical properties
Each group has a “threshold influent concentration” (TIC) —
The appropriate interim level may take one of two forms, p ’- I-’-’
depending on constituent concentration in relation to the
TIC:
-- If constituent concentration  TIC, the waste is
treated to a level within a specified percent
reduction range
-- See Superfund LDR Guide #6A, July 1989
06055-6

-------
Example of Interim Guidance Levels for
Soil and Debris Treatability Variances
A site is contaminated with K062 containing constituent
concentrations:
-- Cr 100 ppm
-- Pb 400 ppm
The interim guidance levels for these constituents are:
TCLP TIC Percent Reduction
-- Cr 0.5 - 6 ppm 120 ppm 95 - 99.9
Pb 0.1 - 3 ppm 300 ppm 95 - 99.9
• Alternative treatment levels are:
-- Cr 0.5 - 6 ppm (concentration range  TIC)
n Ø557

-------
THIRD THIRD FINAL RULE
06055-18

-------
Overview of the Third Third Rule
o Final rule signed May 8, 1990, and published June 1, 1990
(55 FR 22520)
• Effective date for treatment standards is August 8, 1990,
except for wastes with a longer national capacity
variance
0 Final rule affects about 5,100 waste streams at 110
facilities and over 1,700 generators
0 Regulatory impact analysis (RIA) estimates annual
compliance costs range from $353 to $439 million
- -c;g

-------
Overview of the Third Third Rule (cont )
Four major industrial sectors incur most costs:
-- Electric, gas, and sanitary services
-- Chemical and allied products
-- Primary metals production
-- Petroleum refining
00055-20

-------
Overview of the Third Third Rule (cont )
Treatment standards were developed for:
Approximately 350 listed wastes
Five newly listed wastes
• Characteristic wastes
Other hazardous wastes:
-- Mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes
-- Multi-source leachate
-- Lab packs containing RCRA hazardous wastes
‘ O55 21

-------
Overview of the Third Third Rule (cont )
Treatments standards for characteristic wastes
O Dilution prohibition
Mixed wastes
Multi-source leachate
Lab packs
Inorganic solid debris
06055 22

-------
Overview of Treatment Standards
• EPA established three types
-- Concentration-based (Sections 268.41 and 268.43)
-- Technology-based (Section 268.42)
-- Deactivation (Appendix VI)
23

-------
Treatment Standards: Characteristic Wastes (cont)
Concentration-based treatment standards
-- Do not specify a particular technology for treatment but only
that the treatment level be achieved
-- Pesticide nonwastewaters are all below the characteristic level
-- Metal nonwastewaters and wastewaters are at the characteristic
level
- Except for selenium nonwastewaters, which is slightly higher
than the characteristic level
105C0530

-------
Treatment Standards: Characteristic Wastes (cont)
• Characteristic wastes with concentration-based treatment
standards below the characteristic level
Waste Code/Subcategory Concentration
D003 reactive cyanides*
wastewaters
D003 reactive cyanides*
no nwastewate rs
DOl 2 (endrin) nonwastewaters
DOl 3 (lindane) nonwastewaters
DOl 4 (methoxychlor) nonwastewaters
DOl 5 (toxaphene) nonwastewaters
DOl 6 (2,4-d) nonwastewaters
DOl 7 (2,4,5-tp silvex)
nonwastewaters
There is no characteristic level for cyanides
Reserved (total cyanides)
0.86 mg/I (amenable cyanides)
590 mg/kg (total cyanides)
30 mg/kg (amenable cyanides)
0.13 mg/I
0.066 mg/I
0.18mg/I
1.3 mg/I
10.0 mg/I
7.9 mg/I
537

-------
Treatment Standards: Characteristic Wastes (cont)
• Characteristic wastes with concentration-based treatment
standards at the characteristic level
Waste Code/Subcategory Concentration
D004 (arsenic) 5.0 mg/I
0005 (barium) 100 mg/I
D006 (cadmium) 1.0 mg/I
D007 (chromium) 5.0 mg/I
D008 (lead) 5.0 mg/I
D009 (mercury) wastewaters 0.2 mg/I
D009 (low mercury <260 ppm) 0.2 mg/I
nonwastewaters
DOlO (selenium) wastewaters 1.0 mg/I
DOl 1 (silver) 5.0 mg/I
0500538

-------
Treatment Standards: Characteristic Wastes (cont)
• Characteristic wastes with concentration-based treatment
standards above the characteristic level
Waste Code/Subcategory Concentration
DOlO (selenium) 5.7 mg/I
no nwastewaters

-------
Treatment Standards: Characteristic Wastes (cont)
• Technology-based treatment standards
-- Require the use of the specified technology for treatment
-- Established as the treatment standard when no means of calculating
valid concentration-based standards are available, or
-- The Agency believes that the technology is the most appropriate
method of treatment
-- The required technologies are described in Table 1 of
method of treatment
-- Pesticide wastewaters, high TOO DOOl (ignitables), Cd and Pb
batteries, and high Hg nonwastewaters have specified methods
of treatment required
1050054 I

-------
Treatment Standards: Characteristic Wastes (cont)
Characteristic wastes with technology-based treatment standards:
Waste Code/Subcategory
DOOl ignitable liquids
high TOC
(>10%) nonwastewaters
D006 cadmium-containing
batteries
D008 lead acid batteries
D009 (high mercury  260 ppm)
nonwastewaters
D012 (endrin) wastewaters
0013 (lindane) wastewaters
DOl 4 (methoxychlor) wastewaters
DOl 5 (toxaphene) wastewaters
DOl 6 (2,4-d) wastewaters
D017(2,4,5-tp silvex)
wastewate rs
Treatment Standard
Incineration/fuel substitution!
recovery treatment
Thermal recovery
Thermal recovery
Roasting/retorting, or incineration
followed by roasting/retorting
Incineration or biodegradation
Incineration or carbon adsorption
Incineration or wet air oxidation
Incineration or biodegradation
Incineration; chemical oxidation or
biodegradation
Incineration, biodegradation, or chemical
oxidation
36

-------
Treatment Standards: Characteristic Wastes (cont)
Deactivation
-- The treatment standard for many subcategories of DOOl, D002,
and D003 wastes is listed in Section 268.42 as “deactivation,”
which means remove the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity,
or reactivity
-- The technologies recommended for each of these waste codes
are referenced in Appendix VI of the final rule
-- EPA determined that many technologies, when used alone or in
combination, can achieve this standard
f050051 1

-------
Treatment Standards: Characteristic Wastes (cont)
• Characteristic wastes with a treatment standard of deactivation:
DOOl ignitable liquids - low TOC nonwastewaters
DOOl ignitable reactive nonwastewaters
DOOl ignitable compressed gases
DOOl oxidizers
D002 acidic corrosives
D002 alkaline corrosives
D002 other corrosives
D003 water reactives - nonwastewaters
D003 reactive sulf ides
D003 explosives
D003 other reactives
S

-------
Dilution Prohibition
LDR dilution prohibition serves a twofold purpose:
-- To ensure actual treatment of hazardous
constituents; and
- To ensure appropriate treatment
Dilution to avoid an applicable treatment standard or
effective date is impermissible
G Does not preclude mixture as part of legitimate treatment
06055 24

-------
Dilution Prohibition (cont)
- - -- / C
Dilution is impermissible for characteristic wastes when:
-- Characteristic is due to toxicity
Specific methodAis required
- S 4% - &#
k- -
Unless deactivation is treatment standard
(except D005 reactive sulfides)
Specified methods of treatment are not
required for characteristic wastes discharged
to Class I injection wells
L
J
/
i 2—
I
(
0605525

-------
Dilution Prohibition (cont )
Dilution is not impermissible when waste is rendered
nonhazardous in:
-- A system that discharges to a Class I injection
well
-- A system regulated under the Clean Water Act
(unless a specified method is the treatment
standard)
06055-26

-------
Dilution Prohibition/Aggregation
For Centralized Treatment
Aggregation is not impermissible dilution if:
-- All restricted wastes are amenable to the same
treatment
-- Treatment meets BDAT
Aggregation is impermissible dilution when the wastes
are:
-- “Treated” by inappropriate methods or not treated at all
-- Diluted to render the waste delistable
( S5-27

-------
Dilution Prohibition Example A
Facility A generates an EP toxic pesticide wastewater that it
mixes in tanks with other wastewater so that the characteristic
is removed. After mixing, the aggregated wastewaters are
discharged to waters of the United States under an NPDES
EP Toxic Pesticide
Wastewater
Other Nonhazardous)
Wastewater
Jc -r’
—C
Below Characteristic
Level
7-,
permit.
F06033 9

-------
Dilution Prohibition Example A (cont)
The dilution prohibition does not apply, because the wastewater
is not a prohibited waste; it is not being land disposed. The
waste is a restricted waste, and as such, the facility would need
a one-time statement in its operating record to this effect.
0

-------
Dilution Prohibition Example B
1
• Facility B generates an EP toxic metal nonwastewater that it
mixes in tanks with organic wastewaters so that the characteristic
is removed. After mixing, the aggregated wastes are ological y
treated in an unlined surface impoundment prior to discharge to
waters of the ii iinder an NPDES permit.
EP Toxic Metal
Nonwastewater
Nonhazardous
Organic Wastewaters
NPDES 
Below
Characteristic
Level
Treatment
Impoundment
F060331 1

-------
Dilution Prohibition Example B (cont)
While biological treatment of metal-bearing wastewaters
generally constitutes impermissible dilution, EPA has excluded
characteristic wastes treated in wastewater treatment systems
regulated by the Clean Water Act from the dilution prohibition
(except those wastes subject to a specified method). The waste
stream is a prohibited waste and subject to the recordkeeping
requirements of Section 268.7 and the storage prohibition.
312

-------
Dilution Prohibition Example C
Facility C generates a wastewater that is corrosive and EP toxic
for a pesticide. It is mixed in tanks with other wastewaters so
that both characteristics are removed. The aggregated mixture
is then injected into a Class I UIC well.
Corrosive and
EP Toxic Wastewater’N
Other Nonhazardous/
Wastewate rs
Class I
UIC Well
Below Characteristic
Level
F0603313

-------
Dilution Prohibition Example C (cont)
While a restricted waste at the point of generation, this waste
is not prohibited because it is injected below the characteristic
level in a Class I injection well. See Section 268.1(c)(3).
Therefore, it is not subject to specified methods or the dilution
prohibition, but is subject to recordkeeping requirements and
the storage prohibition.
3I4

-------
Dilution Prohibition Example D
I Facility D generates a wastewater that is a listed hazardous waste
that contains metals for which EPA has established treatment
standards. The facility aggregates this waste with organic
wastewaters that are generated on-site so that the metal levels in
the aggregated wastewaters are below the treatment standard.
The aggregated mixture is then sent to a surface impoundment
for biological treatment and then discharged to waters of the
United States.
1¼
Listed Waste Impoundment
With Metals
(Wastewater) Metal Levels NPDES
Below
Organic Wastewater Treatment
Standard
Biological
Treatment
F0603315

-------
Dilution Prohibition Example D (cont)
The dilution prohibition is violated. EPA does not consider
biological treatment to be an appropriate mode of treating metal-
bearing toxic wastes (i.e., waste for which there are treatment
standards for inorganic hazardous constituents). Any metal
removal is incidental because the treatment technology is not
designed to remove metals. In addition, removals are at a rate
that is considerably less efficient than could be achieved by
chemical precipitation. Thus, dilution is used as a substitute
for treatment of the listed waste and is illegal.
i16

-------
Overview of Third Third Wastes:
Mixed Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes
Radioactive materials mixed with RCRA hazardous wastes
Must meet BDAT treatment standards for RCRA waste codes
Separate BDAT treatment standards for four types of mixed
wastes
All mixed wastes have been granted a two-year national
capacity variance
-- Except those containing solvents, dioxins, or
California list wastes
-- Subject to recordkeeping requirements
-- If placed in a surface impoundment or landfill,
must be a minimum technology unit
EPA will clarity the status of storage by August 8, 1990
06055 28

-------
Treatment Standards: Mixed Hazardous and
Radioactive Waste
Specified methods of treatment are required for the
following:
Waste Code/Subcategory Treatment Standard
D002, D004-DO1 1 radioactive Vitrification
high-level wastes generated
during reprocessing of fuel rods
D008 radioactive lead solids Macroencapsulation
D009 radioactive elemental Amalgamation
mercury
D009 mercury-containing Incineration
hydraulic oil
06055 -29

-------
Overview of Third Third Wastes:
Multi-source Leachate (F039)
Defined as any liquid, including any suspended components
in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained
from hazardous waste.
EPA proposed two regulatory options for multi-source
leachate:
-- Continued application of treatment standards for
the waste codes that were land disposed (i.e.,
waste code carry through)
Application of one fixed set of wastewater
treatment standards and one set of nonwastewater
treatment standards for all multi-source leachate
and treatment residues
06055 30

-------
Overview of Third Third Wastes:
Multi-source Leachate (F039) (cont )
EPA adopted the second option and designated multi-source
leachate as F039
Surface-disposed multi-source leachate nonwastewaters
have a two-year capacity variance
06055.31

-------
Treatment Standards: Multi-Source Leachate (F039 )
EPA established two treatability groups:
wastewaters and nonwastewaters
• Both treatability groups have about 230 constituent
concentration levels
-- Includes treatment standards for dioxins and furans;
however, no special management standards apply
If leachate is derived from one or more dioxin wastes,
and no other wastes, then:
-- Multi-source leachate must be treated to meet
dioxin standards
-- Special management standards apply
0005532

-------
Overview of Third Third Wastes: Lab Packs
Containing RCRA Hazardous Wastes
All restricted wastes placed in lab packs are subject to
the LDRs
Lab packs used to dispose of small quantities of
commercial chemical products and analytical samples
• Lab packs may contain dozens of restricted wastes
Alternate treatment standards were promulgated for lab
packs that contain certain prohibited wastes:
-- Organometallic wastes specified in Part 268,
Appendix IV, and
-- Organic wastes specified in Part 268, Appendix V
06055-33

-------
Overview of Third Third Wastes: Lab Packs
Containing RCRA Hazardous Wastes (cont )
Unregulated wastes and regulated wastes that meet
BDAT standards may be included in these lab packs
May be packed in fiber packs
06055-34

-------
Treatment Standards: Lab Packs
• Organometallic lab packs (containing Part 268, Appendix
IV wastes):
-- Incineration and must meet EP toxicity metal levels
-- Can include certain:
- Inorganics
Organics
- D002 corrosives
- D003 reactives
-- No mercury
• Organic lab packs (containing Part 268 Appendix V
wastes):
-- Incineration
55 35

-------
Treatment Standards: Lab Packs (cont )
EPA is not promulgating the proposed alternate treatment
standard for inorganic wastes due to concerns about
unverified stabilization of variable waste streams
If PCBs and dioxins are present, the more stringent
standards for these apply
Treatment facility must be notified in writing of each
RCRA hazardous waste contained in the lab pack
06055-36

-------
Overview of Third Third Wastes:
D004-DO1 1 Inorganic Solid Debris
A separate treatability group was established for
inorganic solid debris contaminated with characteristic
metal wastes
Inorganic solid debris is composed of:
-- Metal slags (either dross or scoria)
-- Glassified slag
-- Glass
-- Concrete (excluding cementitious or pozzolanic
stabilized hazardous wastes)
-- Masonry and refractory bricks
-- Metal cans, containers, drums, or tanks
-- Metal nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps, valves,
appliances, or industrial equipment
-- Scrap metal (as defined in 40 CFR 261 .1 (c)(6))
c ’ ’c5-37

-------
Overview of Third Third Wastes:
D004-DO1 1 Inorganic Solid Debris (cont )
Grinding, crushing, or cutting is required prior to
stabilization to achieve standards
The treatment standards are the same as for the
characteristic metal wastes
A two-year national capacity variance has been granted
for this treatability group
06055 38

-------
Treatment Standards: Petroleum Refining Wastes
(K048-K052 Nonwastewaters)
Treatment standards originally promulgated in the First
Third rule
K048-K052 nonwastewaters were rescheduled to May 8, 1990,
and granted a six-month national capacity variance
New treatment levels for all regulated organic
constituents were promulgated
Solvent extraction, incineration, and thermal desorption
can all be used to achieve the organic standards
Arsenic and selenium treatment standards were deleted
Treatment standard for nickel was revised from 0.048 mg/I
to 0.2 mg/I
0605539

-------
Treatment Standards: Overlaps
In most cases, California list prohibitions superseded by
more specific treatment standards. However, California
list prohibitions still apply to:
-- Liquid hazardous wastes with >50 ppm PCBs
-- HOC wastes that are characteristic for something
other than HOCs
-- Liquid wastes containing nickel or thallium
California list prohibitions apply during national
capacity variances
06055-40

-------
Treatment Standards: Application
In general, the more waste code-specific treatment
standard applies: treatment standards for listed and
characteristic wastes generally supersede California list
treatment standards
Exceptions:
-- If the waste is subject to a national capacity
variance
-- The listed waste standard does not address the
characteristic property or hazardous constituent
(e.g., nickel, PCBs)
06055-41

-------
Treatment Standards: Application (cont )
• When wastes with concentration-level treatment standards
are mixed with wastes for which treatment standards are
expressed as a method, the mixture must be treated by the
specified technology, and also meet the concentration-
level treatment standards
• A mixture of listed wastes with more than one applicable
concentration-level standard must meet the most stringent
standard
• Wastes that carry more than one characteristic code must
be treated to meet the standard for each characteristic
• A waste or its treatment residue exhibiting a
characteristic at the point of disposal must meet the
standard for the characteristic
06055 42

-------
Treatment Standards: Examples of Application
Example #1 Wastes with concentration-level standards mixed
with wastes with technology standards
A facility generates a waste stream consisting of waste
codes K025 and K097. K025 has a specified technology
standard of incineration. K097 has a concentration-
level standard determined by the performance of
incineration.
This waste matrix must be incinerated to comply with the
treatment standard for K025, and then tested to ensure
that the concentration level for K097 has been achieved.
06055-43

-------
Treatment Standards: Examples of Application (cont )
Example #2 A mixture of listed wastes with several applicable
concentration-level standards for the same
constituent
A facility produces a wastewater consisting of K069,
Ki 00, and K1 01. The standards for these wastes are: 0.51
mg/I in K069 and K100, and 0.11 mg/I in KiOl.
Since mixtures must meet the most stringent standard,
this waste stream must achieve 0.11 mg/I.
0605544

-------
Treatment Standards: Examples of Application (cont )
Example #3 A waste or its treatment residue exhibits a
characteristic at the point of disposal
A facility treats a wastewater containing D004 arsenic
waste and cadmium (but not EP toxic for cadmium) through
chemical precipitation. The concentrated residues that
result exhibit the characteristic of EP toxicity for
cadmium (D006).
The residues must be treated to meet the D006 treatment
standard.
060 SS-45

-------
Treatment Standards: Examples of Application (cont )
Example #4 Wastes that carry more than one characteristic code
A facility generates a waste stream consisting of a D002
acid with high concentrations of chromium (D007).
The waste must be neutralized to treat the D002 and
undergo chemical precipitation to treat the D007.
06055-46

-------
Effective Dates
The Third Third became eftective on May 8, 1990
A national capacity variance was granted for all wastes
affected by this rule; treatment standards do not have to
be met until August 8, 1990
During a capacity variance:
-- Minimum technological requirements apply
-- California list prohibitions apply
-- Recordkeeping requirements apply
Generators and TSDFs should make necessary changes to
their WAPs during capacity variance
“055-47

-------
National Capacity Variances for Surface
Disposed Wastes
Hazardous Waste Category Effective Date
Petroleum refining November 8, 1990
nonwastewaters (K048- K052)
Multi-source leachate nonwastewaters May 8, 1992
All scheduled mixed radioactive wastes May 8, 1992
Mercury nonwastewaters (D009, Ki 06, May 8, 1992
P065, P092, and U151)
Lead materials stored before May 8, 1992
secondary smelting (D008)
Arsenic nonwastewaters (D004, K031,
K084, KiOl, K102, POlO, POll, P012, May 8, 1992
P036, P038, and U136)
Osmium tetroxide waste (P087) May 8, 1992
Inorganic solid debris contaminated May 8, 1992
with characteristic metal wastes
0605548

-------
Summary of Two-Year National Capacity Variances
for Underground Injected Wastes
Required Alternative
Waste Code/Physical Form Treatment Technology
D009 (low mercury) nonwastewater Acid leaching and chemical
precipitation
D003 (cyanides) wastewater/ Alkaline chlorination
nonwastewater
D003 (sulfides) wastewater/ Chemical oxidation followed by
nonwastewater chemical precipitation
D003 (explosives, water reactives, Chemical oxidation followed by
and other reactives) wastewater/ chromium reduction and
nonwastewater chemical precipitation
D007 wastewater/nonwastewater Chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation
546

-------
Summary of Two-Year National Capacity Variances
for Underground Injected Wastes (cont )
Required Alternative
Waste Code/Physical Form Treatment Technology
D009 wastewater Mercury retorting
D002 wastewater/nonwastewater* Neutralization
KOll, K013 and K014 wastewaters; Wet-air oxidation
and KOl 4 nonwastewaters
F039 wastewaters Wet-air oxidation followed by
carbon adsorption followed by
chemical precipitation; biological
treatment followed by chemical
precipitation
* Deep well injected D002 liquids with a pH less than 2.0 must meet the California
list prohibitions on August 8, 1990.
10500547

-------
Detection Limits and Compliance Monitoring
Analytical methods may be unable to demonstrate
compliance with treatment standards
For organics, compliance can be demonstrated by:
-- Treating the waste with a combustion BDAT process,
and
-- Making a good-faith effort to achieve maximum
analytical sensitivity
• EPA will develop additional guidance to define good-faith
effort
0605549

-------
Problems for Discussion
Problem #1
A certain cadmium waste stream is TC toxic but not EP
toxic. What, if any, LDR treatment standards apply?
— )
I -e . & c L
2 G ‘
0605550

-------
Problems for Discussion (cont )
Problem #2
A facility generates an F024 wastewater containing PCBs
(>50 ppm). What, if any, treatment standards apply?
C - S
(‘ c5 51

-------
Problems for Discussion (cont )
Problem #3
A facility is going to dispose of a leachate derived from
waste code K096 with a TOC content greater than 1%.
What, it any, treatment standards apply?
__ ___ 0 5
-
06055-52

-------
Problems for Discussion (cont)
Problem #4 -(
4b J - -) --

A facility disposes of F006 cyanide wastewaters on
May 9, 1990. What, if any, requirements apply?
JI
06055-53

-------
I

-------
§ 267.44
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition) Environmental Protection Agency
Part 268
assure compliance with § 267 10 An
unsaturated zone monitoring program
must Include an unsaturated zone
monitoring system at the facility or at
a representative test plot, as well as
procedures for sampling, analysis and
evaluation of data. The unsaturated
zone monitoring program requIred by
this paragraph must reflect a consider-
ation of
(a) The placement and depth of
monitoring wells that is ne’cessary to
obtain a representative sample of the
success of waste treatment in the facil-
ity,
(b) Soil characteristics, including its
p11, its permeability and the level of
microbial activity in the soil.
(c) Climatic conditions in the area,
(d) The potential for rapid migration
of waste constituents through the soil,
and
(e) The accessibility of the monitor-
ing system devices for maintenance
and repair
§ 267 44 Closure and post-closure
(a) A land treatment facility must be
closed in a manner that will comply
with § 267.10 of this part The closure
plan tinder § 264 112 of this chapter
must specify the measures which will
be used to satisfy this paragraph
Proper closure of a land treatment fa-
cility must reflect a consideration of
(1) The type and amount of waste
applied to the facility,
(2) The mobility and expected rate
of migration of the waste,
(3) Site location, topography and
surrounding land use,
(4) Climatic conditions in the area.
including the amount, frequency and
pH of precipitation.
(5) Geologic and soil profiles and
surface and subsurface hydrology of
the site, including cation exchange ca-
pacity. total organic carbon and pH of
the soil, and
(6) Unsaturated zone monitoring in-
formation obtained under § 267 43
(b) A land treatment facility must be
maintained in a manner that, complies
with § 267 10 of this part during the
post-closure period The post-closure
plan under § 284 118 of the, chapter
must specify the procedures that will
be used to satisfy this paragraph
Proper maintenance of a land treat-
ment facility during the post-closure
period must reflect a consideration of:
(1) The type and amount of waste
applied to the facility.
(2) The mobility and expected rate
of migration of the waste.
(3) Site location, topography and
surrounding land use,
(4) Climatic conditions In the area,
including the amount, frequency and
i)H of precil)iiation,
(5) Geologic .tnd soil profiles and
surface and subsurface hydrology of
the site, including cation exchange ca-
pacity, total organic carbon and pH of
the soil,
(6) Unsaturated zone monitoring in-
formation obtained under § 267 43;
and
(7) The maintenance of any ground-
water monitoring system at the facili-
§ 267 *5 Treciment of waste
The Regional Administrator may
waive any of the requirements In
§ 267 21, § 267.22 or § 267 23 of this
subpart where necessary to achieve
treatment of hazardous waste in a
land treatment facility, provided that
the waiver does not result in non-com-
pliance with § 267 10
§ 267 46 Additionui requirements
The Regional Administrator may
place additional requirements on
owners or operators of new land treat-
ment facilities, besides those otherwise
required by this subpart, where neces-
sary to comply with § 267 10 of this
part
Subpart F—Ground-Water Monitoring
§ 267 50 Applit.sbility.
Each new hazardous waste landfill.
surface impoundment, or land treat-
ment facility must have a ground-
water moiiitom ing program, which In-
ciudes a ground-water monitoring
system, piocedures for sampling, anal-
ysis and evaluation of ground-water
data. and ai iiropi tale response proce-
diires
267 I I . iiii iid- .11 cr i.ii,iiiI on ug systeili
The ground-water system required
by this subpart must be capable of de-
termining the facility’s impact on
ground-water in the uppermost aqui-
fer so as to assure complIance with
§ 267.10 of this part. The design of the
ground-water monitoring system must
reflect a consideration of
(a) The placement and depth of
monitoring wells that is necessary to
obtain a representative sample of con-
stituents in the uppermost aquifer, in-
cluding those present in the ground-
water upgradk’nt From the facility.
(b) Measures such as casing winch
maintain the integrity of the monitor-
Ing well bore hole, and
(C) Measures which prevent contami-
nation of ground-water samples
8267 52 Ground-water monitoring proce-
dures.
(a) The ground-water monitoring
procedures required by this subpart
must be capable of assuring compli-
ance with * 267 10 of this part. The
procedures must reflect a consider-
ation of.
(1) Sample collection procedures,
(2) Sample pieservation and ship-
ment procedures.
(3) AnalytIcal methods.
(4) Chain of custody control, and
(5) EvaluatIon procedures, including
methods for determining the extent
and rate of migration of waste con-
stituents
(b) The ground-water monitoring
procedures required by tins subpart
must include appropriate procedures
for when the ground-water monitoi ing
program indicates that the facility is
not in complIance with § 267 10 of this
part. Such response procedures must
be contained in the contingency plan
required by Subpart D of PalL 264
8267 53 Additional requirements
The Regional Administrator may
place additional ground-water moni-
toring requirements on owners or op-
erators of facilities subject to this
part. besides those otherwise required
by this subpart, where necessary to
comply with § 267 10 of this pat t
Subpart G—Underground Injection
§ 267 61) Appliniliiliiy
The regulations in this sub arL
apply to owners and operators of new
facilities that dispose of hazard waste
in underground injection wells which
are classified as Class I under
§ 122 32(a) of this chapter
8 267 61 General design requirements
An injection well must be designed
to comply with § 267.10 of this part.
The facility design must. include meas-
ures (eg casing, tubing and packer
set) to prevent the escape of injected
fluids to the area above the zone of in-
jection.
§ 267 62 General operating requirements.
An injection well must be operated
in a manner that will comply with
§ 267 10 of this part The methods for
operating the injection well must re-
flect a consideration of.
(a) The volume and physical and
chemical characterIstics of the waste
injected in the well.
(b) The injection pressure, and
(c) Monitoring measures to assure
that the mechanical integrity of the
well is maintained.
§ 267 6.1 Closure
An injection well must be plugged
and sealed at closure to prevent the
escape of injected fluids to the area
above the zone of Injection
§ 267 6l Additional rcqmiiremeiits
The Regional AdnministratOi may
place additional requirements on
owners and operators of new in3ection
wells, besides those otherwise required
by this subpart, where necessary to
comply with § 267 10 of this part
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
Subpart A—General
Sec
268 i Pu rpo e. scope, and ai)i,i a ,tbi iii y
268 2 i)cliiiitioUs 1 I 1 )$)iiC ,iiJlC to tins p.iiI
268 3 DIlution pioiiibiied .ts a stabstiLtiLe
Ioi Irt-airneot
21,11 4 i’i i ut flit itt ‘.iirf.it i’ Iiui)UiIiitiIlit itt ( 5—
ci option
268 5 Procedures for case-by-case exten-
sions to an effective date
‘146
747

-------
§ 268.1
Sec
2686 Petitions to allow land disposal of a
waste prohibited under Subpart. C of
Part 268
268 7 Waste analysis
268 8 I ,and liii nail sti rfiu ’e linpohli uiinvii I
(iIsiNr .iti a si I I toils
Subpart B—Schedule for Land Disposal Prohlbi.
tion and Establishment of Treatment
Standards
21 ,8 10 lcteiiiificntlon of wastes to be cvalii-
Reed by August 8. 1988
268 11 Identification of wastes to be cvniu
atedbyJune8 1989
288 12 Identification of wastes to be evahi-
aCed by May 8 1990
268 13 Schedule For wastes identified or
listed alter November 8, 1984
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land Disposal
268 30 Waste specific prohibit loiss—Solvi-ni
wastes
26831 Waste specific proliibllions—Dioxlii-
containing wastes
26832 Waste specific prohibitions—Cali-
fornia list wastes
268 33 Waste specific prohibitions—First
third wastes
268 34 Waste specific prohibitions—second
third wastes
Subpart 0—Treatment Standards
28840 Appiirability of tri’atineiit staiid-
ards
26841 Treatment standards expressed as
concentrations in waste extract
26842 Treatment standards expressed as
specified technologies
26843 Treatment standards expressed a,s
waste concentrations (Iteservcd)
268 44 Variance From a treatineiit stand-
ard
Subpart E—Prahibltioni on Storage
268 50 Prohibitions on storage of restricted
wastcs
Arpasoix i—’Fc,xiciry Ciisiisi-i Hus ru
LEAchiNG l’iioi FI)IJI 1E (TCLi’)
APPENDIX Il—TREArMINT SrANDAI 1DS (As
CONCENTRATIONS IN TIlE TREATMFNT RL
SIDUAL EXTRACT)
APPENDIX Ill—LIST OF ilAiec.FNATH1 ORGaN-
IC COMI’OLJNDS 1 E(.ULATiD (Iaiwii § 268 32
AUTHORITY 42 USC 6905. 6912( 0) 6921.
and 6924
Subpart A—General
Solini F 51 i-It 1(1638, Ni,v ‘1, 191(1,, IIille-, ,
otherwise noted
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 EdItion)
§ 2681 Purpose, scope and applicability.
(a) This part identifies hazardous
wastes that are restricted from land
disposal and defines those limited cir-
cunistances under which an otherwise
ii roli ibi ted wa_st e ii iay emil Iiuii’ lo l u’
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 facili-
ties
(c) Prohibited wastes may continue
to be land disposed as follows
(1) Where persons have been grant-
ed an extension to the effective date
of a prohibition tinder Subpart C of
tills part or pursuant to § 268 5, with
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension,
(2) Where persons have been grant-
ed an exemption from a prohibition
pursuant to a petition under § 268.6.
with respect to those wastes and units
covered by the petition,
(3 Where the waste is generated by
sneull quantity generators of less titan
100 kllogiams of non acute liazaidous
wastes per month or less than 1 kilo-
grain acute hazardous waste per
month, as defined in § 261 5 of this
chapter. or
(4) Where a farmer is disposing of
waste pesticides in accordance with
§ 262 70,
(5) Prior to May 8, 1990. in a landfill
or surface impoundment unit where
all applicable persons are in compli-
ance with the requirements of § 268 8,
with respect to wastes that are not
subject to the treatment standards set
forth in Subpart D and not. subject to
tile prohibitions iii 268 32 or RCRA
§ 3004(d)
(d) The requirements of this part
shall hot affect tile availabiliiy of a
waiver under sectioli I 2l(d)(4) of tile
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
[ 51 PR 40638, Nov ‘1. 1986, 52 FR 21018,
.Itiii.’ 4 1987 as aiiien.ieii at 52 Fit 25788.
July 8 1087, Si Fl ?, 27it ,5 July i ’) 191(8, 53
l-’Et 31212. Aug I?, 19881
Envifonmental Protection Agency
§ 26&2 Definitions applicable to this part
(a) When used in this part the fol.
lowing terms have tile meanings given
below
llaioqenaleii orqan lc compounds”
or ‘‘flOCs” menus I hose coint,niinds
Ii nv I iig a carbon - iiaiog(’n t )oi iii wIth Ii
are listed under Appendix III to this
part
“l-lazardous constzluent or constitu-
ents” means those constitiieiit.s 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, sur-
face impoundment, waste pile, injec-
tion well, land treatment facility, salt
dome formation, salt bed formation.
underground mine or cave, or place-
ment In a concrete vault or bunker In-
tended for disposal purposes.
“Polvchlorinatcd btphenyls” or
“PCBs” are halogenated organic com-
pounds defined in accordance with 40
CFR 761 3
(b) All other terms have the mean-
ings given under § 260 10. 261 2. 261.3,
or 270.2 of this chapter
(51 FR 40638. Nov 7. 1986. 52 FR 21016.
Juiiii’ 4 198’? as tiiii mu d ii 52 i’It 25788
,July ii, i ’JWII
§ 268 3 I)ilution prohibited as a substitute
for treatment
No generator, transporter, handler,
or owner or operator of a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility shall in
any way dilute a resti ucted waste or
the residual from treatment of a re-
stricted waste as a substitute for ade-
quate treatment to achieve compliance
with Subpart D of tills part, to circum-
vent the effective date of a prohibition
in Subpart C of this part, to otherwise
avoid a prohibition iii Subpart C of
this part, or to v-u ciiinveilt a land dis-
posal prohibit ion tiillM,54’(i bs’ RCI1A
sectIon 3004
152 iii 25188 July 8 l’lR7i
§ 268 1 Treatiueiit -.iirI,is iiiip u u liiiili h l h’ nt
exemption
(a) Wastes which are otherwise pro-
hibited from land disposal under this
part may be treated in a surface im-
potin (iiiwfli or seiiis ol uiiiinuIi imni’iiis
provided that.
§ 268.4
(1) Treatment of such wastes occurs
in the impoundments.
(2) The following conditions are met,
(i Sampling and testing For wastes
with treatment standards in Subpart
I) of this part and/or prohibition
levels lii Subpart C of t isis part or
RCRA section 3004(d). the residues
from treatment are analyzed, as speci-
fied in § 268 7 or § 268.32, to determine
If they meet the applicable treatment
standards or where no treatment.
standards have been established for
the waste, the applicable prohibition
levels. The sampling method, specified
in tile waste analysis plan under
§ 26413 or § 265 13, must be designed
SUCh that representative samples of
the sludge and the supernatant. are
tested separately rather than mixed to
form Ilomogerbeous samples.
(ii) Removal The following treat.
ment residues (including any liquid
waste) must be removed at. least annu-
ally residues which do not meet the
treatment standards promulgated
under Subpart D of this part; residues
which do not meet the prohibition
levels established under Subpart C of
this part or imposed by statute (where
no treatment standards have been es-
I nblisin’d). residiii’s which are frolil
the treatment of wastes prohibited
from land disposal under Subpart C of
this part. (where no treatment stand-
ards have been established and no pro-
hibition levels apply); or residues from
managing listed wastes which are not
delisted under § 260 22 of this chapter
However, residues which are the sub-
ject of a valid certification under
§ 268 8 made no later than a year after
placement of the wastes in an im-
poundment are not required to be re-
moved annually. If the volume of
liquid flowing through the Impound-
niumit or series of impoundments annu-
ally is greater than the volume of tile
impounulnient or impoundments, titus
flow-through constitutes removal of
tll(’ s tiperisatant for the purpose of
this •‘quiil ciii i ’Iit
(iii) Subsequent inanagenicitt Treat-
nlent residues may not be placed in
any other surface Impoundment for
subsequent management unless the
residues are the subject of a valid cer-
I ufuratiomi uiiiiier § 260 8 which allows
dispostI mu stii Face ilnpouiulnleilLs
748
‘749

-------
§ 268.5
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 Edition) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 268.5
meeting the requirements of section
268 8(a)
(iv) Recordkeepzng. The procedures
and schedule for the sampling of un-
poundment contents, the analysis of
test data, and the annual removal of
residues which (to not meet lIre treat-
ment standards, or prohibition levels
(where no treatment standards have
been established), or which are from
tire treatment of wastes prohibited
from land disposal under Subpart C
(where no treatment standards have
been established and no piohibilion
level’, apply). must be specified in the
facility’s waste analysis plan as re-
quired under § 264 13 or § 265 13 of
this chapter
(3) The in ipoiindmeuit meets I lie
dt’sigii i ‘qiiii e,nen(s of § 264 221(r) or
§ 265 221(a) ci this chral}ier. regardless
that the unit may not be new, expand-
ed, or a replacement, and be in compli-
aiice with applicable ground waler
nmiiitoring requirements of Subpart F
of Pait 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 op(’i atoi the Admiiiisi rat oi. aftci
notice and an oppoi tiiiiity to coin-
mimi, ha_s ci aiited a w,tlver of 1,1w re—
qriiri-meiits on the ba_si’, (hat lire si n—
face impoundment
(A) Has at least one llnei, for whu ii
there is no evidence that such iinei is
leaking,
(B) Is located more than one-quarter
mile from an underground source of
di inking water, and
(C) Is in compliance with generally
applicable gioiind water monitoring
rc(iuir (’rirr—iits for facilities wit Ii ia’i —
mit’, 01,
1111) Upon application by t lie owner
or operator, the Administraloi, after
notice and an opportunity to Com-
ment, ha_s giant ed a moth ficatinii to
the i eqtiireinents on the ba_si’. of a
demomisti ation that the sur face in-
poundmcnt is located, designed, and
operated so as to assure that there will
be no migration of aiiy hazardous con-
stItuent into ground water or surface
water at any future time
(4) The owner or operator suhmits to
the Regional Adininist r atm a writ ten
certification that the requirements of
§ 268 4(a)(3) have been met and sub-
mIts a copy of the waste analysis plan
required under § 268 4(a)(2) The fol-
lowing certification is required
ri ny irma er pr-i ralLy of mw 1.1 nat Lire re
rirnirr’nmeinI s of 40 CPIt 268 4(nus) han been
noeL for au surface Inrpoumndm.rr’iiis being
used to I real. ri-si m-ictod waste’, I beileve I hint
tine submitted lnIoi niatioir us true, accurate,
and conipicte I sun aware that there are sig-
uiiftcaiiL penalties for submitting False lmnfor-
niatlon. including the possibility of fine and
I itiprison macnt
(b) Evapoiatioiu of hazardous con-
stituents as the principal means of
treatment is not considered to be
treatment for purposes of an exemp-
tion tinder this sect ion
iSi i”F 4063ii Nov 7 19116 52 l”R 21016
Jour 4 1987, Is aini-mulud at 52 FR 25788
July 8, i987 53 I -i L 31212, Atig i’l 19881
268 5 l’rocedtures for case-by-orse exten-
‘lions Ii, an clie i ire date
(a) Any person who generates.
treats, stores, or disposes of a hazard-
ous 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
th-,nonst, ate the following
I) lie has made a goo(l-faith effort
to br ale .tiid r’oi rti ac t with treatmoent,
recovery, or disposal facilities nation-
wide to manage his waste In accord-
ance with the effective date of the ap-
p1 icable restriction established tinder
Subpart C of this Part,
(2) He has entered into a binding
contractual commitment to construct
or otherwise provide alternative treat-
nient, recovery (e g , recycling), or dis-
posal capacity that. meets tire treat-
iiu’iit standards specified lii Subpart D
or, wlrei e treatment standards have
not been specified, such ti euctruent, re-
cover y, oi disposal capacity is protec-
tive of inrimnuati lnr’.tli Ii tint I In’ eiivmioii—
iir( ’iut
(3) Due to cm,cunu ’ ,t,iirces beyond the
applicant’s coirt mol, such alten native
capacity cannot reasonably be made
available by the applicable effective
date This demonstration may include
a showing that tire technical and prac-
tl( al tliIficuiitics associated with pro-
young t lie alter native ( apacity will
result in the capacity not being avail-
able 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 wa_cl e t lint i’. t Iii’ ‘-lIh)Ju r’l of
the application,
(5) lie provides a detailed schedule
for obtaining required opciatiirg and
construction permits or an outline of
how and when alternative capacity
wIll be available,
(6) He has arranged for adequate Ca-
paclt to manage his waste dun ing an
extension and has documnemuted in the
applIcation the location of all sites at
whIch the waste will be managed, and
(7) Any waste managed in a surface
impoundment or lamidlill during the
extension period will meet Die require-
ments of paragraph (li)(2) of this sec-
tion
(b) An authorized representative
signing an application described tinder
paragraph (a) of this section shall
make the following certification
I certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar with
the information submitted In this document
and all attachments and that based on my
lnquu try of those iiidivld ira is ii ninedial ely ii’
sporrstbie for obi aiiiiirg liii- uu rierinat iou, I
believe that tire lnIomnrailoii is trim’ cccii
rate, and ctrunII)icIi ’ I sin an ii I’ I lini I ru-ic
are smgni In rut pr-i nab I it’s for so mum till ig false
Information lnciudiiui: the inrssubiiil v of fine
and liurprmsoiiint’nt
(c) After receiving an application for
an extension, the Administrator may
request any additional information
which he deems as necessary to evalu-
ate the application
(d) An extension will apply only to
the wa_ste generated at the individual
facility (‘overr’d by the application and
will not ai ply to i i-u_tm a I • I wa_si i’ n urn
airy other facility
(e) On the basis of tire rurfoimation
refet red to in paragr.tl)hi (a) of tin-,
sect iou, after riot oc arid oirportuiiiitv
for our nien t • ai nd a Ft t’i ( ‘ (ii iso It ct mon
with appropriate Stair’ .cgeiucies iii all
affected Slates, tlte Atimniuristrator
may grant an extension of tip to 1 year
from the effective date The Adminis-
trator may renew this extension for tip
to I additional year upon the request
of the applicant ii I hi’ deinotrstratioir
required iii paragi aphi (cl of this sem -
tion can still be made. In no event will
an extension extend beyond 24
months from the applicable effective
date specified In Subpart C of Part
268 The length of any extension au-
thnori,sed will be determined by the Ad-
nrinistratoi based on tire time required
to construct or obtain the type of Ca-
pacIty needed by the applicant as die-
scribed in the completion schedule dis-
cussed in paragraph (a)(5) of thIs sec-
tion The Administrator will give
public notice of the intent to approve
or deny a petition and provide an op.
portunity for public comment The
final decisIon on a petition will be pub-
lished In the FEDERAL REGISTER.
(f) Any person granted an extension
tinder I hIs section must immediately
notify the Administrator as soon as he
has knowledge of any change in the
conditions certified to In the applIca-
tion
(g) Any person granted an extension
under thIs section shall submit written
progress reports at Intervals designat-
ed by the Administrator Such reports
must describe the overall pm ogress
made toward constructing or other-
wise providing alternative treatment.
recovery or disposal capacity: must
identify any event which may cause or
has caused a delay in the development
of the capacity, arid must summarize
the steps taken to mitigate the delay
The Administrator can revoke the ex-
tension at any time If the applicant
does not demonstrate a good-faith
effort to meet the schedule for com-
pletion, if the Agency denies or re-
vokes any requIred permit, if condI-
tions certified in the application
change, or for any violation of this
chap) Cr
(Ii) Whenever the Administrator es-
tablishes air extension to an effective
ctate linden this section, during the
period for winch such extension is in
effect
I) ‘lIre storage u r’stu ictioris umrdci
4 268 50(a) do not apply, and
(2) Such hazardous wa,ste may be
disposed in a landfill or surface im-
poundment unit only if such unit is in
compliance with the following require-
nuent S
(i) The landfill, if in imuterini status,
is iii conrr)hiamice with tIre reqriirenreuii a
750
751

-------
§ 268.6
of Subpart F of Part 265 and § 265.301
(a), (C), and (d) of this chapter, or,
(ii) The landfill, If permitted, Is in
compliance with the requirements of
Subpart F’ of Part 264 and § 264.301
(C). (d) and (e) or this chapter.
(iii) Tue surface inipoundinent. if in
interim status. Is in compliance with
the requirements of Subpart F of Part
265. § 285 221 (a), (c). and (d) of this
chapter, and RCRA section 3005(j)(l).
or
(iv) The surface impoundment. if
permitted, is in compliance with the
requirements of Subpart F of Part 264
and §264221 (C). (d) and Ce) of this
chapter
(v) The landfill, if disposing of con-
tainerized liquid hazardous wastes
containing PCBS at concentrations
greater than or equal to 50 ppm but
less than 500 ppm, is also in compli-
ance with the requirements of 40 CFR
761 75 and Parts 264 and 265
(I) Pending a decision on the appllca-
Lion the applicant is required to
comply with all restrictions on land
disposal under this part once the ef-
fective date for the waste has been
reached.
(Approvid by the Office oF Mana i’menl
otid liii,Ii’, I iiiel , i , ,.iI nil iiuiuiii,, I 2 1)’iI I
OiIi ,. l
15i FR 40638 Nov 7 1986, 52 PIt 21016
June 4 1987, as amended at 52 FR 25788,
July 8, 1987,53 FR 31212, Aug 1’l, 1988)
2614 6 lid st,imn’, (ii ni low lund di.p in’mzil of
a wmmsit’ prn.tiuInieii under Subpart I’ of
Port 2614
(a) Any person seeking an exemption
from a prohibition under Subpart C of
this part for the disposal of a restrict-
ed hazardous waste in a particular
unit or units must submit a petition to
the Administrator demonstrating, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be no migration of hazard-
ous constituents From the disposal
unit or injection zone For as long as
the wastes remain hazardous The
demomistrat ion nitisl ImiLlim ik- I Iii’ 1(11
lowing components
(1) An identification of the specific
waste and the specific unit for which
the demonstration will be made.
(2) A waste analysis to describe fully
tit e ehel ii k-al :tm 1(1 pIt vs iral (‘Ii ai tel ‘ris
th 5 oF liii’ ‘,iihji’cl wast i’
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 EditIon)
(3) A comprehensive characteriza-
tion of the disposal unit site including
an analysis of background atr, soil, and
water quality.
(4) A monitoring plan that detects
migration at the earliest practicable
time,
(5) Sufficient information to assure
the Administrator that the owner or
operator of a land disposal unit receiv-
ing restricted waste(s) will comply
with other applicable Federal, State.
and local laws
(b) The demonstration referred to in
paragraph (a) of this section must
meet the following criteria’
(1) All waste and environmental
sampling, test, and analysis data must
be accurate and reproducible to the
extent that state-of-the-art techniques
allow,
(2) All sampling, testing, and estima-
tion techniques for chemical and phys-
ical properties of the waste and all en-
vironmental parameters must have
been approved by the Administrator,
(3) Simulation models must be cali-
brated for the specific waste and site
conditions, and verified for accuracy
by comparison with actual measure-
i lUlli 5.
(4) A tiiialil y assuirnmii’v amid quality
control plan that nddmt-sses all aspects
of the demonstration must be ap-
proved by the Administrator, and,
(5) An analysis must be performed to
identify and quantify any aspects of
the demonstration that contribute sig-
nificantly to uncertainty This analy-
sis must Include an evaluation of the
consequences of predictable future
events, Including, but not limited to.
earthquakes, floods, severe storm
events, droughts, or other natural phe-
nomena
(C) Each petition referred to in para.
graph (a) of this section must include
the following
(I) A monitoring plan that describes
tue monitoring program installed at,
and/on arouiid the iiiiit to vet ify con-
timmued coinpl iancc with the conditions
of the variance l’iiis tnonitorimug plan
must provide information on the mon-
itoring of the unit amid/or the environ-
ment around the unit The following
specm Fic mmiformiia( inn must. he iiu luided
iii Liii’ $)laii
Environmental Protection Agency
(i) The media monitored in the cases
where monitoring of the environment
around the unit is required.
(ii) The type of monitoring conduct-
ed at the unit, in the cases where mon-
itoring of the unit is re(luir(’d.
(iii) l’lie location oF liii’ mitomiltom iu
stations.
(iv) The monitoring interval (fre-
quency of monitoring at each station);
Cv) The specific hazam(ious con’ititu-
ents to be monitored,
(vi) The implementation schedule
for the monitoring program;
(vii) The equipment used at the
monitoring stations;
(viii) The sampling and analytical
techniques employed: and
(ix) The data recording/reporting
procedures
(2) Where applicable, the monitoring
program described in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section must be in place for a
period of time specified by the Admin-
istrator, as part of his approval of the
petition, prior to receipt of prohibited
waste at, the unit.
(3) The monitoring data collected ac-
cordIng to the monitoring plan speci-
fied under paragraph (c)(1) of this sec-
tion must be sent to the Administrator
accordint’ to a tom mat amid si tut’tiiili’
sped tied and appi OV(’i I iii Li ii’ iilOi Iii (I I —
ing plait, and
(4) A copy of the monitoring data
collected under the monutoming plan
specified under paragraph (e)(1) of
this section must be kept on site at the
faciiity in the operating record
(5) The monitoring program sped-
fled under paragraph (c)(1) of this sec-
tIon meet the following criteria
(I) All saniplini’ (i’d iii amid aimalvi i
cal data nutist hi’ ,i pi ot i’d In I hi- Ad
minlstrator and iii ust. prot’ tilt’ t itt a
that is accurate and i (‘pro(lmi(’tt)le
(ii) All estimation and moult oming
techniques lutist be itl)IM iivt’ (l hm’ I tie
Admnimiisti atm
(iii) A quality as siumaiir u anti quality
contm tml plait a(tdrcs,smnn .ahI asiw(-ts of
the miiotmitorimig Pt iigr.miii tutu’ I hi’ 1 )10—
vid(’d Iii aiui t qui lutist by I lit’ Ailiiimmiis—
trator
Cd) Each petition n iuist lie ‘uii,niml ten
to the Admnimii’;t rator
Ce) Alter a petit tout ha.s bein ap-
proved, liii’ owner or iqni’m ai (mm iii isl
repul I flli 5 i li.uict’s iii I uiithmt touts mit
§ 268.6
the unit and/or the environment
around the unit that significantly
depart from the conditions described
in the variance and affect the poten-
tial for migration of hazardous con-
s (ltuiu’,iis from the units as follows
(1) If the owner or operator plaits to
make changes to the unit design, con-
struction, or operation, such a change
must be proposed, in writing, and the
owner or operator must submit a dem-
onstration to the Administrator at
least 30 days prior to making the
change The Administrator will deter-
mine whether the proposed change in.
validates the terms of the petition and
will determine the appropriate re-
sponse. Any change must be approved
by the Administrator prior to being
made
(2) If the owner or operator discov-
era that a condition at the site which
was modeled or predicted in the peti-
tion does not occur as predicted, this
change must be reported, in writing, to
the Administrator within 10 days of
discovering the change The Adminis-
trator will determine whether the re-
ported change from the terms of the
petition requires further action, which
may lnciuid&’ termination of wasic ac-
ii’ptamuce and revocation of the peti-
tion, petition modifications, or other
responses
(f) If the owner or operator deter-
mines that there is migration of haz-
ardomis constituent(s) from the unit,
tile owner or operator must
(1) Immediately suspend receipt of
restricted waste at the unit, and
(2) Notify the Administrator, in writ-
imir tvithiii hO tins’s of liii’ deli’i muilmimi
I miii I limit ii i i’ii t-.i’ liii’. •uiuim i i’d
(3) i”oilowimig receipt of tIn’ iiutifk a
lion tint’ Admuinist rator will dc-tt’m iiii,ue,
withIn 60 days of i eddying notifica-
tion, whether the owner or operator
can continue to receive prohibited
waste iii I lie unit and whetiier the
variance is to be icvoked The Admin-
id I muioi shall also detci mimic wlictiu’r
[ tim I hem exaimimmiatmomi of any migration
is warranted under applicable piovi-
suons of Pail 264 or Part 265
(g) Each petition must include Lime
following si ati’meiit signed by the pe-
(thom-i mm am i an LIt om i,’,m’d i epresi’ ii ta—
(lvi
752
753

-------
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition)
§ 268.7
I certify under penalty of law that I hove
personally examined and am familiar wlLh
the Information submitted in this petition
and all attached documents, and that, based
on my inquiry of those Individuals immedi-
ately responsible for obtaining the Informa-
tion. I believe that submitted information Is
true, accurate, and complete I am aware
that there are significant penalties for sub-
mitting false Information. Including the pos-
sibility of fine and Imprisonment
(ii) After receiving a petition, the
Administrator may request any addi-
tional information that reasonably
may be required to evaluate the dem-
onstration.
(I) If approved, the petition will
apply to land disposal of the specific
restricted waste at the Individual dis-
posal unit described in the demonstra-
tion and will not apply to any other
restricted waste at. that disposal uiiit.
or to that specific restricted waste at
any other disposal unit,
(J) The Administrator will give
public notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER
of the intent to approve or deny a pe-
tition and provide an opportunity for
public comment The final decision on
a petition will be published in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER
(k) The term of a petition granted
under this section shall be no longer
than the term of the RCRA permIt if
the disposal unit is operating under a
RCRA permit, or up to a maximum of
10 years from the date of approval
provided under paragraph (g) of this
section if the unit is operating under
interim status. In either case, the term
of the granted petition shall expire
upon the termination or denial of a
RCRA permit, or upon the termina-
tion of interim status or when the
volume limit of waste to be land dis-
posed during the term of petition is
reached
(I) Prior to the Administrator’s deci-
sion, the applicant is required to
comply with all restrictions on land
disposal under this part oiice the ef-
fective date for the waste has been
reached
(m) The petition granted by the Ad-
ministrator does not relieve the peti-
tioner of his responsibilities in the
management of hazardous waste
under 40 CFR Part 260 tt otigh Part
271
(n) Liquid hazardous wastes contain-
ing polychlorinated biphenyls at con-
centrations greater than or equal to
500 ppm are not eligible for an exemp-
tion under this section
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget tinder control number 2050-
0062)
[ 51 FR 40638. Nov ‘3. 1986. 52 FR 21016.
June 4, 1987. as amended at 52 FR 25789,
July 8, 1987. 53 FR 31212 Aug II, 19881
§ 268.7 Waste analysis.
(a) Except as specified in § 268 32 or
section 268.43 of the part, the genera-
tor must test his waste, or test an ex
tract developed using the test method
described in Appendix I of this part, or
use knowledge of the waste, to deter-
mine 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 does not meet
the applicable treatment standards set
Forth in Subpart D of this part or ex-
ceeds the applicable prohibition levels
set forth in § 268.32 or RCRA
§ 3004(d). with each shipment of waste
the generator must notify the treat-
ment or storage facility in writing of
the appropriate treatment standards
set forth in Subpart D of this part and
any applicable prohibition levels set
forth in § 268 32 or RCRA § 3004(d)
The notice must include the following
information
(I) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(it) The corresponding treatment
standards and all applicable prohibi-
tions set forth in § 28832 or RCRA
section 3004(d).
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste, and
(iv ) Waste analysis data, where avail-
able
(2) If a generator determines that he
Is managing a restricted waste under
this part, and determines that the
waste can be land disposed without
further treatment, with each ship-
ment of waste he must submit, to the
treatment, storage, or land disposal fa-
cility, a notice and a certification stat-
ing that the waste meets the applica-
ble treatment standards set forth in
Subpart I) of tins part and the -appli-
Envlronmnentai Protection Agency
cable prohibition levels set forth in
§ 268 32 or RCRA § 3004(d),
(i) The notice must include the fol-
lowing information:
(A) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(B) The corresponding tm-eatnsent
standards and all appplim’able proliibi-
Lions set forth us § 268 32 or RCRA
section 3004(d).
(C) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(D) Waste analysis data, where avail-
able
(ii) The certification must be signed
by an authorized representative and
must state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that I per-
sonally have examined and am familiar with
the waste through analysis and testing or
through knowledge of the waste to support
this certification that the waste complies
with the treatment standards specified in 40
CFR Part 268 Subpart D and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 268 32 or
RCRA section 3004(d) I believe that the in-
formation I submitted is true, accurate and
complete I am aware that there are signifi-
cant penalties for submitting a fnlse certif I-
cation, including time pos,sihiity of a fine and
imprisonment,
(3) If a generator’s waste is subject
to a case by-case extension under
§ 268 5, an exemption tinder § 268 6, or
a nationwide variance tinder Subpart
C. with each shipment of wa.ste, lie’
must submit a notice to the facility re-
ceiving his waste stating that the
waste is not prohibited from land dis-
posal The notice must include the fol-
lowing information
(I) EPA Hazardous Waste Number.
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards and all applicable prohibi-
Lions set forth in § 268 32 or RCRA
section 3004(d);
(iii) The manifest numbem a,ssocmatcd
with tlie shipment of waste.
(iv) Waste analysis data, where avail-
able; and
(v) The date the wasle l . subleci to
the prohibit ions
(4) If a geimem ator detc ’riiiuimes that he
is managing a waste tied is smibje’ct lo
the prohibitions undci § 268 33(f) of
this part and is iiol, sui)Jeel. to the pmo-
hibitions set forth in § 268 32 of this
part, with each shipment of waste the
generator must notify the treatment.
storage, or disposal facility, in wrii 111g.
of ammy applicable pm ohiibii Ion’, set
§ 268.7
forth in § 268 33(f) The notice must
include the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number,
(ii) The applicable prohibitions set
forth in section 268 33(f);
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste, and
(iv) Waste analysis data, where avail-
able
(5) II a generator determines wheth-
er the waste is restricted based solely
on his knowledge of the waste, all sup-
porting data used to make this deter-
mination must be retained on-site In
the generator’s files If a generator de-
termines whether the waste is restrict.
ed based on testing this waste or an
extract developed using the test
method described in Appendix I of
this part, all waste analysis data must
be retained on-site in the generator’s
files
(6) Generators must retain on-site a
copy of all notices, certifications, dem-
onstrations, waste analysis data, and
other documentation produced pursu-
ant to this section for at least five
years from the date that the waste
that is the subject of such documenta-
tion was last sent to on-site or off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal The
five year record retention period is
automatically extended during the
course of any timiresoived enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity
or as requested by the Administrator
(b) Tieatmnent facilities must test
their wastes according to the frequen-
cy specified in their waste analysis
plans as required by § 264 13 or
§ 265 13 Such testing must be per-
formed as provided in paragraphs
(b)(l), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section
(1) For wastes with treatment stand-
arth expmessed as concentrations in
the waste extract (I 268 41), the owner
oi operator of the treatment facility
must test the treatment residues, or
an extract of such residues developed
using tue test method described in Ap-
pendix I of this part, to assure that
the treatment residues om extract mcci
the applicable treatment standards
(2) For wastes that are prohibited
tinder § 268 32 of this part or RCRA
section 3004(d) but not subject to any
treatment standards under Subpart D
of litis part. the owitem or operator of
I lie is catmnent facility must test tile
754
755

-------
§ 268.7
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition) Environmental Protection Agency
§ 268.8
treatment residues according to the
generator testing requirements speci-
fied in § 268 32 to assure that the
tieatment residues comply with the
applicable prohibitions
(3) For wastes with treatment- stand-
aids expressed as concentrations in
the waste ( 268 43), the owner or op-
erator of tile treatment facility must
test the treatment residues (not an ex-
tract of such residues) to assure that
the ti eatnlent i esidues meet the appli-
cable treatment standaids
(4) A notice must be sent with each
waste shipment to the land disposal
facility which includes tile following
information
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Nuinbei.
(ii) The correspondiilg treatment
standards and all applicable prohibi-
tions set forth in § 268 32 or RCRA
section 3004(d),
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste, and
(iv) Waste analysis data, where avail-
able
(5) The ti eatment facility nuist
submit a certification with each slop-
nient of waste oi Ii eat went , i-’,idtme of
a restricted waste to tile land dl ’,l)o- .LI
facility stating that the waste or Li eat-
ment residue has been treated in com-
pliance with the applicable perform-
ance standards specified in Subpart D
of this part and the applicable prohibi-
tions set forth in § 268 32 oi RCRA
section 3004(d)
(i) For wastes with treatment stand
aids expressed as concentrations iii
the waste extract or in the waste
( 26841 or §26843). or Ioi wastes
in ohibited iiiider § 2(18 :32 of this part
oi RCRA sci Lion 3004(d) wiia Ii are
not subject to any U e )Ltiileiit st ,tiai-
ards under Subpart I) of this part, the
certification must be signed by an au-
thorized representative and must state
tue following
i ertily iwdei 1 ijalty oi i.iw I li.ii i ii.ivi’
pcrsoiiaiiy examined suid am f.iini li.ir with
tile treatment technology and operation of
tue Lreatrni-flt piocess iisd to support ibis
ri u6cation suid that. ti,i ’ t-d on iiiy iiiiiiiiu y
ol those individuals imuiiedu.ii iy n ,iiuii’.iiiii’
[ or obtaining this iuliornlatioul I biiit’ve
tli.i I the Irealiiicnt )rc -e. has hi ill o M i .4 5
ed and niauntaiiied properly so .e to comply
wii h the performance levels specuficd Iii 40
CFR Part 268 Subpari D and all applicable
prohibitions sOt forth in 40 CFR 268 32 or
RU1LA n-ctioii 3004u 1) without diiiitlon of
tue priihibiti d waste I am awari that there
are signhfu ,iiit penaities [ or siiiimltting a
(a I- ia-rti fical uiiui I flI ii Id ifl I hi po sibii I ty
of flu ii— .iiiil iiuiiiru—.oiiiiieuit
(ii) For wastes with Ii eatment stand-
aids expressed as technologies
( 268 42), the ceitifaation must be
signed by an authorized representative
and must state the following
I ii itiis- iiiiik-i iiiuu.utIY OF law that liii’
au t. Iii -, Iii iii Lit .tti-il iii .ut oid.iui ’ with
the uuuu euui. iii’. of 40 Ci it 2b6 42 I am
awni i I hat Liwi e are significant penalties
for subnui Iing a false certificalion, Includ-
ing the possibility of [ hue and imprisonment
(b) if I lie waste or Li eatnlent residue
will be liii ther in.uiaged at a different
ticatnient or storage facility, the
treatment, storage or disposal facility
sending tile waste or treatment resi-
due off-site must comply with the
notice and certification requirements
applicable to generators under this
section
(‘7) For wastes that are subject to
the prohibitions under § 268 33(f) of
I iii ’. pail and aic not subject. to the
Iiiuiiil)itiliui—. set liii lb iii § 26it 32 of
I iii ’ I).Lll wit Ii (.1111 SlIui)iii(’iil ol Sii( ii
waste the owner or operator must
notify any subsequent treatment, stor-
age. oi disposal facility, in writing, of
any applicable prohibitions set forth
in § 2(38 33(f) The notice must include
the following inloimation
(I) EPA hazardous Waste Number,
( Ii) The aI)phicablc l)rohlbltlons set
(0 1 lii iii sectiOli 268 33(1).
(iii) The manifest number associated
wit ii tile SlIiI)IUL’flt of waste, and
(Iv) Wa-sic ,L,laiysi- , data, where avail-
.11)14’
(13) Win ii- I lit wa-sit’, .Lie it-i yclable
iiiatc ’i ials used iii a m uiner constitut-
ing disposal subject to tile provisions
of § 266 20(b). the owner or operator
of a treatnleilt facility (tile recycler) is
not i equired to notify the i eccmving ía-
culit y, piuisiiaiit to pai agraph (b)(4) of
this section With each -shipment of
such wastes the owner or operator of
I tie u t’ ( yeliiig facility iilll’st suiliinit a
(Cit iIic.it iou di-sci bed in l)aragraph
b)(5) 01 liii’, st-ti ion, aiid a notice
which liii link-. hit’ iiilui iiuatioiu li ’ ,ted
in pai iLgi .11)11 (b)(4 1 01 this section
(except the manifest number) to the
Regional Administrator, or his dele-
gated representative The recycling fa-
cility also must keep records of the
name and location of each entity re-
ceiving the hazardous waste-derived
product
(C) The owner or operator of any
land disposal facility disposing any
waste subject to restrictions under this
part must
(1) Have copies of the notice and cer-
tifications specified in paragraph (a)
or (b) of this section, aiid the certifica-
tion specified in § 2GB 8 if applicable.
(2) Test the waste, or an extract of
the waste or treatment residue devel-
oped using the test method described
in Appendix I of this part or using any
methods required by generators under
§ 268 32 of this part, to assure that the
wastes or treatment residues are in
compliance with the applicable treat-
ment standards set forth in Subpart D
of this part and all applicable prohibi-
tions set forth in § 268 32 of this part
or in RCRA section 3004(d) Such test-
ing must be performed according to
the frequency specified in the facili-
ty’s waste analysis plan as required by
§ 264 13 or § 265 13
(3) Whei C tlit’ OWiuI’i Or upt’i at m is
disposing of ally waste that is subject
to tile prohibitions under § 268 33(1) of
this part but not subject to the proili-
bitions set forth in § 268 32, he must
ensure that such waste is the subject
of a certification according to the re-
quirements of § 268 8 prior to disposal
in a landfill or surface impoundment.
unit, and that such disposal is in ac-
cordance with the requirements of
268 5(h)(2) Tile same requirement
applies to ar.y waste that is subject to
the prohibitions under § 268 33(1) oF
tiiis Part and also is subject to I he
statutory prohibitions in RCRA sec-
tion 3004(d) or the codified prohibi-
tions in § 268 32 of this Part.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 2080-
0062 and 2040-0042)
[ 51 FR 40638, Nov 7, 198(1. 52 Fit 21010
June 4, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 25789,
July 8, i98’l. 53 FR 31213, Aug 17 1988 54
FIt 2664K .Jiin(’ 23. 19891
§ 268 K I ..iuidli II and mu rf.it c inipupliild uncut
disp.i-otl re’.tritiui,ns
(a) Prior to May 8. 1990, wastbs
which are otherwise prohibited from
land disposal under § 268 33(f) of this
part. may be disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment. which is in com-
pliance with the i-equiremnents of
§ 268 5(h)(2) provided that the re-
quirements of this section are met
(1) Prior to such disposal, tile gener-
ator has made a good faith effort to
locate and contract with treatment
and recovery facilities practically
available which provide tile greatest
environmental benefit
(2) Such generator submits to the
Regional Administrator a demonstra-
tion and certification that the require.
ments of paragraph (a)(l) of this sec-
tion have been met The demonstra-
tion i .-•” . include a list of facilities
and facility officials contacted, ad.
dresses, telephone numbers, and con-
tact dates.
(I) If a generator determines that
there Is no practically available treat-
ment for his waste, he must indicate
so in his demonstration, and provide a
written discussion of why he was not
able to obtain treatment or recovery
for that waste Tile generator must
also provide tlu._ following cml ifu a-
tioii
I certify tinder penalty of law that the re
qiiirements of 40 CFR 268 8a)(1) have been
met and that disposal in a landfill or surface
Inlpoundment Is the only practical alterna-
tive to treatment currently available I be-
lieve that the information submitted us true,
accurate, and complete I am aware that
there are significant penalties For submit-
ting false information, including tile possi-
bility of fine and imprisonment
(ii) If a generator deternlines that
there are practically available treat-’
ineilts for his waste, lie nluisl contract
to use ti-ic practically available tech-
nology that yields the greatest envi-
ronmental benefit, as indicated in his
demonstration He must provide the
following certification
I certify under penalty of iaw that the i-c-
quiirt ’ments oF 40 CFR 268 8(a)(I) have been
nut and that I have contracted 10 tic ’at my
wa-,I e (Oi will til ili’rwi ’ ,e proc liii’ lien thu lit)
by Li ii’ pi .a I a ally .tt-.uil.i ble tec lii ìok ugy
wi iii Ii yield’. 1114- ci eat.’st ci iv i roll mci 45a1
bei it-fit as imidical iii un my d. uu,imistratiou m I
believe th.tt tile informal ion submuttcd is
true, accurate, and complete I am aware
that there are significant penalties for sub-
756
757

-------
§ 268.8
mittine false informal mu, uiiciiuitiiig lie
sibility of fine and imprisonment
(3) Where the generator has deter-
mined that thei c is no pr,u lucahly
availaI)ie treat nu’id iou his w.i’ .I C p1101
to disposal. wit_il the iIilli,Li shiilmnt’flt
of waste, such generator must iibniit
a copy of the demonstration and the
certification mequired in paragi ,phi
(a)( 2)(A) of this sectiOil to tile i eceiV-
log facility With cacti sub ,equieuit
wasit’ shiuinni’uit. tiiit ’ 111(1 &ii tifit iLl lull
is reqtiiied to be submit ted 1 ovided
that, the conditions being certiiied
iemalu unchanged Such a genciator
must retain on-Site a copy of the dem-
onstration (if apiiiit able) and cerl ifica-
tion reqiiiied for each waste slIiI)mt’ni
For at least five yeais fioni the date
that the waste that is the subject of
such documentatii)fl was last sent to
on-site or off-site disposal The live-
year record retention requirement is
automaticallY extended during tue
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity
or as requested by the Administrator
i4) Where ttit’ general oi ha’, dci er-
iiiinsh that I lien’ i’ . p..ulii ally avail
able ti eatment fot his wast C 1)1101 to
disposal, with I hi’ wit i.Li au upnii’iii of
waste, such geiiei .ttor must submit a
copy of the demonsli at_ion and tue
certification required in pamagi ,Lpi l
(a)(2)(B) of tins section to the iecelv-
ing facility With each subsequent
waste shipment, only the cci tification
is required to be subunit It’d pi ovmtled
ii i,Lt the (‘011(11 Lii illS 1w ii ig ii ii fled
remain unchanged Such a gemieiator
irnist retain on-site a copy 01 the dem-
onsti ation (if apphic’able) and it’ll ifica-
Lion reqiliu ed foi cacti waste sliqancilt
for at least Five yeai s ii ow the date
that the waste that, is the atlbjt’ ct of
such documentation was last sent to
on-site or off-site disposal The live-
year record retention requirement is
automatically e’.tendcd dLiring tile
course of aiiy unr solved cii for emeuit
action i c’gardiiig I tic regulated activity
or 5.5 I equested by tue Aduiiinistrat 01
b) After i ect’ivllig the du-uniinal ma
lion ,uid cci tificatmomi. tile fl .’gi(Iiiai
Administiator may request any ,ukui
I ionai imilorniation wiiii’li lit’ tli’i’ili’ ,
iiecessary to cvaiti ,ttc tI’e ci I tii u at (iii
(1) A generator who ha,’, submitted a
certification undel this setiion must
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 Edition)
imunidiately 0(11 ify tile Regional Ad-
miuiistratOr when he ha,s knowledge of
ally Chailgi’ In Liii’ conditionS which
lou ii (‘(I Lii e Isiats out is cert,i F ui_at i0fl
(2) Il, ,thiri it’vli’w of the t’t’itif _a-
lion, till lfi gioii.ih Adniuuiist m ,itor de-
termines that practically available
tieatnlc’nt exists wheme the generator
has cert ifuat otherwise, or that there
exists soniC il lieu method of practical-
ly ava il,ibit’ ii eat iiu_’iit yielding greatel
t’iiVil Ouluiiu u ,I.ti ta’uit’iit t bali that
whiii Ii liii’ l’Ilt I .ttoi liL a IC! tilii’ti, I lie
l c’gluiiat AdniiiiisLi ator may invahi-
date tile ct’ri ii icatioll
(3) Ii I tic Regional Admiiiilist ator hi-
v.tlld,tti’s a certification. the generator
must iiniiit’tliatt’iy cea,sc lum tiler ship—
niunts of tile waste, and iiiformn au fa-
cilities that received the waste of such
invahidatioil and keep records of such
communication on-site in his files
(C) A treatment, recovery or storage
facility receiving wastes subject to a
valid cii tifucation must keel) copies of
tile geneiatOi’S demonstration (if .ip-
piieabie) and cci tification in his oper-
ltt imig m.’tiuid
I) ‘Ito’ l)Wiil’l iii 111)11 tin i .f ,i I it’d —
in iii) or m t’cove I y I .tCi I ity in i e ,I 1 cr 1 .1 ly
that lie hits trial i’d the Waste lii ac-
((ii ( 1 (111_c wit Ii l iii’ gt’ner.ttoi ‘S tie_won-
stiatinul ‘Fhie lollowilig cert-ilication us
required
I , 1 lily iiiiti,’i i ’ui.iily of i,iW tti,it I list S,
ii ,’, soui.iiiy x.iuniua d amid .siui f.iuiiihuar with
liii Ii t’,ii itituli it’ciiuiolui:y ,iiiil operation of
liii’ iuu’,iiuuiuiit phil u s_—. lisu ii Iii siiuluioi I. liii’.
ii uiilii 1111111 ,iuiit tti,ii i,.i’.u’(i Oil lilY iiiuiiulry
of tI lose ii uhv duals imiiuiiediat ely rcsponsibie
lou obt,iuniiig this lnfoi nlatlon, I believe
111,11 iii,’ ill atuuiu’iut plote’,_’. 11.15 bt,’ii operat—
ui ,iuuui iiu,ulll .iuii,’ii i)r(uiuu’rlv au a’, to ( Oulli)Iy
au ii ii , ii iii, lit a_—j sma’ , uiiu’tl iii the geuuir.i
i,ui ‘, di uuii,n-a rat lull I .1111 —swIrl’ Lii.Lt there
.iuu’ ‘,iguuu Iii u ut ICI iail ii $ for siibm iii uug false
iii ioi 15,111011 ii it_I lidllig tIle possibIlity of line
,ti id linpi isoiiiiieiut
(2) The OWflL’l or opeiatoi of a treat-
u’u’flt, I CLOVC1 y or stoi age facility 01051
send a copy of tile general or’s demon-
at at loll (if .tppi ucaith’) amid cci i_i fuca-
toil i in ut .’i 21.8 Il( a )( 2) auth cci tu fira—
111>11 iimulu’i 268 8(c)( I) (ii ,thlI)IlCabh(’)
to It u’ f,tci lily rd elvimig tue waste or
Ii i’al liii ut I estiluli’ ,
(dl ‘i’hiu’ uil,Vill I Ui 40)11 ,iiiii ut .t iii
pos,ii ho lilt y 001st eilsu re thi t thwsu’
wasl& .s prohibited ulidei § 263 33(1) are
758
Environmental Protection Agency
subject to a certification according to
the requIrements of this section prIor
to disposal in a landfill or surface im-
poundment,, and that the units receiv-
ing such wastes must meet the mini-
mum technological requIrements of
§ 268 5(h)(2)
(e) Once the certification is received
by tile Regional Administrator, and
provided that the wastes have been
treated by the treatment (if any), de-
tcrnhmm)t’d by the generator to yield tue
greatest envim onmental benefit, pr.tcti-
cally avaIlable, the wastes or treat-
ment residuals may be disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment unit
meeting the requirements of
§ 268 5(hi)(2), unless otherwise prohib-
ited by the Regional Administrator
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 2050-
0085)
153 FR 31214. Aug 17, 1988]
Subpart B—Schedule for Land Dispos-
al Prohibition and Establishment
of Treatment Standards
Soiuni i 51 i’I ( P11115 M.i # 213 iPSO uiuii, s’ ,
otht’rwls i’ noted
2124 10 identilir.itiuuui ut’ w,istt”. Iuu tie
vuiuuted by August 8, iW48
EPA will take action tinder sections
3004(g)(5 and 3004(un, of tile Re-
source Conservation and Recovery
Act, by August 8, 1988. for the follow-
ing wastes (for ease of uiiicli’rsianding
the wastes have bce_mi lIsted by the sec-
tion of 40 CFR Part 261 under which
they were listed)
,t ’6l .1! tViuali’a
l’006— Vasu u’watu•r i rt’atim’nt sludges (10111
electroplating operations except froiii tue
loiiowiuig processes 1i SulfurIc acid anod-
Izing of aluminum, 12) tin plating on
carbon sleet, (3) slmic plating (segregaied
ba i ) on carboii steel, (4) alumuntini or
zinc alumuiiuun plating on carbon steel, (5)
cleaning/stripping as,,ociated with tin
Stile nuitl nhimnihi itini plating on esu boii
siu’e’h aiid (6) chiu’uiiucat e’icliilli: intl uiiithiiii
c i aluiiiiliiuiiii
10117— Spi’iii t )’.illl(il’ 1)1,11 IIIC ii.it ii ‘,tiiiii loll’,
frouti t’it’cO iipiatliig om,t’rattt ,iis
i”liOS—i’iai lug hal ii ‘,iuuclg.’-, (nun I Ii,’ hu,i t, ,lu.
u I pinihuig b.tilu’, 110111 u’Iui Ihu imiliiuluig uipu r
aiuoiis wiltS e cyanidu S are iisu (I iii tue
process
§ 268.10
F009—Spent strIpping and cleaning bath so-
lutIons from electroplating operations
where cyantdes are used In the process
F0l9—Waatewater treatment sludges from
the chemical comiversloui coating of aiuimi-
nhlni
§ 26! 32 Wasiea
KOOj—Bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewaters (loin wood pre-
servIng processes that use creosote and/or
pemitachiorophenol
1(004 —Wa.’ .Lewater Lrt’atuneiit stuudge from
the production of sine yellow pigmemits
1(008—Over residue from the production of
chrome oxide green pigments
1(011—Bottom stream from the wastewater
stripper in the production of acrylonitrihe
1(013—Bottom stream from the acetomumtrlle
coiuminui In the production of acryhonitrmic
K0h4—Bottom from the acetoniti-lie purifi-
cation column in the production of acrylo-
nltrile
1(015—Still bottoms from the distillation of
benzyi chloride
1(016—Heavy ends or distillation residues
from the production of carbon tetrachtlo-
ride
K01’l—Heavy ends (still bottoms) from the
purification column In the production of
epichioroiiydrtn
1(018— I It’avy u’nd’, 11(1111 tilt frau I ioui, Ltioii
( .oliiuiiii ill Ci tiyl c liii ) . Id. in odulcluu,ll
1(020—— heavy t’mids 110111 t in’ distihi t 11)11 oF
vinyl ciiioridi’ in vinyl ciiltiride iuiiluoiiuer
prodiuctiuui
K02t—Aqueoiis silent .imutinioiiy catalyst
waste from (iimoronie thianes production
1(022—Distillation bottom tars From the
production of phemioifacetone from
cilmuane
1(024— Dusi illation boil oiils from tIlt. pro-
duel iou of phi iinlic auiiiydi ide fm inn .i,iph-
tiiak’miu’
K030—Columu iin bottom or heavy ends train
the combined produci ion of truchloroethiy-
lemie and percilloroethyit’llu’
1(0,11-—By ruiti lid a sails gu’nu’r,tl id iii tIn’
pioduictuon of MSMA slid cacodyluc acid
1(035— Wasiu’w.iter trt’,utiiieuit sludges gener
ated In the production of creosote
1(036—Still bottoms from tohuene reclama
tiomi distillation in the production of disul-
(otoli
K037—Waslewater treaiunent sludge from
tile production of dustilloton
1(044 —Wastewateu Lrc,iiiaent shiudgi’s from
(lie mnaulillaei luring and proi i’sslllg of cx-
1)1051 tI’S
1(0-15 liulli (.11 t)u)ii lioiuu iii .’ ii ,’,ihiii,’Iil of
wa_si ‘w.Ll u’r ( oiii .111111 ig es l)iu)slVl’s
1(046 ——Wa,ita’at .’r I ru al hiuu’uIl siiud Cu’, II ciii
I lii’ .uiaiiiufa I llruiug Fuji iuiiiial 11111 .tiiih iuu.i,l
lug iii I. id i,.i_- ,u’,t liii 1.11 11111 t , , ,llil l , ,luh ni ,
K047—i’umik/rt’d Water luoun ‘h’N’l’ 01) 1 ,r-
ations
‘759
10-144 O—85—— 5

-------
§ 268.10
K048—Dlssolved air flotation (DAF) float
from the petroleum ref Ining industry
1(049—Stop oil emulsion solids from the pe-
troleum refining industry
1(050—Heat exchange bundle cleaning
sludge from the petroleum refining Indus-
try
1 (051—API separator sludge fi 0111 t lim ’ IwI U.
ieuin ref hung Industry
1(052—Tank bottoms (leaded) from the pe-
troleum reuinin industry
1(060—Ammonia still lime sludge from
coking operations
1(061—Emission control dust/sludge from
the primary production of steel In electric
furnaces
1(062—Spent pickle liquor from steel finish.
ing operations in chlorine production
1(069—Emission control dust/sludge from
secondary lead smelting
1(011—Brine purification muds from the
mercury cells process in chlorine produc-
tion, where separately prepurilied brine is
not used
1(073—Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste Ironi
the purification step of the diaphragm cell
process using graphite anodes
1(083—Distillation bottoms from aniline
production
K084—Wastewater treatment sludges gener-
ated during the production of veterinary
pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds
1(085—Distillation of fractionation column
bottoms from the production of chioro-
benzenes
1(086—Solvent washes nod sludges. caustic
washes and sludges, or water washes and
sludges From cleaning tubs amid equipment
used in the formulation of ink from pig-
ments, driers, soaps, and stabilizers con-
taining chromium and lead
1(087—Decanter tank tar sludge from
coking operations
1(099—Untreated wastewater from the pro-
duction of 2.4-D
K101—Distillation tar residues from the dis-
tillation of aniline-based compounds in
the production of veterinary pharmaceuti-
cals from arsenic or organo arsenic com-
pounds
1(102—Residue from the use of activated
carbon for decolorization in the produc-
tion of veterinary pharmaceuticals from
arsenic or organo-arsenic compounds
K103—Process residues from anlilne extrac-
tion from the production of aniline
1(104—Combined wastewater streams gener-
ated from nitrobenzcne/aniiimie produc-
tion
1(106—Waste water treatment sludge from
the mercury cell process in chlorine pro-
duction
§26133(e) Wastes
P001—Warfarin. when present at concentra-
tion greater than 03%
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 EdItion)
P004—Aidrin
POOS—Allyl alp ohol
P0 10—Arsenic acid
P011—Arsenic (V) oxide
P012—Arsenic (111) oxide
P015—Beryllium dust
i ’016 - flis-(chloromctliyl) ether
P018 llrin in(’
l ’020—Diiioseb
P030—Soluble cyanide saILs not elsewhere
specified
P036—DichlorophenYiarSifle
P037—Dieldrin
P039—Disuifoton
P041—Dicthyl-p nitrophenyl phosphate
P048—2,4-Dinitrophenol
P050—Endosulf an
P058—Fluoracetlc acid, sodium salt
P059—Heptach lor
P063—Hydrogen cyanide
P068—Methyl Hydrazlne
P069—Methyllactonitrile
P010—Aldicarb
P071—Methyl parathion
P081—Nitroglycerine
P082— .N-Nitrosodimethylamine
P084—N.Nltrosomethylvinylamine
P087—Osmium tetraoxide
P089—Parathion
P092—PhenylmercUriC acetate
P094—Phorate
P097—Famphur
P102—Propargyi alcohol
P105—Sodium aside
P103—Strychnine and salts
P1 l0—Tetraetliyl lead
P1 15—Thallium (1) sulfate
P120—Vanadium pentoxide
P122—Zinc phosphide. when present at con-
centrations greater than 10%
P123—Toxaphene
§ 261 33(J) Wastes
U00 ’l—Acryiamide
U009—Acrylonltrile
UOiO—Mitomycin C
110 i 2—Aniline
(Jot 6—Benz(c)acridine
1101 8_Benz(alantisraCene
U019—Benzene
U022—Benzo(a)pyrene
11029—Methyl bromide
1103 1—n-Butanol
U036—Chlordane, technical
U03 ’ l—Chlorobcny.ene
U041—n-Chioro-2.3 epoxypropauie
11043—Vinyl chloride
11044 —Chloroform
U046—ChiOrOmCthYl methyl ether
U050—Chrysene
11051—Creosote
U053 —Crotonaidehyde
U061—DDT
U063—Dibenz 0 (a, hi anthraceule
U064--1,2 ‘1,8 Dilx’nzopyrene
11066— Dibromo-3 ciuloropropane 1.2-
Environmental Protection Agency
11067—Ethylene dibromide
U074—1,4-Dicliloro-2 butane
1J077—Ethane, 12-dichloro-
t1078—Dlchloroethylcne, 1,1-
1J086—N,N Diethyihydrazine
U089—Diethylstiibestrol
11103—Dimeiliyl sulfate
(11(15 2.4 l)imuit ml oluli-um,
U lOB - Diusamu-. I 4
UI 15—Ethylene oside
111 22—Formaldehyde
(II 24—Furan
111 29—Llndane
UI 30—Hexacluloro( ycioijeritadiene
1J 133—Hydrazhne
1J134—Hydrofluoric acid
U137—Indeno( 1.2 3-cd )pyrene
U 151—Mecury
11154—Methanol
UI 55—Methapyrilene
U 157—3-Mctliylcholanthrerje
U 158—4,4-Methyleiw-bis-( 2-chloroanilinc)
U 159—Methyl ethyl ketorue
U171—Nitropropane, 2
11177—N Nitroso-N-ni.’tiiyiturea
LI 180—N-Nitrosopyrrolidi, ie
U 185—Pentacluloronitrobenzene
U 188—Phenol
Ii 192—Pronamid,-
1J200—Reserpinp
U209—Tetrachlomoeiliane, 112.2-
U2i0—Tetracimloroethyiene
U21 I—Carbon tetuactuloride
U219—Thmourea
U 220—Tol Irene
U 221— Tolmit-mipil lain nip
(1223 1nlmn-iip’ duismx vaui.ui
11226 Mci liyieiuit .roforin
11227 Irk lilipr,pu’l liaiu- I I 2
11228 —Trieiiloroptliyli-imv
U237—Uracil mustard
1J238—Ethyi carbamate
1)248—Warlarin, when presciut at concemitra-
tions of 0 3% or less
11249—Zinc phospliide. When present at con-
centrations of 10% or less
21,8.11 ldent.fic.iiion of wa’.te’. to be
evaluated by Juuic 8, 1989
EPA tVIII take action tinder sections
3004(g)(5) and 3004(m) or the Re-
source Conser ation and Recovery
Act, by June 8, 1939, for the following
wastes (for ease c i undei sI aiidiiig the
wastes ha’,e been listed by the section
of 40 CFR P,um i 261 mind.-, Wliu ( ii I imt’y
were lI ,I (’(1)
§ 261 31 l1’ustes
rOlO—Qmuenchming bat ii sluidge fu em oil
baths from metal heat treating operations
where cyanudes are mused in the process
P011—Spent cyanide solutions froimp salt
haIti pot cleaning Ire ,., mmmi lii hi —ii lme.pl—
lug nlwrti 11 1, 15
§ 268.11
F0 12—Quenching wastewater treatment
sludges from metal heat operations where
cyanides are used in the process
P024—Wastes including but not limited to.
distillation residues, heavy ends, tars and
reactor clean-out wastes from the produc-
lion of chlorinated allplmaiic hydrocar-
bulis luavimug ( arbimmu (‘(pill i-mit from one to
Five-. mithilziiig rree radical catalyzed proc-
esses IThis listing does not include light
ends, spent filters and filter aids, spend
desiccai ,ts, wastewater. wastewater treat-
ment sludges, spent cataiysLs, and wastes
listed iii I 261 32 1
261 32 Wastes
K009—Distillatlon bottoms from the pro-
duction of acetaldehyde from ethylene
KOlO—Distillation side cuts from the pro-
ductions of ncetaldehyda from ethylene
1(019—Heavy ends from the distlilatlon of
ethylene dichloride In ethylene dichloride
production
1(025—Distillation bottoms from the pro-
duction of nitrobenzene by the nitration
of benzene
1(027—Centrifuge and distillation residues
from toluene diisocyanate production
K028—Spent catalyst from the hydrochlor-
inator reactor In the production of 1,11-
tricliloroethane
1(029—Waste from the product steam strip-
per in the production of 1,1.1-trlchloroeth-
ane
1(078-- Wastewater From the wasiiurig arid
slu ippi i.e oF p1 uorate prodmu titmu ,
1(03’) —Filler cake from tile filtratiomu of
do-i luylplumspi ,oro—plilhuioic— ss hI iii tue limo—
duction of pliorale
K040—Wastewater treatment sludge from
the production of phorate
1(041 —Wastewater treatment sludge from
the production of toxaphene
1(042—Heavy ends or distillation residues
from the distillation of tetrachioroben-
sane in the production of 2,4,5-T
K043—2.6-Dmcliiorophcnol waste from the
production of 2.4 D
1(095—Distillation bottoms from the pro-
duction of 1.1.1-trlchloroethaue
1(096—Heavy ends from the heavy ends
column from the production of 1.1.l-trich-
hornet iuane
1(097—Vacuum stripper discharge From the
ii iordane cli Ion nai or in the pi odmiction of
iulmmrdaii p
lc()9i ( (Jul I -.ti ed process wash-w.ttpr From
(lie production of toxaplienm’
K l05—Scparat ed aqueous stream From I hi’
reactor product washing step in the pro-
dud (fit) of clilorobenzcnes
§26133(e) Wastes
I’002 — 1 Am ci yl-2-Llunturea
158)3 Acruk-umi
760
761

-------
§ 268.12
40 CFR Cti. 1(7-1-89 EditIon) Environmental Proteclion Agency
§ 268.12
p007—5 -(Amlnoethyl )-3-Isoxazolol
p008—4 -Andnopyrldine
P014—Thiophenol
P026_1 (o .Chloropheny1)thiOUrea
P021—Propanenitrlle. 3-chioro
P029—Copper cyanides
P040—0.0-Diethyl o-pyrazlnyl phosphor-
othioate
P043—DilsoproPyl fluorophosphate
P044—Dimethoate
P049—2.4-Dithiobiuret
P054—Aziridine
P057—Fluoracetamide
P060—Isodrin
P062_IlcxacUiyltCtrnPhOSPhflte
P086—Methomyl
P087 —2.Metl iylazIridine
p072_Alpha.naphthyithiOUrea (ANTU)
P074—Nickel cyanide
P085_Octazneth yipYrOPh oSPhOramide
P098—Potassium cyanide
P 104—SIlver cyanide
P106—Sodium cyanide
PlO ? —Strontiinn sulfide
P 11 1_Tetracthylpyrophosiilatc
Pt 12—Tetranitromethafle
P11 3—ThaIlic oxide
P114—Thallium (1) selenlte
§ 261 33 (J) Wa.stcs
U002—Acetone
U003—AcetonIt .rile
U005_o.Acetyiaminof luOrefle
U008—Acryllc acid
U01 l—Amit .role
U0I4—Auranilne
UO15—A7.a serine
(1020 — Re,wenesi l I r ny clilorkir
U02 1—-Iieii7Idiiir
U023—Benzotricli loride
U025—Dichloroethyl ether
U026—Ch lornaphaz lne
U028—Bis-(2 ethyihexyl)phthalatc
U032—CalcIum chromate
U 035—Ch iorambuc ll
U047—Betn-cliloronaphthalene
U049—4-Chloro-o-Loiuldlne. hydrochloride
U057—Cyclohexanone
U058—Cyclophosphamide
U059—Daunoinycmn
11060—DD I)
U062—Dlallale
1J070—o-Dlchloroiwnzei ie
U073—Dichlorobenzidene, 3.3-
U080—Methylcne chloride
U083—Dlchloropropanc 1,2-
U002—1) imet liylamine
(1093 — 1)1 nu’l Ii y lani no t70b i,’u ’i ir
tJ094—L)iine tliyllwiiiAa)antlir.u c i i . .7.12
1JO95—DImethylbenzid lne.3.3 -
U097—Diniethylcarbamoyl chloride
1J098—Dlmethyihydrazlne. 1.1-
U099—Dlmethylhydrazine. 1.2.
UlOl—Dimethylphenol. 2.4-
U106—Dinitrotoluene, 26-
(I 107—UI-n Oct yl plithnlate
U 109—i 2 1)11)111 iylliydrai.nie
UI lO—Dipropylamine
UI 1 1—Di-N-Propylnitrosamlne
UI 14—Ethylenebis-(dlthlocarbamic acid)
U 116—Ethylene thiourea
UI 19—Ethyl methanesulfonate
U 127—Hexachlorobenzene
UI 28—Hexachlorobutadlene
UI 31 —Hexachloroethane
U 135—Hydrogen sullide
U 138—Methyl Iodide
UI 40—Isobutyl alcohol
U 142—Kepone
U 143—Lasiocarpine
U 144—Lead acetate
U 146—Lead subacetate
U147—Maleic anhyciride
U 149—Malononitrile
U150—Melphalan
U 161—Methyl Isobutyl ketone
U182—Methyl methacrylate
U 183—N-Methyl-N-nltro N-nitrosoguanidine
U l84—Methylthioiiraeil
11165— Naphtlialene
U 188—Napthyiamine. 2-
U 169—N Itrobenzene
U 170—p-Nitrophenol
U 172—N-Nitroso-dl -n-butylamine
U 173—N-Nitroso-diethanolamlne
U I’?4—N-Nitroso-dlethylamlne
U176—N-Nitroso-N ethylurea
U 178—N-Nitroso N-methylurethane
U 179—N-Nitrosoplperidine
U 189—Phosphorus sulfide
Li 193—1.3-Propane sultone
U l96—Pyrldine
U203—Saf role
11205 --Selenium dictilfide
(1206 —Strepto/oLIM In
U208—Teracliioroethahle. I 1.1 2-
U213—Tetrahydrofurnn
U214—Thaliium (1) acetate
U215—Thallium (1) carbonate
U2 16—Thallium (1) chloride
U217—Thallium (1) nitrate
U2 18—Tiiioaccta,nlde
U235—Tris (2.3-flibromopropyl) phosphate
U239—Xylene
(J244—Thira,n
I l 2614 12 identilicotion of wastes to he
evaluated by May 8. 1990.
(a) EPA will take action under see-
Lions 3004(g)(5) and 3004(m) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, by May 8, 1990. for the following
wm.t cc ( foi t ’a ’-.t’ of iind. ’i si midung, tile
waslec have been listed by the section
of 40 CPR Part 261 under which they
were listed)
§26132 Wastes
K002—Wastcwnter treatment sludge from
(lie production of t—hirornc yellow aid
niShigI itui iiictil
K003—Wastewater treatment sludge from
the production of molybdate orange pig-
ments
K005—Wastewater treatment sludge from
the production of chrome green pigments
K006—Wastewater treatment sludge from
tile prodticLlon of chrome oxide green pig-
mitts (auiiydrous and hydrated)
K007—Wastcwalcr treatment sludge from
the production oF iron blue pigments
1(023—Distillation light ends from the pro-
duction of phthallc anhydride from naph-
thalene
1(026 -StrippIng still tails from the prodiic-
titumi of methyl ethyl pymidines
K032—Wastewater treatment sludge from
the production of chlordane
K033—Wastewater and scrub water from
the chlorination of cyclopentadlone in the
production of chlordane
1(034—Filter solids from the hexachlorocy-
clopeiii adicime iii Lime prodia I lull of clilor—
dane
1(093—Distil la liotu I mgii I i-I id. 1 ,0111 tl Ic pro-
duction of plititaiic aIiiiyctri(ie from orLlio-
xyiene
1(094—Distillation bottoms from the pro
ductlon of i,litlialic aiiiiydrlde from ortii-
xylene
Kl00—Wa.ste leaching solution from acid
leaching of emis.sloui control dust/sI iidge
from secondam y lead smelting
§ 261 33(t) Wactts
P006—Aluminum pliosphid.-
P009 —Ainmouilitmn l)i(rdu
l’Ol ‘I I ttruiu iii m yiiiklu
I ‘ (II? ii ruiuu,ta, II 0111’
l ’021 --Ualcuuirii cyauuldu ’
P022—Carbon disulfide
P023—Chloroaceta ldeiiyde
P024—p-Chloroaniline
P028—Benhyi chloride
P03 1—Cyanogen
P033—Cyanogen (-11101 i(le
P034—4 6 Dmulitro-o-cycluliu’x ) lpli uioi
P038—Olethylarsine
P042—Epinephr um ie
P045—Tliiofnnox
I ’046—Alpha nllulua—i)immul-I imvlimlum-umei iivla—
1111111
I’047— 4.6 l)uuiul I ( 1-0—i I suti .111(1 ‘iii ’,
P051—Eiclii ui
P056-- Plmorin
P064—Met IiyI isoevam ial
l’065— Men lily ftmlniluiai,
l ’ll7 I Ni ki ii ii im nii I
I ‘(l7 ’ No III lilt— .iiiui s ill
l’076 - Nilru. oxide
P071—p Nitnoaiiiltne
P018—Nitrogen diosoit
P088—Em idotiiall
P093—N Phen3’ltlllouirea
P095— Pliosgene
P096— Pliosph inc
P099—— Pot s_ssuuimiu slIver ‘tiuuul,’
I’IOl — I ‘roilamlImmil rile
P103—Selenourea
Pt 09—Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Pt 16—ThlosemIcarbazide
P1 18—Trichloromethanethiol
P1 19—Ammonium vanadate
P1 21—Zinc cyanide
§ 26l 33(1) Wastes
UQOl —Acetaldehiydc
U004—Acctophemione
U006—Acetyl chloride
U017—Benzal chloride
U024—Bis(2 cllloroethoxy)methane
1J027—Bis( 2-chloroisopropyl )cthcr
U030—Bemizene, t-bromo-4-phenoxy
U033—Carbonyl fluoride
UO34—Chloral
U036—Ethy l-4-4-dichlorobenzilate
U 03 0—4-Chloro-m-cresol
U042—Vinyl ether, 2-chloroethyl
U04 5—Methyl chloridc
U04 8—0-Cu lorophenol
U052—-Crcsols
U055—Cumene
U056—Cyclohexane
U068—Methane, dibromo
U069—Dlbutyl phthalate
(JO? I—m-Dlchlorobenzene
U072—p-Dichlorobenzene
U075—Dlclslorodif luoromethane
U076—Ethane, t,1-dlchioro-
(1079—1 2-Dichlorethylene
U08 1—2,4-Dichlorophenol
U082—2.6-Dichlorophenol
U084— 1.3 Dichloropropene
IIORS—2 2 -llloxiramie
1Jul11?— 0,11 l)i .’h hlyl S—iiietliyl—
diLl i uopi iuspl ni r
U088—Dietliyl phthalate
U090—Dihydrosaf role
U091—3,3 -Dimethoxybenaidlne
U096—alpha alpha-
1)imethsylbenzylhydroxyperox lde
U 102—Dimethyi phttialate
( II 12—Ethyl acetate
UI 13—Ethyl acryinte
U1I7—Ethyl ether
UI 18—Ethylmethacrylate
UI 20—Fluornimtltene
(1121 —Trici u loronioiiofl lioroinet hailt’
U 123—Formic acid
UI 25—Furfural
111 26—Ghycldylaldehyde
U 132—1-Iexachloropliene
UI16—Cacodylic acid
11139 Iron dcxl ran
tJ 141 l ’u- afu iii,-
U 145—Lend pliospiiate
U148—Maleuc hydrazide
U 152—Methacrylonitrile
U 153—Methaitethiol
U 156—Methyl chiorocarbonate
U 160—Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
UI66—1 4 Naphthaquinone
(1 167—I Naphitluylainine
U 181—Fm-Nil ro-o tol .ildimte
762
763

-------
40 CIR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition)
§ 268.13
U182—Paraidehyde
U 183_Pentachiorobeflzefle
U 184_Pentachioroethafle
U 186—1,3-Pentadiene
U187—Phenacelin
U190—Phthailc anhydride
U 191—2-Picoiine
U194—1-Propanamine
U 197 —p-Benzoqoinofle
U20 1—Resorcinoi
U202—Sacciiarin and salts
U204—Sclc.iious acid
U207—I.2 4,5.tetrachiorObCiiZ4’flC
U222—o-Toluldine hydrochloride
U225—Bromo(orm
U234_Sym -Trinitrobeflzefle
U236—Trypan blue
U240—2,4-D. sails and esters
U243_HexachioroPrOPefle
U246—Cyanogen bromide
U24 7—Mrthoxychior
Wa.sles identified as hazardous based
on a chiniacieristic alone (i.e. corrosi-
vity, reactivity. ignitabllity and EP
toxicity)
(h) Wastewater residues (less than
1% total organic carbon and less than
1% total suspended solids) resulting
from the following well-designed and
well-operated treatment methods for
wastes listed in 4 268 10 and 268 U
for which EPA has not promulgated
wastewatcr treatmept standards
metals recovery, metals precipitation.
cyanide destruction, carbon adsorp-
tion, chemical oxidation, steam strip-
ping, biodegradation, and incineration
or other direct thermal destruction
(c) Hazardous wastes listed in
H 268.10 and 268 11 that are mixed
hazardous/radioactive vastes
(d) Multi-source leachate that is de-
rived from disposal of any listed waste.
except from Hazardous Wastes P020,
F021, F022. F023, F026, P02’?, or F028
(e) Nonwastewater forms of wastes
listed iii § 268 10 thaI, weri’ originally
disposed belore August 1’?. 1988 and
for which EPA has promulgated ‘no
land disposal” as the treatment stand-
ard ( 268 43, Table CCW. No Land
Disposal Subtable) This provision
does not apply to waste codes 1(044.
K045, 1(047, and K061 (high zinc sub-
category)
(I) Nonwastewater forms of wastes
listed in § 268 10 for which EPA has
promulgated “no land disposal” as the
treatmenL standard ( 268 43, Table
CCW. No Land Disposal Subtable)
that are generated in the course of
treating wastewater forms of the
wastes. This provision does not apply
to waste codes 1(044. 1(045. K047. and
1(061 (high zinc subcategory)
(g) Nonwastewater forms of waste
codes K015 and K083
(51 FIt 19305. May 28, 1986. as amended at
53 FR 31215. Aug 1’ ?. 1988, 54 FIt 8266. Feb
27, 1989. 54 FR 18837, May 2. 1989. 54 FR
26648. Jupic 23. 19891
§ 268 13 Schedule low wiistes lde,itifled or
listed alter November 8, l98
In the case of any hazardous waste
identified or listed under section 3001
after November 8, 1984, the Adininis-
trator shall make a land disposal pro-
hibition determination within 6
months after the date of identlIlcatl on
(ii lIst,iiig
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
SOURCE 51 FR 40641. Nov 7, 1986, unless
otherwise noted
§ 26830 Waste specilic prohibitions—Sol-
vent wastes.
(a) Effective November 8. 1986, the
spent solvent wastes specified in 40
CFR 261 31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos FOOl. F002. F’003. F004, and P005,
are prohibited under this part from
land disposal (except In an injection
well) unless one or more of the follow-
ing conditlns 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
I roin any response action taken under
Ii ie Coin p. ci in r ive Env I mi i.ne. it al
lt( ’Si,OiiSe. COflul)eiiSiktiOiI and 1 .iabiiity
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or any correc-
tive action taken under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). exci’pi where the waste is
coiitain.natcd soil or debris, or
(3) The initial generators solveiit
waste is a solvi ’ntwater mixture. sol-
vent-containing sludge or solid, or sol-
ventcontarni nated soil (non-CERCLA
or RCRA corrective action) containing
less than 1 percent total F001-F005
solvent constituent.s listed in Table
CCWE of § 26841 oF this part, or
Environmental Protection Agency
(4) The solvent waste is a residue
from treating a waste described in
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of
this section; or the solvent waste is a
residue from treating a waste not de-
scribed in paragraphs (a)(1). (a)(2). or
(a)(3) of this section provided such res-
idue belongs to a different treatability
group than the waste as initially gen-
erated and wastes belonging to such a
treatabiiity group arc described iii
paragraph (a)(3) of this section
(b) Effective November 8. 1988, the
FOOl-F005 solvent wastes listed in
paragraphs (a) (1), (2), (3). or (4) of
this section are prohibited from land
disposal.
(C) Effective November 8. 1990. the
F ’OOI-FOOS solvent, wastes which are
coiitniniiiat.ed soil and debris rt’siiitiiig
from a response action taken under
section 104 or 106 of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation. and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) or a corrective action re-
quired under subtitle C of the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) arid the residues from treat-
ing these wastes are prohibited from
land disposal Between November 8,
1988. and November 8. 1990. these
wastes nay be (lisl)os(’d iii a landfill or
surface impoundment only if such unit
is in compliance with (lie . e(liiir(’mu(’I its
specified in 268 5(h)(2)
(d) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c) of this section do not
apply if
(1) The wastes meet the standards of
Subpart D of this part, or
(2) Pel sons have been granted an ex-
emption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition tinder § 268 6, with re-
spect to those wastes and units coy-
u-i i’d by tIn’ petit ion. oi
(.1) Pci suns have bu’i’ii giant i’d an ex-
tension to the eFFective (late of a uo-
hibition pursuant to 268 5. with re-
spect to those wastes amid units cot -
i-i i’d by I lie i’ l euisii ii i
(51 lit ii 216 Aug i’ 19881
§ 268 1i Wii ie pn ,iic 1 prihihii,uui —
i i ns in—cl intiii Iii lug a music’.
(a) Effective November 8. 1988. the
dioxin-containing wastes specified in
40 Cr’lt 261 31 as EPA lla2ardiuii’,
Waste Nos F020, F02l. 1022. P023,
F026, F027, and F028. aic piohibited
§ 268.32
from land disposal unless the follow-
ing condition applies.
(1) The F020-F023 and F026-F028
dioxin-containing waste is contaminat-
ed soil and debris resulting from a re-
sponse action taken under section 104
or 106 of the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or a
corrective action taken under subtitle
C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
(b) Effective November 8, 1990, the
F020-F023 and F026-F028 dioxin-con-
taining wastes listed in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section are prohibited
from land disposal.
(C) Between November 8, 1988, and
November 8. 1990. wastes Included in
par agraph (a)( I) of this section may
be disposed In a landfill or surface im-
poundment only if such unit is In com-
pliance with the requirements speci-
fied in § 268 5(h)(2) and all other ap-
plicable requirements of Parts 264 and
265 of this chapter.
(d) The requirements of paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section do not apply
ii
(1) The wastes meet the standards of
Subpai t D of this oart, or
(2) Persons have been granted an cx-
eniption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268 6, with re-
spect to those wastes and units cov-
ered by the petition, or
(3) Persons have been granted an ex-
tension to the effective date of a pro-
hibition pursuant to § 268 5, with re-
spect to those wastes covered by the
extension
153 FR 31216, Aug 17, 1988)
268 12 ViisIe ipecuflc priuhi,h,i,ons—(’ali-
ioriuiii list w.isles
(a) Effective July 8. 1987. the follow-
ing hazardous wastes are prohibited
Fmoin iand disposal (except in injection
wet Is)
(I) Liquid hazardous wastes having a
p t- I less than or equal to two (2 0),
(2) Liquid hazardous wastes contain-
log polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
at concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm,
(3) Liquid hazardous wastes that are
pi imarily water and contain haloge-
nated organic compounds (HOCs) in
764
765

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 EdItion)
§ 268.33
§ 268.32
total concentration greater than or
equal to 1.000 mg/I and less than
10,000 mg/I HOCs.
(b)—(c) [ Reserved)
(d) The requirements of paragraphs
(a) and (C) of this section do not, apply
until
(1) July 8, 1989 where the wastes are
contaminated soil or debris not result-
ing from a response action taken
under section 104 or 108 of the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) or a corrective action taken
under Subtitle C of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Between July 8. 1987 and July 8, 1989,
the wastes may be disposed in a land-
fill or surface impoundment only if
such disposal is In compliance with the
requirements specified In § 268 5(li)(2).
‘2) November 8. 1990 where the
wastes are contaminated soil or debris
resulting from a response action taken
under section 104 or 106 of CERCLA
or a corrective action taken under
Subtitle C of RCRA Between Novem-
ber 8. 1988, and November 8. 1990, the
wastes may be disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment only if such unit
is In cornpilaiice with I lie reqiiiremciit s
specified lii § 268 5(h)(2)
(e) Effective November 8. 1988, the
following hazardous wastes are prohib-
ited from land disposal (subject to any
regulations that may be promulgated
with respect to disposal In injection
wells)
(1) Liquid hazardous wastes that
contain HOC5 in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/i
and are not prohibited under para-
graph (a)(3) of this section. and
(2) Nonliciuid hazardous wastes con-
tauiing HOCs in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1.000 mg/kg
and are not wastes described in para-
graph (-i) of this sect ion
(1) Between July 8, 1987 amid Novem-
ber 8, 1988, the wastes included in
paragraphs (e)( 1) and (c)(2) of this
section may be disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment- only if such tils-
posai is in compliance with the re-
quirements specified in § 268 5(h)(2)
(g) The requirements of paragraphs
(a>, (d), and (C) of this section do not
apply if
(I) Persons have been granted an ex-
emption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6. with re-
spect to those wastes and units cov-
ered by the petit-Ion (except for liquid
Itazardoiis wastes containing poiychlo-
rinated biphenyls at concentrations
greater than or equal to 500 ppm
which are not elIgIble for such exemp-
tions); or
(2) Persons have been granted an ex-
tension to the effective date of a pro-
hibition pursuant to § 288,5. with re-
spect to those wastes covered by the
extension: or
(3’m The wastes meet the applicable
standards specified in Subpart D of
this part or. where treatment stand-
ards are not specified, the wastes are
in compliance with the applicable pro-
hibitions set forth in this section or
RCRA section 3004(d)
(h) The prohibitions and effective
dates specified in paragraphs (a)(3),
(d). and (e) of this section do not apply
where the waste is subject to a Part
268 Subpart C prohibition and effec-
tive date for a specified HOC (such as
a hazardous waste chlorinated solvent,
see e g, § 268 30(a))
(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
t ’ st must be used. Method 9095 (Paint
Filter Liquids Test) as described in
“Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods.”
EPA Publication No SW-846 (Incor-
porated by reference, see § 260 11(a) of
this chapter
(J) Except 8.5 otherwise provided in
this paragraph, the waste analysis and
recorcikeeping requirements of § 268 7
are applicable to wastes prohibited
under this part or I1CRA section
3004(d)
(I) The initial generator of a liquid
hiasardoiis waste iinist test his waste
(not au t”ctra I or fill rat-u’) iii .u.coi ti
alice wit-ti I lie procedui es specified in
§ 261 22(a)( I), or use knowledge of the
wa. ’ .te. to determine if the waste has a
phi less than or equal to two (2 0) If
the liquid waste has a pI{ less than or
equal to two (2 0), it is restricted from
land disposal and all requirements of
Part 268 arc applicable, except as oth-
ci wise specified in this section
(2) The initial generator of either a
liquid hazardous waste containing pot-
ychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or a
liquid or nonliquid hazardous waste
containing halogenated organic corn-
l)oimnds (HOCs) must test his waste
(not au c xi macI um filtrate), oi use
knowledge of the waste, to (iciermolne
whether the concentration levels iii
the waste equal or e’uceeci time proliubi-
Lion levels specified in this section If
the concentration of PCBc or HOC5 in
the waste is greater than or equal to
the prohibition levels specified in this
section, the waste us restricted from
land disposal and all requirements of
Part 268 are applicable, except as oth-
erwise specified in this section,
(52 FR 25790, July 8 1987, as amended at 52
FR 4i296. Oct 21. i987. 53 FR 3i2i6 Aug
17. 19881
§ 26833 Waste specific prohibitions—First
Third Wastes
(a) Effective August 8. 1988, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261 32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos F006 (non-
wastewater). 1(001, 1(004 (non-
wastewater), 1(008 (nonwastewater).
K015, 1(016, 1(018. 1(019. K020, K021
(nonwastewater). 1(022 (non-
wastewaler). 1(021, 1(025 1(030, K036
( imoimwasLu ’wal u’r), KI lt’?, K044, K045,
noimex l)losivc 1(1)46 ( imoiiwa,stewater),
K047, K060 (non vastewater). 1(061
(nonwastewaters containing less than
15% zinc), 1(062, non CaSO, 1(069 (non-
wastewaters), 1(083 (noumwastewateis).
1(086 (solvent washes), 1(087. 1(099,
1(100. 1(101, 1(102. 1(103, and 1(104 are
prohibited from land disposal (except
in an injection well)
(1) Effective August 8, 1988 and con-
tinuing until August 7, l990, K06l
wastes containing 15% ‘slime or gru’aicr
are piohiibited from land disposal piir-
siiant to tin’ treatment standaids spe-
ified in § 26841 applitable to K061
wastes that contain icc’ , thaim 15% zinc
(b) r’:ifcctive Auicuisi 8. 1990. I lie
Waste’. apu’u lied iii 40 Cl ‘It 261 :32 a_s
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos K048,
1(049, kOSO. 1(051, 1(052. 1(061 (con-
taiiuing 15% zinc or greater), and K071
are prohibited from land disposal
(C) Effective August 8, 1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 268 10
having a I re_atineni at ami(Iai d iii Sub-
pam t 1) of thus pail based oii iimclnei -
ation and which are contaminated soil
and debris are prohibited from land
disposal
(d) Between November 8. 1988 and
August 8. 1990, wastes included in
paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section
may be disposed of iii a inmidilli or aiim -
face impoundment only if such unit is
iii compliance with the rcquuiremneimt.s
specified in § 268 5(h)(2)
(e) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (d) of thus section do
not apply if
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
standards specified in Subpart D of
this Part: or
(2) Persons have been granted an ex-
emption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268 6. with re-
.spect to those wastes and units cov-
ered by the petition; or
(3) Persons have been granted an ex-
tension to the effective date of a pro-
hibition pursuant to § 2685, with re-
spect to those wastes covered by the
extension
(1) Between August 8, 1988, and May
8. 1990. the wastes specified in § 268 10
for which treatment standards under
Subpart D of this Part are not appl lea-
bie. ineludumig I hose wastes which are
sui)J(’( I to time statuitoi y lirol iibItiou is
of RCItA section 3004(d) or codified
prohibitions under § 268 32 of this
Part, but not including wastes subject
to a treatment standard tinder § 268 42
of thus Part, are prohibited from dis-
posal in a landfill or surface impound-
nuent unless the wastes are the subject
of a valid demonstration and certifica-
tion pursuant to § 268 8
(g) To determine whether a hazard-
ous waste listed iii § 268 10 exceeds tIme
applicable Li eatinent standam ds speci-
lied iii § 26841 and § 268 43. tIme initial
generator must test a representative
sample of the waste extract or the
entire waste depending on whether
time treatment standards aue expressed
as r uimc(’ntrations iii the waste extract
or tIme waste If the waste contains
constituents iii excess of the applica-
ble Subpart D levels, the waste is pro-
hibited from land disposal and all re-
quuircments of Part 268 are applicable.
except as otherwise specified
15t Pit 3i217 Aug ii iO8Bi
767
766

-------
§ 268.34
268.34 Waste specific prohibitions—
second third wastes
(a) Effective June 8, 1989. the fol-
lowing wastes specified in 40 CFR
261 31 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos
FOb. P024, the wastes specified In 40
CFH 261 32 as EPA ilasardous Wa stc
Nos K005. K007. K009 (non-
wastewaters). KOlO. K023; K027;
K028, K029 (nonwastewaters) K036
(wastewaters). K038, K039; K040,
K043; 1 (093. K094, K095 (non-
wastewaters). K096 (nonwastewaters);
K113. 1 (114. 1(115, K116, and the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261 33 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. P0 13:
P021; P029. P030; P039. P040; P041:
P043; P044, P062. P063. P071; P074.
P085. P089, P094 P097; P098. P099.
P104. P106. P109, P111. P121; U028.
U058; U069. U087. U088. U102. U107;
U221. U223; and U235 are prohibited
from land disposal.
(b) Effective June 8. 1989, the fol-
lowing wastes specified in 40 CFR
261 32 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos
1(009 (wastewaters), KOll (non-
wastewaters), K013 (nonwastewaters).
and K014 (nonwastewaters) are pro-
hibited from land disposal except
when they are underground injected
pursuant to 40 CFR 148 14(1) and
148 15(d)
(C) Effective July 8. 1989. the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261 31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. P006—cyanide
(nonwastewater), P008. P009; POll
(wastewaters) and P012 (wastewaters)
are prohibited from land disposal.
(1) Effective July 8, 1989, the follow-
ing waste specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste No P007 is pro-
hibited from land disposal except
when it is underground injected pursu-
alit to 40 CPR 148 14(1)
(2) EFfective July 8. 1989 and con-
tinuing until December 8. 1989, FOIl
(nowastewaters) and F012 (non-
wastewaters) are prohibited from land
disposal pursuant to the treatment
standards specified in 268 41 and
26843 applIcable to P007, P008. and
P009 nonwastewaters. Effective De-
cember 8, 1989 P011 (nowastewaters)
and P012 (nonwastewaters) are pro-
hibited from land disposal pursuant to
the treatment standards specified in
§ 26841 and 26843 applicable to P011
40 CFR C li. 1(7-1-89 EdItion)
(nonwastewaters) and P012 (non-
wastewaters).
(d) Effective June 8. 1991, the wastes
specified in this section having a treat-
ment standard in Subpart D of this
part based on incineration, and which
are coriliunitiated soil and debris art’
prohibited from land disposal.
(e) Between June 8, 1989 and June 8.
1991, (for wastes P007, P008. P009.
FOil, and P012 between June 8. 1989
and July 8. 1989) wastes included in
paragraphs (C) and (d) of this section
may be disposed in a landfill or sur-
face impoundment, regardless whether
such unit is a new, replacement., or lat-
eral expansion unit, only if such unit
is in compliance with the technical re-
quirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(1) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section do
not apply if
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
standards specified in Subpart D of
this Part: or
(2) Persons have been granted an ex-
emption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6, with re-
spect to those wastes and units cov-
ered by the petition.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), and (C) of this section do not
apply ii persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to § 268.5. with
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension.
(i i) Between June 8. 1989 and May 8,
1990, the wastes specified In § 268.11
for which treatment standards under
Subpart D of this Part are not applica-
ble, including California list wastes
subject to the statutory prohibitions
of RCRA section 3004(d) or codified
prohibitions tinder § 268 32. are pro-
hibited from disposal in a landfill or
surface impoundment unless the
wastes are the subject of a valid dem-
onstration and certification pursuant.
to § 268 8.
(i) To determine whether a hazard-
ous waste listed in § 268 10. 268 11,
and 268.12 exceeds the applicable
treatment standards specified in
§ 268 41 and 268 43. the initial genera-
tor must test a representative sample
of the waste extract or the entire
waste, depending on whether the
treatment standards are expressed as
‘168
Environmental Protection Agency
concentrations in the waste extract or
the waste, or the generator may use
knowledge of the waste If the waste
contains constituents in excess of the
applicable Subpart D levels, the waste
is prohibited from land disposal and
all requirements of Part 268 are appli-
cable, cxecI)t IL’, (,tll(’I wi’,, sins lliisl
154 FR 26641). Ju lie 23 l989 1
Subpart D—Treotment Standards
SouRcE 51 Fit 4(1612 Nov 7 1986, iitiles.’,
otherwise noted
§ 26840 Applicability of treatment stand-
ards.
(a) A restricted waste identified in
§ 268 41 may be land (liSpOSed only II
an extract of the waste or of tue treat-
merit, residue of tIn ’ 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
Table CCWE for that waste
(b) A restricted waste foi 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 Administun-
tor under tin’ pi oceciiurt’s set 101 tli iii
§ 268 42(b)
(C) A resti a-ted waste ideni I lied in
§ 268 43 may be land disposed only II
tile constituent concentrations in the
waste or treaimenl residue (if the
waste do not exceed Llit value siiowii
in Table CCW of § 268 43 for any haz-
ardous constituent listed in Table
CCW for that waste
152 FR 25790 July 8. 1987 as amended at 53
P11 3121’? Aug 17 P3881
§ 2614 ii ‘i’ri’tii itient ‘.1 auitl.i u ds es pre....isl .i’.
cuni euut ri I uiitu iii su itst e es (rat I
(a) Table CCWE identifies the re
sti uci ed wastes 1111(1 tile conceitti at ions
of their asnciated liazai clous eoiist itu-
t’iit ‘-. which ina lint hi’ ext ceded by
tlit’ In Appeiidux I of this part lot tire
ailowable land disposal of such waste
(Appendix II of this part provides
Agency guidance on Li eatment meth-
ods that have been shown to achieve
the Table CCWE levels for the respec-
tive wastes Appendix ii is not, a recti-
iatory requirement but is provided to
assist generators and owners/opera-
§ 268.41
tom in their selection of appropriate
treatment methods.)
TABLE CCWE—CONSTITIJENT
CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
Cencent,at,on (at n.g/I)
ititi 100’. ‘4.. ,d ‘5,l ent Win,’; lit • t
spent sotaonl
Solvents wastes
AcetOne 005 059
nBut 5 la )coh o l 50 50
Cwbonasa lte ic 105 481
Cn,boo lot,achlonde 05 90
Ct ,io ,obcnzeoo IS 05
C.esotg (Sod c ,esybc and) 2 82 75
Cyc lobexanone i25 75
1 2-D uctdoiobenzene 65 125
Ethyl acetate 05 75
Ethylbonieno 05 053
Ethyl Otflcr 05 75
bota,tanol 50 50
Mott,ano t 25 75
Methytone eI4nnde 20 90
Methyl ethyl ketone 005 0 75
Methyl sobilyl taboo 005 033
N ;tottenzene 066 0 125
Pyndu le Ii ? 033
leI ,achtn,oethytene 0079 005
lolocee 112 033
III Tnchto ,oethane 105 041
I l2Tnch lo ,o- 122
lnttuo ,octhano I 05 096
tt ,ch lo.oottiy lcno 0062 0091
Tt ,cttotofluo,omethan o 005 096
2 7 1 0 5 ’ 005 015
F006 nonw.stewatem (sue also Teolo Cooconl,at.on
CCWn 826843) ( mmg7i)
Ca ,frn,um 0066
t3wonawn (Total) 5 2
Lead 51
Na,kat 32
S.ts o , 072
F007 F008. and 1009 nonwastowalcs Concent,Ot,On
(see OtSO table CCW * 268 43) (,v mg/I)
Cadrtoum 0090
Chiomaim (tOtal) 52
lead 051
N,,to’t 032
5, 1w. 00/2
FOIl a,vt 1012 nonwa ,Iewalets son also Concpnttat ,On
table CCW in §268 43) in mg/I)
0066
( ‘Ir S ,ieU, itotal) 52
IC id 05
N,ckcI 032
S ,Ivc’ , - 0072 -
F020-F023 and F026-F028 damn conlacong Conceals
wastes lion
(IsCOD All Heoacl ilood4,enzo pdatoms ‘ I ppb
(I 0 COF—Alt ( -lexachtO,oôl,cnaotinans .- I ppb
PeCOD—All Pentact,lO ,Od,b irn ;0 p d nns I ppb
769

-------
§ 268.41
F020—F023 end F026-F 028 iSooss conlawvflg
wastes
PecOf —All Pentaclslo.cd,benzofu,ena
TcDO—AI TebechIoeo enzo-p-thm ,bni
Tciw—Al Tel ct*xod ,benzolsw eflS
24 5-TflcNcrophonol
24 6-T hd4oiOphenol
23 4 ,8.TOt ,aCt*acphesiOl
Penlachl o eopl ieno l
F024 nonwastawalets (see also table Concenhtabon (in
CCW In * 268 13) mg/ I )
Clicombas (total) Resetved
Nickel Renamed
TaIslo CCW
Qwoneun, (Total) 52
Nickel 032
((028 nonwastewateis (see also table Conconl,at ,on ( ri
CCW in *268 43) mg/I)
ciwomium (total) Reso lved
Nickel Iloseroed
( (046 50nwastewatef S (Nomeactrol
Subcatogory)
Environmental Protection Agency
P104 nonwaslewaless (see also table CCW I Concont,al ,on
in 926843) (in mg/I)
Sleet 0072
(b) When waste’ with differing
treatment standards for a constituent
of concern are combined for purposes
of treatment, the treatment residue
must meet the lowest treatment stand-
ard for the constituent of concern
(51 FR 40642. Nov 7. 1986, 52 FR 21017.
June 4, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 31217,
Aug 17, 1988. 54 FR 26649. June 23. 1989)
§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressed as
specified technologies
(a) The following wastes must he
treated using the identified technolo-
gy or technologies, or an equivalent
method approved by the Administra-
tor.
(1) Liquid hazardous wastes contain-
ing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
at concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm but less than 500 ppm
must be incinerated In accordance
with the technical requirements of 40
CFR 761 70 or burned in high efficien-
cy boilers in accordance with the tech-
nical requirements of 40 CFR 761 60
Liquid hazardous wastes containing
polychloritsatecl bipitetsyls (PCfls) at
concentrations gieater than or equal
to 500 ppm must be incinerated in ac-
cordance with the technical require-
ments of 40 CFR 761 70. Thermal
treatment under this section must also
be in compliance with applicable regu-
lations in Parts 264, 265, and 266
(2) Nonhiquid hazardous wastes con-
taining halogenated organic com-
pounds (ROCs) in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1.000 mg/kg
and liquid HOC-containing wastes that.
are prohibited under § 268 32(e)( 1) oF
this part must be incinerated in ac-
cordance with the requirements of
Part 264. Subpart 0 or Part 265, Sub-
part 0, or in boileis ot litdtl’ (trlal fur-
naces burning in accordance with ap-
plicable regulatory standards These
treatment. standards do not apply
where the waste Is subject to a Part
268, Subpart C treatment standard for
a specific HOC (such as a hazardous
waste Chlorinated solventfor which a
treatment, standard Is established
under § 268 41(a)).
§ 268.43
(3) The nonwastewater form of the
following hazardous wastes listed in
§t 268.10, 288.11, and 288i2 must be
Incinerated in accordance with the re-
quirements of Part 264. Subpart. 0, or
Part 265, Subpart 0, or burned in boil-
ers or industrial furnaces burning in
accordance with applicable regulatory
standards K027, K039, K113, K114,
K115, K116, P040, P041, P043, P044,
P062, P085, P109. P111, U058, U087,
U221, and U223.
(4) The wastewater form of the fol-
lowing hazardous wastes listed in
§ 268.10. 268.11, and 268 12 must be
treated by carbon adsorption, or incin-
eration, or pretreatment followed by
carbon adsorption K027, K039, K113,
K114, K115, K116, P040, P041, P043,
P044, P062, P085, P109, P111, U058,
U087, U221, and U223
(b) Any person may submit an appli-
cation to the Administrator demon-
strating that an alternative treatment
method can achieve a measure of per-
formance equivalent to that achieva-
ble by methods specified in paragraph
(a) of this section. The applicant must
submit information demonstrating
that his treatment method is In com-
pliance with Federal, state, and local
requireinent,s 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
he finds that the alternative treat-
ment method provides a measure of
performance equivalent to that
achieved by methods specified In para-
graph (a) of this section. Any approval
must be stated in writing and may con-
tain such provisions and conditions as
the Administrator deems appropriate
The person to whom such approval is
issued must comply with all limita-
tions contained in such a determina-
tio(1
151 FR 40642. Nov 7, 1986. as amended at 52
FR 25790, July 8, 1987. 53 FR 3)2)8. Aug
1’?, 1988. 54 FR 26849. June 23, 19891
§ 268.43 Treatment standards expressed as
waste concentrations
(a) Table CCW Identifies the re-
stricted wastes and the concentrations
of their associated hazardous constltu-
40 CM C l i. I (7-1-89 EdItion)
Consent,.-
bee
< I ppb
<1 ppb
< I reb
<005 ppm
< 005 ppm
.z 0 10 ppm
<001 ppm
KOOl nonwastewatocs (see also Table us
§28843)
Lead
K06 1 nonwaatew .te,, (t ’i s Zkic
5i catogo y—tS% se eate. total uric)
etlecleno untI 818/90
Connoiwa-
lien (in tnQ/
I)
Cadn*in
Ciwnitwan (Total)
Lead
Nickel
8062 nonwaslewate.s
(3womusm (Total)
Lead
0)4
52
24
32
Conce.*•
lion (k , n,g/
I)
0094
37
8071 noawestewaters
Mo cury
Conconlmu-
lion (us mg/
1)
0025
K085 nonwastewaters (Solvent Washes
Subcategory) see also Table CCW us
126843)
Ch,onwar, (Total)
Lead
Cor nlta
lion (in mg/
I)
0 094
37
ConCenl,s-
boo (in 109/
I)
0 51
load
((048 (049 ((050 ((051 and K052
nonwaStowall is (500 also Tablo CCW in
§ 2611 43)
A then s
Clwonvum (Total)
Nickel
Selenium
Ke6t nonwaslOwalots (Low Zeic
Subcatego.-y_Iess Iliac 15. lotal cccl
Csdrn.uni
Chtoin ,um (Total(
load
Nickel
Cooconl,a
lion (in mgi
I)
o te
Concti i ,t,a
Inn (in mg/
I I
o 004
17
048
02 5
Coacc, ,t,a
hoc (In mg /
I I
014
52
24
32
((087 nonwaslewaters (see also Table CCW
Leot( 051
((101 and ((102 nonwaslewatelO (Low A,sen,c Conce68e-
Subcategory—loss (han 1% lola) A,sorsc) lion (us mg/
(soealsoTabieCCWtn l2 d e43) I )
Cadmium 0066
Cluonaum (Total) 52
lead SI
Nickel 32
KItS nonwostewolels (see also 141,10 CCW Conconttal,on
a, 9 268 43) (us n.g/I)
Nickel 032
(‘014 ,mowastowatels (see also table CCW Concoot ,al,on
a, 9203431 (a, , , ajiI)
Nickel 032
P099 nonwaslewalets (see also table CCW Concont,at,on
in ) 26843) (a. mg/I)
SAte. 0072
770
771

-------
§ 268.43
40 CFR C l i. I (7-1-89 Edition)
ents which may not be exceeded by fldF0I2n0nWaste89tel8•
the waste or treatment residual (not ________________________
an extract of such waste or residual)
for the allowable land disposal of such
waste or residual The wastewater and
nonwastewater treatment standards in
Table CCW are based on analysis of
grab samples except the wastewater
treatment standards that are based on _______
analysis of composite samples for
wastes. K009, KOlO. K036. K038. K040, ______
P039. P071. P089. P094. P097. and
U235
Concanfraben
( in mg/kg) —
110
91
Cywedea (Total)
C —
Etlecsoa Oocandsm 8 1989 hOrn J 1 1 7 8 1909 lull
Docim 6 1980 6.050 wasteS we wA4ncI 10 me samit
troetmorit at ndn,ds as I 001 FOUII iusd loon iesn
wastowato.S (boo also labia CCWE s 026841)
Foil and F012 wastowatem (see also ConcenirabOn
Tab leCCWEr i l26 O4t) (mmgil)
Cyamde 5 (Total) I 9
Cyamdes (Amenable) 0 10
Osonwen (Total) 032
Lead 004
Nickel 044
TABLE CCW—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS
IN WASTES
FOOl F002 F003 FOOl and FOOS
waslewalets (Phaimacetitical Industry)
Methytono chloride
§ 268.43
Concentration
(in mg / I)
0 44
F024 nonwa i0waIelS (500 also Table
CCWE in 026841)
2.cldovo-l.3 buta0000
3 ctrlorcçtop000
I I Orclstoroethano
1 2 Drclrloroethane
1.2 0.ctloropropane
00 1.3 D.ctrloroprOgione
tranS 1.3 (5ch opropene
Ris(2.ethpmex sl)pt rIhaIalO
Hexac h lotoethane
Hex ch loroc l e tonz o-l tzat lS
Hose o t 9 8 o ni o-p- c 6 0 I1 1 5
PenlactloroboonzO beans
Pentachlolod.bofiIo p ffios rnS
Tounct4ixodmonoo tiuai.s
Concontrat lOo
(In erg/fig)
o 20
0 29
0014
0014
0011
0014
0014
18
16
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
F006 nonwastOwSIot s (see also table
CCWE hi 026841)
Conconlrabon
(in erg/kg)
590
30
Cyamoes (total)
Cysredes (Amenable)
tOO? rooe nod (000 nonwaslowato.s
(sooai 0 TebI0CCWE in (26941)
Conrontrabon
(in mq/kq)
Cyan.dos (Total)
Cyarades (Amenable)
590
30
FOOl F008. and F009 waslewalels (see
also Table CCWE m( 268 41)
Conconlralion
(in mg/I)
1(016 wastewSIets
Concentra-
lion (wi mgi
1)
I-4 enaCt*xot ien ene
lIesac tio iob itad.one
I ln.acl*eocyclupieita ibnon
llonac l tlo toolhane
1etracldoroethone
0033
007
007
033
007
1(016 nonwastewalers
Concentra.
boor (in mgi
kg)
Chloroethane
I,I- Oud*i 0 00 lane
I 2 Oictrlorooutane
Hoaactdomtienzone
Heaachlorot,utad.ene
ll o sact r lorooth ano
Po,daclik,roolhaoo
I I I T r .chlo.oothane
80
60
60
20
56
28
56
60
1(018 waslewators
Coocentra
lion (in mgi
I)
Chloroolhane
Ctilo ro lnelhane
l,l-D lcti loroot h ane
I 2-D.chloroethane
He xachlo .obenzene
Heract ilorotui.itatheno
Poni oc hloroelb ane
I I l4i.cldoroethane
K019 nonwastewaters
0007
007
007
007
033
007
007
007
Concenua
tion (to mgi
kg)
Environmental Protection Agency
lion (in rrrg/
Ui 026841)
___________________________ kg)
1(001 nonwastewaboos (see also Table CCWE_JOfhmetia
I8
Xy lOn OS
Concontra
1(001 wastewators liOn (in m g i
‘)
N98hthalene 0 IS
Pentachbblophenol 88
Ptlonanttv000 11.
Pyrene 14
Toluene 14
Xy tene s 19
Lead 037
Concont,aboii
1(009 mel 1(010 nonwaSbr waTpr5 ) (in mg/kg)
Chlorolorn, 80
- - — — - --- -
K009 end 1(010 wastowatces
Chloroform — [ (in mg/I)
010
1(011 1(011 nod 1(014 ,.oirw.i I.rwnhi I Concentration
I (in mg/kg)
Acolorat il o I
Acry lorsiate I 14
Acrylamide I 23
Benaene 003
Cyaradel (Total) I
Concentra
K015 wesbowabers lion (in mgi
— ___________________ I)
AnItwacone I 0
Aenoal ctrlotsdo 28
Boozo (1. and/re k) lluorciiiit.eno 29
Pl ienanlh rcno 27
Toluene IS
Chromium (Total) 32
Nickel 44
1(018 l.orrwaslew.irns I t on ( UI mg/
— kg)
Herachto,obenzeno 28
56
Heoacl obotaiberie 56
28
60
Cyenides (Total)
Cyaisdes (Amenable)
Owomain (Total)
teed
Nickel
F024 waslowaIOrS (see also Table CCWE ConcerthaliOll
m (26841) ( .0mg/I )
2-O o-l 3-buladiene
3 O1o ,o xopene
I I t l icNoroetl iane
1 2 O,clloroettlene
1.2 0.ctdorogitopane
on- l,3-(SchlorOfttOpOlre
V.015 I .34licllbOtOpr09000
61542 etNyrnenyl) ptsthatate
Hea ecl oeIhaoe
Henac h bored.benzo-h ean s
19
010
032
004
044
He .achlOrOd.bonao p dionins
— — — — Pentachlororle,oruo beans
nntadio,odAmn2fl.O - olsi aet 5
J Concentration
FOb nonwaslewale r s 5
Cy sred O s(Totnl) — - IS
1 Concentration
FOb waslowalers hy trig/I)
028
026
0014
0014
0014
0014
0014
0036
0036
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
035
041
Coi icentia
lion (in mgi
kg)
80
37
80
73
14
Te l i ec h b ot od ibenzO beans
Clwotnean (Total)
Nickel
1(001 ,iuneastewSI15S (see also table CCWE
riO 268 41)
Cyaredus (Total)
Cyarridos (Amonablu)
Naphtlwi 00 0
I 9 Po idacblor Op t s 0 0 0l
oio Phonaidleono
Pyrene
loluone
‘ 172
B isl2-ch loroelTiyl)ether
Odorobenzeno
Colorolorm
I 2-Orchloroethane
Haxadilotoethane
Nne
Phenanlteene
Tel raclr lcsoelhene
1.24 lnchloiobenzene
I I I TI iClll O lO OIh 8fle
1(019 waslewalets
Un)? Cliloioottiyl)rltici
clrlurobonzcrro
Colo tolorm
p 0.chlotobertzene
1 2 OscIlo,00llsane
Fluoreno
I lecacbloioelliane
Naphtha lcno
Ptionanbhreno
I 2 4 S letractrlorol,en,eno
laIr actlk eoctheno
I 2 4 Tr.ctrloroberrzcne
56
00
60
60
28
56
50
60
19
60
Concanl ia
lion (In mg-
i )
0007
006
007
008
007
007
033
007
007
017
007
023
llcsactrlo.ootl ra iro
1 oboactrlo.oot)iono
‘173

-------
§ 268.43
8019 waslawate!s
Cooconlia
Ion (us mgi
‘)
007
Co. icen l ia
lion (us mgi
kg)
60
56
60
1 I 1 Tnc l4owclhaiso
6020 nonwaslowalois
l.2flch l etoethan o
1.122 Tel,acltloioelhane
Telrach loioothane
8020 wastewateca
I 2 OlthIO iOOthanO
I I 22 Tetiaclilocoetli800
Tet iacliocoothane
Concenka-
lion (In mgi
I)
0007
007
007
8022 nonwastawalots (Soc also Table CCWE
In 2884I) I
Acetophenone I
Sum 0) Diphonylamine and Diphonyltatcosa I
none I 13
Phenol I 12
To luana 0034
(023 8093 and 8094 ronwaslowalaes
PhthaI.c anhydnda Imeasocad as Ptiht.al.c
Conconl,at,on
(si mg/kg)
28
K023. 6093 end 8094 wastowalers
Concantrauon
(5 mg/I)
I4 ilhal ic anhydielo )nsooowad as Ptithabc
acid)
054
8024 000wsstewatavh
Plilhghc nnhyd,aln (moasoced 0 Phlhiatic
acid)
Concant,at ion
(In mg/kg)
28
Concenhiebon
(lt mg/I)
6024 waslowateas
Phthata anhy&ide (measueed as Plithatic
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 EditIon)
K028 000wOslowahcas (soc also Table
CCWE in 526841)
II DiC l4 oroathano
Icons I 2-Diohlocoehliano
h lo oachlo.ota it ad. ono
llonoctiO ioath ano
Pi adachlcitoothano
I I 12 lebacIabsoothano
I 2 2 Tat,acblosootlmiio
II Inchloioothane
I I2lnctdoioelhano
Tatrachloeoethylono
8028 wOstewatass
Conceetcakon
(ui mg/kg)
60
60
56
78
56
56
50
60
60
80

Ii (t t4oioetlwno
Irarci I 2-D ic h lo coethane
Ihosad docot inladiono
I losactilocoothano
Pun lac ldoioo lha no
I I 1 2 ret,achloioothane
1.1 22 Tobachlosoethiane
Telcacl sloeoethylene
Ill Tnchlorocthene
I l2Trictdosc.othano
Cadinoen
Cteooinm (Tolat)
Lead
Nickel
0007
0033
0007
0033
0 033
0 007
0007
0007
0007
0007
84
0 35
0037
047
6028 nonwastowatecs
C3 ll o solorm
I 2 D ict4oeoethano
I I l t skwOoth 5 4oco
I I I Tnchlo ioothano
Vinyl ChIOnde
‘ °
60
60
60
60
60
6030 nonwi .slowatoca
Concenica
lion (in rng/
kg)
) -la s ath10f iIath6nO
Hasac ldo coe lhcno
Ha iaocsopene
Pentacbloio t ionzene
Pentachloioethan o
I 24 5 Tal lactdcaotionz000
ToI,ach losoelhone
I 24 Tnchloiohon,Cne
8030 waslownlocs
0 O iCNOtOtiOnzOnO
pD.cl doso benzone
__________ Hea adil o c obola i5e cio
Heaath loroethane
Poatacy4 o eoo(hano
054 I 245let iachlotobonzono
1 ehiathlosoelhono
I 24 Tnchlo .otionao iio
58
28
19
28
56
14
60
19
Co t icoiutra
lion (ui mg i
‘ )
0008
008
00?
033
00?
01?
007
023
Environmental Protection Agency
6036 wastewalots
_______________ _____________ (u i mg/I)
j Concontiation
0025
J Concentra
6037 nOnwaslowalols lion (us mg/
kg)
Deriloton 0 I
tokiene 28
Dtaultoton
lokiane
6038 and 8040 nonwastewate,s
Pliocato 0 I
8049 nonwaslawalecs (see also Table CCWE
ls{26841)
COncentra
lion (in mg/
kg)
Anuwaceno
Bennana
Benzo(a)pyrene
62
95
064
37
22
67
(Roecruod)
7 7
27
20
95
(Rasoocod)
i 8
Ris(2 .ethy lhexy l)pt ttha la lo
h eysene
Ethylbonuene
Naphtha lone
PI in sar i lh iene
Phenol
Pyreno
Toluene
Xylonos
Cyanidos (Total)
6049 woslewahiws
Conconhia
lion (in 019/
I)
8037 wastuwatocs
mgi
§ 268.43
8048 nonwastOwalats (See also Table CCWE 109
Benzane 95
B enz O(a)pyreno 84
Bis(2 ethylhoryt)plithatato 37
t sy,one 22
Dl n but 1 d plithalala 42
Ethylbonronc 67
Naplimalone (Rosolvadi
Phonant I weno 7 7
Phenol 27
Pti -rene 20
Toluene 95
XylOnes (Raseivodi
Cyan.des (Total) 1 8
Benzana
Concgnt,alion Benzo(a)pyrane
( in mg/kg ) is zeuo gplsuca1ale
Dl n-bulyl phthalato
Ethytbanzene
Plijorene
Napfllh a lona
Phonantywena
__ Ph
Pyreno
Tokiono
_______ Xylenos
Clyotnaim (lola])
Load
0003
028
8048 wastawalms
6038 and 6040 wastawalots
Phoiata
6043 nonweslawalof,
Coocon lra
lion (In mgi
‘ )
0011
047
043
043
060
oil
050
033
039
041
045
0)1
Oil
20
037
24 Dictdocoplienol
2.6 D.cllloroplienol
24 5 Trlchlosoplsenol
24 8-Tn thiotoplsonol
TetlactdOrOplsenols (Total)
Pentaclloroplienol
Teba Shlo.oatj sana
Hose horn an ao -p - - r 8 oo in s
Hexaddo ro c a sio lwans
Penlechio rodbenjo.p .j oens
Pentocljorod ibenzo. ligons
1ebachIoro orizo p d.ooins
Tolrecl*irodibenco Imans
I Concentration
(in mg/I)
j 0025
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
038
034
82
76
068
19
I ?
000)
0001
000)
0001
0001
0001
Conconhyalion
(in mg/I)
0049
0013
0016
0039
00)8
022
0 006
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
6043 wastewaIo s
24 D.Chloroplsanol
26 D.ctslorophenol
24 5 Incldotoptioniw
246 Tnloroplsanol
Telrectdorophanoia (lola))
Panlactdor opheno )
TOtrac I dotoetheno
Hasachlo roctet eflzO p d.Oains
Ho ne od ibenz o- Iu r ap
Pentacl*wodibenzo p-dioowcs
Poelath l o rodibonzo. Iwans
Tatractilorodiboneo p diosess
Tot, echlororlitienco lucans
Anthraceno
Oonzene
Bonzo(a)pyrar sa
Bis (2-eIII ylhexyI)phlha lale
Cwtion disuilhide
24 Danethylphonol
Ethylbenrone
Naptithalene
0039
OIl
047
043
oil
043
033
Oil
033
774

-------
Phenan ll sone
(Xe)
Tekiono
Xyi000s
clsonnn (Total)
Lead
KOSO waslawaleis
Bonzo(a(pyienc
Phenol
Chinmium (Tolal)
Lead
Anthiacene
Benzane
Banzo(a(anthiacono
Banzi$a)pyi one
Bis(2 aIhylhooyl)phlha)ata
chysena
Din buOy) phthala)a
Ethylbonrene
Naph lhalane
Ptiananllveno
Phenol
Pyrene
Teluene
X 1anas
Cyanides (Total)
K051 waslewalets
Acenaphthene
Antlyacone
Benoone
Donzo(a)anlluacano
Bonio(a)pyrane
Bis(2 elhylheoyl) phthalala
Chrysena
Din bulyl ph lhalalo
Ethylbenzene
Ekiotana
Nzip lithalone
Plieurailhronn
Phenol
frone
Toluerio
Concenlia-
Concentra
hen (In mgi
kg)
084
27
Is
Concenha
lion (in mgi
i )
0047
047
20
037
Concontra
hon (In mg /
kg)
62
95
14
64
37
22
42
67
(Reserved)
77
27
20
95
(Reserved)
18
Coiicn:ilra
hon (in mg/
1)
0050
039
oil
043
047
043
043
060
oil
050
033
039
047
045
UI I
40 CER Ch. I (7-149 Edition)
Caced,i
1(05 1 wastawateis lion fin mgi
I)
Xylanas Oil
Ciwonwan (lath]) 20
loot) 0 )7
Cencanha
hen (ai mgi
kg)
Banana 95
Benan(a)pyiene 084
oC tesol 22
p-Creed 090
E urylban oena 67
Napitihalene (Resolved)
Phenant tvana 7 7
Phenol 27
Tokiano 95
Xyioiios (flosmvad l
Cyamdes (blat) $ 8
Concenlia
1(052 wastewalcis hen (in mgi
i )
Ben teno 00 ) 1
Bcnao(a)pyrone 047
oGresel O il
pCiese) O Il
2 4 Dimalhylphenol 033
Eihybenano OIl
Naphthaleno 033
Plinnanll.ona 039
Pherad 041
Tohiorte OIl
Xy lenes OIl
Ctwotnaim (Total) 20
Lead
1(062 waslawalara
C)senna (Total)
load
Nickal
1(088 nonwaslawateis—Selvent Washes
Subcatagory (see also Table CCWE in
§ 268 4))
Acelone
Las )? aihyihexy)) phthalatu
o Duly) alcohol
Cycloharanona
I 2 Drctdotobanzane
Ethyl acelale
Ethyl banana
Malli)4000 chIondo
MaUiyl ashy) koloon
Methyl laebstlyl kelcaso
t4apfllhalena
Ndrebenzane
Taluana
1 1 I TIICMOIOathaI,e
TrCdo.oethyleno
Xy iatias
Acmene
butl2othythasyl)plrllra)ata
n Butyl alcohol
Cyc)ohaaanone
I 2-Dictaorobanzana
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benrane
Methanol
Mathylona cOdonda
Maihyl ethyl helene
Methyl Isebilyl keflm
Nephthalane
Nibebenzena
Toluana
1)). Tnchloreelyiana
Trichloreallry)ena
Xylanas
Ghtenwiin (Total)
Lead
Acenaph lhaleno
Ba nana
Ehiorangyana
Irideno (1 .2.3-cd) kylana
N na
Phenanthrena
Toluana
X$anes
Acenaph)hahrrm
Banana
Ehrnnthana
Irideno (1,23 cd) pyrana
Naphthalene
Phanantloana
Tokiana
)ly lanas
Lead
0015
044
O at
022
044
03)
015
031
03$
031
031
044
044
029
03)
029
015
32
037
34
07)
34
34
34
34
34
65
070
Concenba
1km mgi
002 6
0)4
026
029
028
029
026
008
O h
037
1 (10 1 nonwaslawaleia (low Aisanic
Subcategory—lass than 1% lolal arsenic)
(soo also Table GCWE m § 268 41)
Orlho Nitroanilina
1(101 waslewatma
Otiho Nittoandme
Arserac
Load
Marci a 7
§ 268.43
Conceniratton
(in mg/kg)
Canoenba-
lion (in mg/
kg)
10
001
00 1
00)
00$
001
001
Coitcen ba
li On (in mgi
I )
10
001
00)
001
00$
00)
001
§ 268.43
1(049 waslewatars
1(086 fleowaalewalara—Sejvant Washes
Sitcalagory (see also Tattle CCwE in
§2684fl
1(050 nonwaslewalera (see also Table GGWE
in * 2084))
Benze(a)pyrena
Phenol
Gyarades (lola])
K052 nenwaslewalais (see a)so Table CCWE
a, §26841)
Environmental Protection Agency
Cencanlia
hon (in mgi
______________________ kg)
031
37
037
37
37
49
49
03 1
044
031
015
1(095 nenwasiewalais
li
1(088 waslewalara—Salaenl Washes
Sotcalagery hon(inmg/
11051 nonwaslewalars (see also Table CCWE
in 2684))
I 11 ,2 Tebachleroagian
1.1 22 -laliachloioathw,a
bnliactilareathaqia
I I ? (uicl*wonlhni.,
I iicl oiiIlry$seie
Haiac)goioa)lwia
Penlackloroethana
58
58
60
00
56
7a
56
1(098 nonwaslewalera
I 3 Didelorebenoana
Penlact lle loathana
I.) 12 Tebactiloroalyrane
1.1.2 2-Tetrachloroeg iane
Tatrad eroethy(eno
I 2.4 Trlclderobanzano
liiclileroathyleno
in
56
50
56
56
60
lB
56
1(099 naiwastawalers
24 Dict*xephenoeyacohe acid
HaaacUorodIben2o paa,a i ns
Haoachl 0 1 0diban 3o) (,amm
PanIacMereabana -p t inxj
Pan lach loror l ibann A nana
Tabaclloiodibenze p-ibeains
ballac h loiodgienratraa,m
1(090 waslewatera
1(087 000waslawala,a (sea also Table CCWE I ?.!Z
1(071 waslewa lms
Meicury
2.4 Dichlerophanoayacalic acid
Naaachloredibenzop.thoa)na
Heaact t loreddianzohsan
Penlacyrtorodibano p dieains
PentacNorodtenz a n
TelraU4orerhhanzo paooma
Tetact t lcwechbanzolr.aoa
Concanba
hon (hi mgi
I )
0 32
04
44
Concon lra
lion (in mgi
I )
n 010
Ceiconha
lion (in mgi
kg)
037
49
37
49
49
37
1(087 maylnwalcrs
Concontra
lion (in mgi
kg)
14
Corrcenba
lion (in mgi
I)
027
70
24
I I
027
777

-------
§ 268.43
40 CFR C l i. I (7-1-89 EdItion)
Environmental Protection Agency
P039 wastewate,, Coon
- 0025
P063 nonwa,towetese
yai*le, (Total)
l7yamdes (Amenable)
Cc enU a t,n
ll0
91
§ 268.43
P094
ConcesotaSon
Photato
(In mg/I)
0025
— -
— - -
Concenbatlon
mg/kg)
01
F tlmpIaa
P097 nOowaslewalecs
P063 waslewatecs
Opeside, (Total)
t gwades (Amenable)
Conco tration
(at mg/I)
19
010
P097 waa)ewate,s
Famp lw e
Concentzatlon
(at mg/I)
P071 nOnwes )ewaIef 5
I Concent,abon
I c)
0 1
Meth 5 l patatteon
1(102 nOnwaSiOwaIelS (Low ASO18C
Subcategory—lesa than 1% Iota) e,sonsc)
(500 also Table CCWE a, I) 268 41)
N .b0Phe
I Cottcefltia
I t ce . mgi
1 kg)

P013 nonwaslewatels I Concesi t jatiOn
(as mg/kg)
— - — - - - —
Cyancie (Total) 110
Cya os (Amenable) 1
I Cooco ,rl . a
1(102 wastewalots hen (at n y!
I t
0 .11 -N rtrOpl se nol 0028
A,SCmC 20
Cadnwrm 24
load I It
Me ,cwy 027
— -- —- —- - —-- -— —
1 Concoerba
1(103 .wnwastewaloss Iron mg/
I kg)
Anrbne 56
Bonzcno I 60
24 Deitrophenol 56
Nd.000n7000 I 56
Phenol [ 56
I —— —
P013 wostowalws I Concont,at.on
— (as mg/I) —
Cymaties (Total) I 1 9
Cyan.dot (Amenablo) 010
- - -
- - — - - 1
P021 nonwastewa la .S (in mg/kg)
Cyan.ctes (Iot8t) 110
Cyarwies (Amenable) 91
1 concentration
P021 wastowolers (as mg/I)
— - - — - — ——-- -
Cyan.des (Total) I 9
Cyanbos (Amenable) L
1(103 waslawatom
— - - -_- -
A o
Boi ,zcno
24 Dunlrphrr .oI
Nd, Obc nZ000
Phenol
I
(a mg/
- - —
I 4
I ‘I
IS
I 61
073

-
- — — -
P029 nonwastowalars (m mg/kg)
—I Concentratton
Cyarwios (Total) — ItO
Cywados (Amenable) 9 I
- - — ——
nonwastewaleas
— -
I Cooce srl ra
liOn (in mgi
kg)
P029 wastawaters Concentration
(as mg/I)
- — —— - -- --- ———1 -
i
Cyonaiei (Total) I ‘
Cyandes (Amenable) J 0 10
Aniline
Benzene
240.Istiophenol
N,tmbenzene
Phenol
Cyanides (Total)
— — —- —— — - -— ————
I 56
I 60
I 56
58
56
[ I 8
— —
- - -— ——_______
Cyarados (Total)
Cyan.dos (Amenable)
1(104 waslawatecS
Sn,l rne
Benzene
2,4 DuatiOptrenol
N ibobenoeno
Phenol
Cyarudos (Total)
-- - -
I
Iron (In mg/
I
— — - - - -
I 15
I
81
I 073
I
2 7
———
I Conconbal ion
)mmg/l)
047
— — —— — — —
P030 wastowaters Concont iat ron
(fl mg/I)
-- —- - t - - -
I
Cyasdet (tolal) 19
Cyaiiides (Amenable) I 0 tO
— — - — -
P039 noowastewaters
I (a. my/kg)
- I —— —
t T .s rd lOtoe I o I
I
— — -
1(115 wastewalels (see also Table CCWE
.n*2684 1)
1 4cko l
0 025
P098 flOflWaSliw alei 5
Cyarades (Total)
Cyarw)as (Amenable)
Concen t rat .
(. 5mg/kg) -
Concentration
P071 wastewatots 1 (e• my/li
Methyl paratteon 0 025
I 10
9’
P098 wastewalers
Cyamdes (Total)
Oganides (Amenable)
Concentration
(I, mg/I)
P074 nOnwastewaters (see also Table
CCWE e .(2684t)
Cysmde6 (Total)
Cyarwios (Anwinable)
‘9
010
Concentration
(in mg/kg)
110
91
P030 nonwastewatora
Concentration
(In tog/kg)
P099 nonwastowa)e(9 (see also Table
/L CWEast2884I)
Cascentratron
(as mg/kg)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanidos (Amenable)
P074 waslewaters
(see also Table CCWE
—. 268 41)
Cyartleg (Total)
Cyandes (Amenable)
N,ck
Ito
91
110
91
Concentration
(as my/I)
‘9
0 tO
0 44
P099 wastewalero (see also Table CCWE
el I) 268 41)
Cyansde, (Total)
Cyaodes (Amenable)
ConcentratIon
(as mg/I)
P089 nonwastewaters
19
010
P104 noarwaslewatera (see also Table
cCWEk . t26 84 1)
Cyalides (Total)
Cyanides (Amenable)
Concesrt,at,oa .
(In mg/kg)
778
ItO
9’
C00 500toollor.
( as mg/kg )
Parathion 0 I
P089 waslowalels j Cooceottalion
Parathion — - [ 0025
— — P094 nonwastewaters f
Pl .o .alo _ 0 I
779
P 104 wastewaters (see also Table CCWE
n (2684t)
Cyanales (total)
Cyandes (Amenable)
Concentrabon
(nmqit)
i
0 tO
—
Concent,at,on
Cyanties (Total)
Cyan.dos (Amonalrte)
110
91

-------
40 CFR Ch. I (71-89 Edilion)
U 02 waslewates
Cora ont,ati06
( ,n mg/I)
Otmethyl pilulalate
(P107 nonwasItwalO
UI 90 nonwaslowatOrs
054
Concentration
(al mg/kg)
It. o tyI PI,lIr .tInl.r 20
UIO7 wastirwatets
D i n oclyt phthalate
Concontiation
(In mg/I)
054
Phihatic aohysbido (rnoassood as Phthahc
ac
Ul90 waStOwaler 5 Ca
PhihaIw aithydraie (nieassaed as Phihalic
acid
_________ K005 Nonwastewaters generated by the
process described in the waste listing de-
scriptioli. and disposed after June 8. 1989,
arid not generated in the course of treat-
ing wastewaler Forms of these wastes
(Based on No Generallon)
KOO’I Nonwastewaters generated by the
process described in tue waste listing de-
serititioli. and ( (ispUs eli slier June 8 (989
atid not getierati’d I ii tiit’ (-(purse ul treat-
ing wastpwa(er Forms of these wastes
(Based on No Generation)
K021 Nonwastewater forms of these
wastes generated by the process described
in the waste listing description and dis-
posed after August 17. 1988. and not gener-
ated In the course of treating wastewater
28 forms of these wastes (Based on No Gen-
— - eratloil)
Concentration
(In mg/kg)
28
Concontiatica
(at mg/I)
054
-—- —
Concentration
(m mg /kg(
28
Environmental Protection Agency
K025 Nonwastewater forms of these
wastes generated by the process described
in the waste listing description and dis-
posed after August 17. 1988. and not gener-
ated In the course of treating wastewater
forms of these wastes (Based on No Gen-
eration)
K036 Nonwastewaler forms of these
wastes generated by the process described
in the waste listing description and dis-
posed after August 17, 1988. and not gener-
ated in the course of treating wastewater
forms of these wastes (Based on No Gen-
eration)
K044 (Based on Reactivity)
K045 (Based on Reactivity)
K047 (Based on Reactivity)
K060 Nonwastewater forms of these
waste generated by the process described In
the waste listing description and disposed
after August 17. 1988. and not generated in
the course of treating wastewater forms of
these wastes (Based on No Generation)
K081 Nonwastewater—Hhgh Zinc Subcatego.
ry (greater than or equal to 15% total zinc)
(Based on Recycling) effective 8/8/90
K089 Non-Calcium Sulfate Subcategory—
Nonwastewater forms of these
waste generated by the process described in
the waste listing description and disposed
after August 17, 1988, and not generated in
the course of treating wastewater forms of
these wastes (Based on No Generation)
1(100 Nonwastewater forms of these
waste generated by the process described in
the waste listing description and disposeà
after August 17. 1988. and not generated In
the course of treating wastewater Forms of
these wastes (Based on Recyling)
54 FR 18837, May 2. 1989, 54 FR 28649. June
23. 19891
(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 stand.
ard for the constituent of concern.
153 FR 312(8. Aug 17 1988 as amended at
54 FR 18831. May 2. 1989. 54 FR 26849. June
23. 19891
Fi-PECTIVE DATE No zs
I At. 54 FR 26649 JIlile 23 1989,
§ 268 43(a) was lunemided by r .’v(siiig tii. sub-
table For F006 nonwastcwater, eFfective July
9. 1989 For the convenience of the reader,
the superseded text is set forth as follows
* 268.44
F006 no wastewaters (see also Table Concentration
CCWE a, 268 41) ( 5 . mg/kg)
Cyaerde (Total) fleso lvoci
2 At 53 FR 312(8, August 17, (088. para-
graph (b) was added to 26842, effective
August 8. 1988 At 54 FR 26649, June 23.
1989, the same paragraph (b) was added, ef-
fective June 8. (989
§ 268.44 Variance from a treatment stand.
ard
(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
ievel, or where the treatment technol-
ogy is not appropriate to the waste.
the generator or treatment faciiity
may petition the Administrator for a
variance from the treatment standard.
The petitioner must demonstrate that
because the physical or chemical prop-
erties 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
* 260.20
(c) Each petition must include the
following statement signed by the pe-
titioner or an authorized representa-
tive
I certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar with
the information submitted in this petition
and all attached documents, and that, based
on my inquiry of those individuals immedi
ately responsible For obtaining the inlorma•
Lion. I believe that, the submitted informa-
tion is true, accurate, and complete I am
aware that these are significant penalties
for submitting false Information, including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment
(d) After receiving a petition for
variance from a treatment standard,
the Administrator may request any ad-
ditional information or samples which
§268.43
a • a a a
P106 wastewateas
Coesnt n
Cy.n .des(ToIal) 58
cyanicies (Amenable) 0 50
Pl7 1 nonwostowflhi ’i
Cyaiaites (blat) ItO
Cyantilos (AntonabiC) 0 I
P121 wastewalttrs don
Cyanides (Total)
Cyamdes (Amenablei
U028 nonwastowatefn
I 9
0 tO
(in mg/kg)
Ba (2 elhyiheriyl) phthalaIe 28
U028 wosiewaters Concan
Os (2 ethylhesyl) phlhatale 0 54
(1069 nonwastewateis
0. n bt iIyI plittiatalo 28
U069 wastewaters Cot
0.-n butyl p60. 51810 054
054
U235 nonwastowalets
ll,s (2 3 0d romop.0ptl) phosphato 0 I
U235 waslewateis
Ins (2 3 DdsromopropyI) phosphate 0025
No Land Disposal for.
0088 nonwaslewalers
D.etlsyl phlhalalo
(JU88 wnstOwatois
D.eth9i phthalale
UIO2 nonwastOwaters
DinhilIhyt phtFtalaIo
Conceeltalson
(In mg/kg)
180
781

-------
§ 268.50
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 EdItion)
he may require to evaluate the peti-
tion Additional copies of the complete
petition may be requested as needed to
send to affected states and Regional
Offices
U’) The Administrator will give
piubiu i )oti( C ii i tile FF D I ’ 11 10. Itinis rio
of the intent to approve oi deity a pe-
tition and provide an opportunity for
public comment The final decision on
a variance from a treatment staiidard
will be published In the F’Eni’itAi. RFG-
ISTER
(f) A generator, treatment facility,
or disposal facility that is managing a
waste covered by a variance from the
treatment standards must comply with
the waste analysis requirements for re-
stricted wastes found under § 268 7
(g) Dui log the petit iou review pi oc-
ess, tile applic ant is re(liili Cd to
comply with all restrictioils on land
disposal under this part once the ef-
fective date for the waste has been
reached
(11) Where tile treatment standard is
expressed a.s a concentration in a
waste or waste extract and a waste
generated under conditions specific to
only one site cannot be treated to the
specified level, or where the treatment
tee iii inlogy is not appropi iate I I> II ii’
wa_ l e, (lie gu-iu’i at oi or Ii eat uiwiit i,t-
cility may .Li)l)iv to (lie Assist_alit Ad-
miiiistrator of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emeigency Response, or
his delegated representative, for a site-
specific variance from a treatment
standard The applicant for a site-spe-
cific variance must demonstiate that
because tue physical or chemical prop-
erties of the waste differs significantly
from the waste analyzed in developing
tile treatment standard, the waste
cannot be treated to specified levels 0,
by I tie Sl)N’i fied rneLliO(is
(i) Each application foi a site-Sp IN if-
Ic variance from a treat ment standard
must iiicliide the infoi ination iii
260 20(b)(1)-(4),
(j) A fter receiving an . ppiu ,U ion fiii
a site-specific t’ai en ice F I in ii a Li t’.it-
ment standaid. tue Assistant Admiiiis-
trator, or his delegated representative.
may request. any additional inforiiia-
tion or samples which may be rcquiied
to ev liiate (lie application
(k) A genii ,itor. ti eat intuit f:u itit V.
or (lispusal Fa( ilit y tied is iila ,iagiiie a
waste covered by a site-specific vari-
ance from a treatment standard must
comply with the waste analysis re-
quirements for restricted wastes found
under § 268 7.
(I) During the application review
proces.s. the appii( ant for a site-specif-
ic variance must comply wit_hi all re-
strictions on land disposal tinder this
part once the effective date for the
waste has been reached
151 FR 40642, Nov 7, 1986. 52 FR 2l017,
June 4, 1987, as auneuidu ’d at 53 FR 31221,
Aug I’?, 1988]
Subpart E—Prohibitions on Storage
§ 26850 Prohibitions on storage of re-
stricted waste4
(a) Except as provided in this sec-
tion. the storage of hazardous wastes
restricted from land disposal under
Subpart C of this part of RCRA sec
tion 3004 Is prohibited, unless the fol-
lowing conditions are met
(1) A generator stores such wastes in
tanks or containers on-site solely for
the purpose of the accumulation of
such quantities of hazardous waste a.s
necessary to facilitate proper recovery.
treatment, or disposal and the genera-
(All cninplii’s wit Ii tiii ’ i equiii euneiits iii
262 34 of this chapter (A generator
who is in existence oii tile effective
date of a regulation under this part
and who must stoie hazardous wastes
for longer than 90 days due to the rep-
tilations 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 regu-
iat ions governing interim status under
40 CFR. 270 70)
(2) Au owner/operator of a hayard-
oils wa.st e treatineitt storage, or (us-
posai faciiity stores such wastes iii
tanks or containers solely For the pur-
pose of the accumulation of such
(luantil ii’s of liai.,u (bus waste as nec-
essau y to fat ihut ate 1)101)1’! met nvei y
treatineuit 0! (10 ,1)0551 and
ti) Each container is clearly marked
to identify its contents and the (late
each period of acctimulatiOil begins.
(ii) Each tank is clearly marked with
a (1151 i ipi oil of its conieiiLs. the quail-
iii y 1)1 (‘at’ ii I i,L/ Li tIOu is wast t ’ I t’(’(’ i vc(i,
Environmental Protection Agency
and the date each period of accumula-
tion begins, or such infonnation for
each tank Is recorded and maintained
In the operating record at that facility.
Regardless o whether tile tank itself
Is mi rked, an owner/operator must
comply with the operating record re-
quirements specified In I 264 73 or
§ 265 73
(3) A transporter stores manifested
shipments of such wastes at a transfer
facility for 10 days or less
(b) An owner/operator of a treat-
ment, storage or disposal facliity 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 accumule Lion of
such quantities of hazardous waste as
are necessary to facilitate proper re-
covery. treatment, or disposal.
(d) The prohibition in paragraph (a)
of this section does not apply to waste
which are the subject of an approved
petition under § 268 6. a nationwide
var:ance under Subpart C of this part,
an approved case-by-case extension
under § 288,5. or a valid Certification
under § 268,8.
(e) The prohibition in paragraph (a)
of this section does not apply to haz-
ardous wastes that meet the treatment
standards specified under § 268 41.
268 42, and 268 43 or the treatment
standards specified under the variance
in § 268 44, or. where treatment stand-
ards have not been specified, is In com-
pliance with the applicable prohibi-
Lions specified in § 268 32 or RCRA
section 3004
(F) Liquid hazardous wastes contain-
ing polyclilorinated biphciiyis (l’Cl )s)
at concentrations greater than or
eqtmal to 50 ppm must be stored at a fa-
cility that meets the requirements of
40 CFR 761 65(b) and must be re-
moved from storage and treated or dis-
posed as required by tins pait within
one year of tile date when stich wastes
are first placed into storage The pro-
Pt. 268, App. I
visions of paragraph (C) of this section
do not apply to such PCB wastes pro-
hibited under § 268 32 of this part
(51 FR 40642, Nov 7, 1986. 52 FR 21017.
Julie 4, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 25791.
Judy 8 1087.53 FR 31221. Aug Il. 10881
APPENDIX I—ToxiciTy CHARACTERISTIC
LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP)
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
muitlphasic wastes
1 2 If a total analysis of the waste dem-
onstrates that individual contaminants are
not present in the waste, or that they are
present but at such low concentrations that
tue appropriate regulatory thresholds could
not possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need
not be run
20 SUMMARY OF METHOD
(See Figure 1)
2 1 For liquid wastes (t e. those contain-
ing Insignificant solid material), the waste,
after filtration through a 0 6- to 08-urn
glass fiber filter, is defined as the TCLP ex-
tract
2 2 For wastes comprised of solids or for
wastes containing significant amounts of
soiid material, the particle-size of the waste
is reduced (if necessary), the liquid phase, if
any, is separated from the solid phase and
stored for later analysis The solid phase is
extracted with an amount of extraction
fluid equal to 20 times the weight of the
solid phase The extraction fluid employed
is a function of the alkalinity of the solid
phase of the waste A special extractor
vessel is used when testing for volatiles (See
Table 1) Following extraction, the liquid
extract is separated from the solid phase by
06- to 0 8-urn glass fiber filter filtration
2 3 If compatible tie, multiple phases
wlil not form on combination), the Initiai
liquid phase of the waste is added to the
iiquid extract, and these liquids are ana-
lyzed together If incompatible, the liquuids
are analyzed separately and the results are
mati it’uiiatk ally combined to yield a voiuuioe-
we ig iii i’d avt’i 5 5C C 0111 cuitratiun
30 INTERFERENCES
3 1 Potential interrerences that may be
encountered during analysis are discussed in
the individual analytical methods
40 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS
4 1 Agutetzon apparatus An acceptable
agitation apparatus Is one which is capable
‘p82
783

-------
Pt. 268, App. I
of rotating the extraction vessel in an end-
over-end fashion (See Figure 2) at 30 ± 2
rpm Suitable devices known to EPA are
identified in Table 2
4 2 ExtraCtion Vessei
4 2 1 Zero-l{eadSPaCe Extraction Vessel
(ZHE) This device is For use oafs, when the
waste is being tested for the mobility of
volatile constituents (see Table I) The ZUE
is an extraction vessel that allows For
liquid/solid separation within the device.
and which effectively precludes headapace
(as depicted in Figure 3) This type of vessel
allows for initial liquid/solid separation. ex-
traction and final extract filtration without
having to open the vessel (see Step 4 3 1)
These vessels shall have an Internal volume
of 500 to 600 mL and be equipped to accom-
modate a 90-mm Filter Suitable ZUE devices
known to EPA are IdentiFied in Table 3
These devices contain viton 0-rings which
should be replaced frequently
For the ZHE to be acceptable for use, the
piston within the ZHE should be able to be
moved with approximately 15 psi or less If
it takes more pressure to move the piston.
the 0-rings in the device should be repiaced
If this does not solve tue problem the ZI-IE
is unacceptable for TCLP analyses and the
manufacturer should be contacted
The ZI-IE should be checked after every
extraction If the device contains a built in
pressure gauge. pressurii.e the device to 50
psi, allow It to stand unattended for I hour.
and recheck the pressure If the device does
not have a built-in pressure gauge. pres.sur-
i s o the device to 50 psi, submerge it in
water, and check for the presence of air
bubbles escaping from any of the fittings I!
pressure is lost, check all fittings and in-
spect and replace 0-rings, if necessary
Retest the device If leakage problems
cannot be solved, the manufacturer should
be contacted
4 2 2 When the waste is being evaluated
for other than volatile contaminants, an ex-
traction vessel that does not preclude head-
space (C g a 2 lIter baltic) is uw-d Suitable
cxi raetluuui yes_sets ii ichicte butt lu’s uuiadi’ I ruin
various materials, d,-peniiiiig on Liii’ Coil-
tamlnant,s to be analyzed and the nature oF
the waste (see Step 4 3 3) It Is recommend-
ed that borosilicate glass bottles be used
over other types of glass especially when in
organics are of concern Plastic bottles may
be used only if Inorgauuics arc to be invest 1-
gated Bottles are avail.sble From a number
of laboratory supplier’ When this type OF
extraction vessel is used, the filtrailon
device discussed in Step 4 3 2 Is used For iou-
tipi liquid/solid separation and final extract
lilt ration
4 2 3 Some ZilEs use gas pressure to ac
tuate the ZHE piston a bite others use me-
c’iuanicttl pressure (see Table 3 Whereas
the solatiles procedure see Section 90)
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 Edition)
refers to pounds-per-sqUare Inch (psi), for
the mechanicallY actuated piston, the pres-
sure applied is measured in torque-inch’
pounds Refer to the manufacturer’s in-
structions as to the proper conversion
4 3 FIltration Devices It is recommended
that all filtratlons be performed in a hood
4 3 1 Zero’Headspace Extractor Vessel
(see Figure 3) When the waste is being eval
uated for votatiles. the zero-headspaCe ex-
traction vessel is used For filtration The
device shall be capable of supportiuia and
keeping In place the glass Fiber filter, and be
able to withstand the pressure needed to ac-
complish separatiOn (50 psi)
NOTS When it is suspected that the glass
fiber filter has been ruptured, an In-line
glass Fiber filter may be used to filter the
material within the ZHE
43 2 Filter holder When the waste is
being evaluated for other than volatile com-
pounds, a fitter holder capable of support-
ing a glass fiber filter and able to withstand
the pressure needed to accomplish separa-
tion is used Suitable filter holders range
from simple vacuum units to relatively com-
plex systems capable of exerting pressures
of up to 50 psi or more The type of filter
floldpr used depends on the properties of
the material to be filtered (see Step 4 33)
These devices shall have a minimum inter-
nal volume of 300 mL and be equipped to ac-
coinmoditte a minimum filter sIze of 41 mm
(Filter holders having an Internal capacity
oF 1 5 L or greater and equipped to accom-
modate a 142 mm diameter filter are recom-
mended) Vaccum filtration is only recom-
nui’ieled for wastes with low solids content
(<10%) and for highly granular (liquid-COO-
taii,ing) wastes All other types of wastes
should be filtered using positive pressure f II-
tratlon Filter holders known to EPA to be
suitable for use are shown in Table 4
4 3 3 Materials of Construction Extrac-
tion vessels and filtration devices shall be
made of inert materials which will not leach
or absorb waste component’s Glass, polyte-
LrafiuoroethyiCflc (P’I’FE). or type 3)6 stain-
less steel equipment may be used when eval-
uating I lie mobility of both organic and in-
organic components Devices made of high-
density polyethylene (HDPE). polypropyl-
ene. or polyvinyl chloride may be used only
when evaluating the mobility of metals
Borosilicate glass bottles are recommended
for use over other types of glas.s bottles, es-
pecially a heii iulorgahlics arc iouistItIiCultS of
concern
44 Filters Fillets shall be made of boro-
silicate glass fiber, shall contain no binder
materials, and shall have an effective pore
size of 0 6- to 0 8-urn, or equivalent Filters
known to EPA to meet these specifications
are identified in Table 5 Pre-fiiterS must
not be used When evaluating the mobility
of motnls filters shalt be acid-wttslied prior
Environmental Protection Agency
to use by rinsing with 1 0 N nitric acid fol-
lowed by three consecutive rinses with
deionized dIstilled water (a minimum of 1-L
per rinse Is recommended) Glass fiber fil-
ters are fragile and should be handled with
care,
4 5 pH meters Any of the commonly
available p11 meters ni-c acceptable
4 6 ZHE extract Collection devitcs
TEDLAR bags or glass stainles,’, steel or
PTFE gas tight syringes are used to collect
the Initial liquid phase and the final extract
of the waste when using the ZIIE device
The devices listed are recommended For use
under the following coaditions
4 6 1 If a waste contains an aqueous
liquid phase or if a waste does not contain a
significant amount of non-aqueous liquid
(I e. <1% of total waste), the TEDLAR bag
should be used to collect and combine the
Initial liquid and solid ,‘xt ract Tin’ syriiig.’
lx not recommended in these eases
4 6 2 If a waste comitains a significant
amount oF non-aqueous initial liquid phase
(I e • >1% of total waste), the syringe or the
TEDLAR• bag may be used for both the ini-
tial solid/liquid separation and the Final ex-
tract filtration However, analysts should
use one or the other, not both
4 63 If the waste contains no initial
liquid phase (is 100% solid) or ha,s ho signifI-
cant solid phase (Is 100% lIquid), either the
TEDLAR bag or tile syringe may be used
If the syringe is tin-ct dus ard the fim st 5 unh
of liquid expressed [ ruin I lie devlc e ‘I’hie re-
mainimmg aliquots arc used for analysis
4 7 ZIIE extraction fluid transfer devmc es
Any device Capable of Lrniusfu-rrlng the ex-
traction fluid into the ZIIE without chang
ing the nature of I lie extraction fluid Is ac-
ceptable (e g, a constant displacement
pump, a gas tight syringe, pressure filtra-
tion unit (Sec Step 4 3 2), or another ZllE
device)
48 Laboratory bala,iee Any laboratory
balance accurate to within ±001 grams may
be used (all weight measurements are to be
within ±0 1 grams)
50 REAGENTS
5 I Reagent vat, r 1(4 ng , ’uut Water is cit
fined as water iii whIch sum iimtc’rFci emit is nut
observed at or above the method detection
limit of the anaiyle(s) of ummierm” ,t For non
volatile extractions. AS’I’M ‘l’ype II water
or equIvalent uneet,s tue Iu’fiuuitio OF rca
gent water Fur volatile cxi i-act umumus It is i-cc
ommended thai reagent water tue gerim-mated
by any oF the fullowing mu’thiods Reagent
water should be monitored om-riodically For
Impurities
5 1 1 Reagent water for volatile extrac-
tions may be generated by pa-s-sing tap water
through a carbon filter bed containing
about 500 grams of activated carbomu
(Calgon Corp. Filtraaorb-300 or equivalent)
Pt. 268, App. I
5 1 2 A water purification system (Mliii-
pore Super-Q or equivalent) may also be
used to generate reagent water for volatile
extractions
5 1 3 Reagent water for volatile extrac-
tlomis may also be prepared by boiling water
for 15 mInutes Subsequently, while main-
taIning the water temperature at 90± 5’C,
bubble a contaminant-free inert gas (e g • ni-
trogen) through the water for 1 hour While
still hot, transfer the water to a narrow-
mouth screw-cap bottie under zero-head-
space and seal with a TeFlon-lined septum
aiid cap
5 2 1 0 N Hydrochloric acid (HCI) made
From ACS reagent grade
5 3 1 0 N Nitric acid (HNO ,) made from
ACS reagent grade
54 1 0 N Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
made From ACS reagent grade
5 5 Glacial acetic acId (HOAc) ACS rea-
gent grade
5 8 Extraction JZuuL
58 1 ExtractIon fluId #1 This fluid is
made by adding 5 7 mL glacial HOAc to 500
mL of the appropriate water (see Step 5 1).
adding 64 3 niL of 1 0 N NaOH, and diluting
to a volume of 1 liter, When correctly pre-
pared. tile pH of this fluid will be 4 93 ±
005
562 Extraction Fluid #2 This fluid Is
made by diluting 57 mt. glacIal HOAc with
ASTM Type II water (see Step 5 I) to a
voluinse of I liter When correctly prepared,
the pH of this fluid will be 288 -t 005
NOTE It is stuggested thai, these extraction
fluuitls be mnonlto u-ed frequently for iinpurI-
ties Tile i)H should be checked prIor to use
to costume that these fluids are made up ac-
curately
5 7 AnalytIcal standards shall be prepared
according to the appropriate analytical
method
60 SAMPLE COLLECTION,
PRESERVATION. AND HANDLING
6 1 All samples shall be collected using
nil approprIate samplIng plan
6 2 Al lea,si two separate representative
sisnhlules of a wa.ste shuouuld be collected If
volatile organlcs are of concer,i, a third
sample should be collected The First sample
Is used in several preliminary TCLP evalua-
tions (e g, to determine the percent solids
oF Ihe waste, to determine if the waste con-
tain’, insig i - ilFuc am it solids (I e • tile waste is Its
own extract after filtration), to determine If
the solid portion of the waste requires parti-
cle-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 evaltiations are
identified in Section 7 0 The second and, if
requuured, third samples are extracted using
(lie TCLP non-volatile procedure (Section
784
785

-------
Pt. 268 App. I
8 0) and volatile procedure (SectiOn 90), re-
spectively
6 3 Preservatives shall not be added to
samples
6 4 Samples cnn be refrigerated unless re-
Irigeral loll rt ’stulLs in Irrevirsibli’ ihY ’ ,iI nI
(Ilaulge to the waste (c g , piccipitat Ion)
6 5 When the waste is to be evaluated for
volatili’ coninininailts care should be taken
to nii,iluiii,’c tIle lose, of volni ii i s Samples
shall be taken and stored In a manner to
prevent the loss of volatile contaminants If
possible, it is recommended that any neces-
sary particle-size reduction should be con-
ducted as the sample Is being taken (See
Step 85)
6 6 TCLP extracts should be prepared
for analysis and analyzed as soon as possible
following extraction If they need to be
stored, even for a short period of time, stor-
age shall be a 4 C and u,amples for volatilis
analysis shall not be allowed to comma’ into
contact with the atmosphere (I e. no head-
space) See Section 10 0 (QA requirements)
for acceptable sample and extract holding
times
‘1 0 PRELiMINARY ‘rci.i’
EVALUAtIONS
The preliminary [ CLl evaluations are
performed on a minImum 100 gram repre-
sentative sample of waste that will not actti-
ally undergo TCL1’ extraction (designated
as I he First snmnl)lc’ iii Si ( I) 6 2) ‘l’l ic--.r cvi ii
tint iou’, In Iudc pri’iiimiliiary vli tc , imilmiat oil
of I lie PCI CCIII solid’, of the wa_sic, dcl criiiI
uinl loll of wliiI iii’i liii’ wa_sic (0111 fIll. Iii’,ig—
uiific alit solluis. and is Liicriloi c. ii ’ , iiWII I ’ S—
tract after filtration di’terniiuiatloim of
whether the solid portion of the waste re-
quires particle-size reduction, and deteririi-
nation of which of the two extraction fluids
are to be used for the non volatile TCLP ex-
traction of the waste
7 1 Preliminary deterniiuiatlon of percent
solids Percent solids is defined as (hat frac-
tion of a waste sample (as a percentage of
the total sample) from which no liquid may
be forced out by au applied prc’sslmrc’, is’, iii’
sribisl below
7 I I If the wash’ will ohs ioiisiy yic’iii 110
free iiqlii(l when simbJc’cted to pressure liltu a
tion (I e , is 100% solids) proceed to Step 7 4
‘7 1 2 II the calnpie 5 11(1111(1 or nillillpila-
sIc — luiclid/siclid sep,ii it iou cc ui_ike ii mcli thu
111.11 y (lu’tu’ilmiiii,itloul ccl l iculmi soliti—, I’. Ii ’
quired ‘I l s involvi S the fliLraiuoli device
described in Step 4 3 2 and Is oiitiiiieti iii
Steps ‘IL 3 through 7 1 9
‘71 3 Pre-welgh the filter and the con-
tainer that will receive the filtrate
7 I 4 Assemble tile filter holder atid Filter
Follow I ii tin’ mnauiuilaci ii r i r s lust ri a LIon’.
Place ii Ic filter oii thu ‘.dll curt si nI ii intl
secure
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 EdItion)
‘71 5 Weigh out a representative subsam-
ple of the waste (100 gram minimum) and
record the weight
71 6 Allow slurries to stand to permit
the solid phase to settle Wastes that settle
slowly may be renirifuuged prior to filtra-
tiouu Ccmmtrllmmgntioii 1’. to be used only as aim
aid to filtration If used, the liquid should
be clt ’calitc’d and filtered followed by filtra-
hloii of llii’ solid liortion of tile wa_ste
through Lime sa,uic’ filtration Systelfl
7 1 7 QuantItatively transfer the waste
sample to the filter holder (lIquid and solid
phases) If filtration of the waste at 4’ C re-
duces the amount of expressed liquid over
what would be expressed at room tempera-
ture then allow the sample to warm up to
room temperature Ic the device before fil-
tering
NOTE If waste materIal (>1% of original
5an iple weight) lia,s obviously adhered to
thIc coiitnincr used to transfer the sample to
tue filtration apparatus, determine the
weight of this residue and subtract it from
the sample weight determined in Step 7 1 5
to determine the weight of tile waste sample
that will be filtered
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pres-
sure of i-tO psi, until air or pressuirizitig gas
moves through the filLer If this poInt Is not
reached under 10 psi, and if no additional
liquid has passed Lhroughi the filter In any
2-minute interval, slowly increase the pres-
sure In 10-psi increments to a maximum of
50 psi Alter cacti iuicreunental Increase of
10-psi, if tlmi’ iressuiri/iulC gas has not moved
I lirotigii I hue filler and if no additional
iillllid him, paa_scd through tile filter in any
2-nlilihitu.’ liii u’rval, p1 Ocet’(l to the next 10 psi
Increment When Lice pressurii,Ing gas
begins to move through Lhe [ liter, or when
liquid flow has ceased at 50 psi (IC. filtra-
tion does not remit In any additional fil-
trate within any 2-minute period) filtration
is stopped
NOTE InstantafleOliS application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter
and may cause premature plugging
‘7 I 8 Tile material in the filter holder is
defined a_s tIn’ solId phase of the wa_ste and
I lie flit mitt’ is du’fumced a’. the liquid pluu.e
Nuni Sonic wasti s sii h as oily wastes
and some paint wa_sit’s will obviously coii-
lain some material that appears to be a
huh id flu I evu’n a (h-i applyi tug vaculuillu or
cm i ,’ lilt, uilcuuc ‘i_s iccui 11111 ii iii Sic—Ic 7 I ‘7
li ii’. ill_tic I i,Ll hilly i ,u,L 1111.1 if liii’, I’ (lit’
case ii a iiiati’ri.d wiLt on (ice fi itraticcu I
device us dcfiiicci as a solid Time original
filter Is not to be replaced with a fresh filter
under any circumstances Only one filter is
used
7 1 9 Dcterniiiio the weight of the liquid
pha_-,c’ by simhil mu Li lie Lice weight of tile fIl
LrntC i_old aimier (Su’c ’ Si e’p ‘I 1 3) from Liii’
tolal wi-ight of lime fIllratc- filled coiitaiilcr
72 Determination of whether waite is
liquid or ha,, insignificant amounts af solid
materiaL’ It the sample obviously has a
nit icant amount of solid material, the solid
phase must be subjected to extraction, pro-
ceed to Step 73 to determine If the waste
requires particle-size reduction (and to
reduce particle-size, If necessary) Deter-
mine whether the waste Is liquid or has In-
significant amounts of solid material (whmiu ,hm
need not undergo extraction) u.s follows
7 2 1 Remove the solid phase acid filter
from the filtration apparatus
7 2 4 II the percent dry solids Is less than
0 5% consult Step 6 2 acid procc’ed to See-
Lion 80 if nomm-volatiles in the waste are of
concern, and to SectIon 9 0 if volatiles are of
interest In this case, the wa_ste. after filtra-
tion is defined as the TCLP extract If the
percent dry solids is greater than or equal to
0 5%, and if the non-volatile TCLP is to be
performed, return to the beginning of this
Section (70) with a new representatIve
waste sample, so that it can be determined
If particle-size reduction is necessary (Step
7 3). and so that the appropriate extraction
fluid may be deferncined (Step ‘74) on a
fresh portion of the solid plma_se of the
wa_ste It omily the volatile TCLP Is to be per
Formed, see time Note In Siep 7 4
7 3 Determination of whether the wastes
requires pa rtmcle-si c red uictio,l (particle-size
Is reduced dig rinq this Step) Ucumig Liii’ solid
tim Iloui of liii’ wa_sIc’ ,‘r.dim,tI e Liii’ solid ior
part it Ii’ slit’ if tice- scul Iii I i L ’ . .1 u ,IIr face ai en
per grain of material equal to or gicater
than 3 1 cmii , or is smaller than 1 cm in its
narrowest dimension (0 g, Is capable of
passing through a 95-mm (0375 inch)
standard sieve). particle-size reduction is not
required (proceed to Step 7 4) If the surface
area is smaller or Liii’ partIcle-size larger
thin dc’scrubc d above Lii ,- solid icon io u of
‘1 2 2 Dry the filter arid solid phase at
100±20’ C until two successive weighings
yield the same value within ±1% Record
final weight
NoTE Caution should be taken to insure
that the subject solid wIll not flash upon
heating It Is recommended that the drying
oven be vented to a hood or appropriate
device
7 2 3 Calculate the percent dry solids sic
follows
the waste is prepared for extraction by
crushing, cutting. or grinding the waste to a
surface area or particle-size as described
above
NOTE Surface area requirements are
meant for fliamentous (e g • paper, cloth)
and sImilar waste materials Actual meas-
urement of surface area is not required, icon
Is it recommended
7 4 Determination of appropriate extrac-
tion fluid. If the soiid content is greater
than or equal to 0 5% of the waste and if
TCLP extraction for non-volatile constitu-
ents will take place (Section 80), determina.
tloui of the appropriate fluid (Step 5 6) to
use for Lice non-volatiles extraction is per-
formed as follows
NOTE TCLP extraction for volatile con-
slit uicnt..s entails using oniy extraction fluid
ill (Sieil 5 6 I) Thmeni’Forc, if ‘i’Cl.P extrnc
tuouc for ,ioni-vuiatiies extractIon Is not re-
quired, proceed to section 9 0
7 4 1 Weigh Out a small subsample of the
solid phase of the waste, reduce the solid (If
necessary) to a particle-size of approximate-
ly 1mm in diameter or less, and transfer 50
grains of the solid phase of the waste to a
500-cut, beaker or Erlen,neyer flask
Environmental Protection Agency 468, App. I
The weight of the solid phase of the waste Step 7 1 5 or 7 1 7 Record the weight of the
sample is determined by subtracting the liquid and solid phases. Calculate the per-
weight of the liquid phase from the weight cent solids as follows
of the total waste sample, as determined in
Weight of solid (Step 7 1 9)
Pcreu’nt solids - — — - - X 100
Total weight of waste (Step’7 I 5 or? 17)
Weight of dry waste and filter—tared
Percent dry weight of filter > 100
solids
Initial weight of waste (Step 7 1 5 or 7 1 1)
786
787

-------
Pt. 268, App. I
7 4 2 Add 985 mL of reagent water
(ASTM Type II) to the beaker, cover with a
watchglass. and stir vigorously for 5 minutes
using a magnetic stirrer Measure and
record the H If the pH Is 5 0. extraCtion
fluid #lis used proceed to Section 8 0
‘14 3 If the PH from Step 7 4 2 is >50,
add 3 5 mt, 1 0 N HCI. slurry briefly, cover
with a walchgln- ’S. heat to 50 ‘C. and hold at
50 ‘C for 10 minUtes
‘14 4 let the solni ion cool to room tem-
perature and record tue p11 II the p 1t is
5 0, use extraction fluid 111 ii the p 1 t Is
>5 0. use extraction fluid fl2 Proceed to
Section 8 0
75 The sample of waste used for per-
forntance of this Section shall tiot be used
any further Other samples of the waste
(see Step 6 2) should be employed for the
SectIon 8 0 and 9 0 extractions
80 PROCEDURE WHEN VOLATI1 .ES
ARE NOT INVOLVED
Although a minimum sample site of 100
grams (solid and liquid phases) Is required, a
larger sample size may be more appropriate.
depending on the solids content of the
waste sample (percent solids. see Step 7 1).
whether the Initial liquid phase of the waste
will be miscible with the aqueous extract of
the solid, and whether iiiorganics. semivolfl-
tile organics. pesticides. aiid herbicides are
all analytes of concern Enough solids
should be generated for extraction such
thai (lie volume of ‘l’CI P ext met will be
so F Ce iii it to s(ii)port oil iii LI ic anal ysu”. me-
qiiired Ii (lie amount of extract geiwrai -i ’tl
by 1 1w performance of a single TCI ,P cx
ir tulii,ut will iiot be stifII it - lit to p. ibm , all
of Liii ’ aiiaty . s to hi’ i,uliit t.t d, it I’. ti iuhi
mended that more than one extraction be
performed and that the extracts from each
extraction be combined and then aliquoted
for analysis
8 1 If the waste will ubviotmsly yield no
liquid when subjected to prc’ ure Iiltm ation
(Ic. is 100% solid, see Step? fl weigh out a
representative subsample of the waste (100
gram minimum) and proceed to Step 89
8 2 If the sample is liquid or niulttphaslc.
liquid/solid separation is required Fhis in-
volves the filtration devk m’ ti-scrlbed iii Siep
4 32 and is outlined iii Steps 83 10 88
8 3 Pre-weigh the cotitalner that will re-
ceive the filtrate
8 4 Assemble the filter holder and filter
following the manufacturers instriictiOiis
Place it ic filter on tto si mp tort screen a iiti
st-curl’ A at w.csli liii’ [ ill. i if v.Llii ilimit’ liii
mobility of metals (Sue Step 4 4)
NOTE Acid washed Filters m.sy be used for
all non volatile extractuoui’. cviii wiieii
metals are not of concern
8 5 Weigh out a representative subsam-
ple of the waste (100 gram minimum) and
record the weight if the waste was shown
to contain <0 5% (try solid’. (Step ‘1 2). tIn’
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 EdItion)
waste, after filtration is defined as the
TCLF 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 In-
formation obiaineit in Step 7 1 to determine
the ohitiiflhiIli sample sIte (100 grain mini-
mum) for fIltration Eiiougli solids should
be generated after (Iltrattoii to simppurt the
analyses to be pci formed on the ‘l ’CLl’ ex-
tract
86 Allow slurries to stand to permit the
solid phase to settle Wastes that settle
slowly may be centrifuged prior to filtra-
tion CentrifugatiOn is to be used only as an
aid to filtration If used. the liquid should
be decanted and filtered followed by filtra-
tion of the solid portion of the waste
through the same filtration system
87 Quantitatively transfer the waste
sample (liquid and solid pha.ses) to (lie fitter
holder (ate Step 4 3 2) If Filtration of the
waste at 4’ C reduces the amount of ex-
pressed liquid over what would be expressed
at room temperature, then allow the sample
to warm up to room teiul,erattire in tlic
device before filtering
NOTE If waste material (>1% of the origi-
nal 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 85
10 di’terimiiflc the wi-i gIlt of (lit’ wa_ste sample
that will be filtered
Gradually apply viictlilm or gentle pres-
sun of I tO psi until air or prCcciII lung gas
unovt”, through tin- filter IF this poiiii I’ , not
reached under 10 psi, and if no additional
liquid has passed through the filter in any
2-minute Interval, slowly Increase the pres-
sure in 10-psi increments to maximum of 50
psi After each Incremental increase of 10
psi. if (lie pres,suri7 iiig gas has iiot, moved
through the filter, atid ii no additional
liquid has passed through the filter in any
2-minute interval proceed to the next 10-psi
increment When the pressurizing gas
begins to move through the Filter, or when
i lit’ liquid Flow hia.s cea_sed at 50 psi (he • Fil-
tration dot’s not result Iii ally additional fil-
trate witidii a 2-minute period), filtration Is
stopped
NOTE lnstalitaneOtis application of bight
pressure can degrade I lii glass fiber fill ii
.iiiui i.iav . .uii’,i’ in .ini t un ptilizgilit’
88 ‘I lie iiinti m tat iii tIn bIte. iiolihi Is
deiiiied as tue solid ph.ise of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid plia-se
Weigh the flIt rate The liquid pita_ce may
now be either analyzed (see Step 8 13) or
stored at 4 ‘C until time of analysis
NOTE Some wastes. such as oily wastes
and soniC ,,ti iii wastes will obviously miii—
Environmental Protection Agency
tam some material that appears to be a
liquId But even alter applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in Step 87.
this material may not filter If this is the
case, the material within the filtration
device is defined as a solid and is carried
through the extraction as a solid The origi-
nal filter Is ,tot In br r i-pta. ed wit Ii a fresh
litter uiunler any thu uui.ustaiiei’ . uuily i,iii’
(lie fIlter is used
89 If the waste contains <05% dry
solIds (see Step? 2). proceed to Step 8 13 if
the waste contaIns -‘05% dry solids (see
Step 7 1 or ‘7 2), and if particle-size redtic-
Lion of the solId was needed in Step I 3, pro-
ceed to Step 8 10 11 partIcle size reduction
was not required In Step ‘73, quantitatively
transfer the solid material into the extrac-
tor vessel, including the filter used to sepa-
rate the initial liquid from the solid phase
Proceed to Step 811
Weight of extraction fluld= ________
Slowly add this amount of appropriate ex-
traction fluid (see Step 7 4) to the extractor
vessel Close the extractor bottle tightly (it
Is recommended that Teflon tape be used to
en_cure a tight seal), secure in rotary extrac-
tor device, and rotate at 30±2 rpm for 18±2
hours Ambient temperature U e, tempera-
ture of room in which, extraction is to take
place) shall be maintained at 22 1-3 ‘C
during the extraction period
NOTE As agitation continues, pressure
may build up within the extractor bottle for
some types of wastes (e g, limed or calcium
carbonate containing waste may evolve
gases such as carbon dioxide) To relieve
excess pressure, the extractor bottle may be
periodically opened (eg, after 15 minutes.
30 minutes. and 1 hour) and vented Into a
hood
8 12 Following the 18±2 hour extraction.
the material In the extractor vessel Is sepa-
rated into its component liquid and solid
phases by fIltering through a new glass
fiber filter, as outlined in Step 87 For final
Filtration of the TCLP extract, the glass
hiber filter may be changed, if necessary, to
FacIlitate Filtration Filler(s) shall be acid-
wa_stied si’e Step 4 4) iF ,-valm i.tt lug Liii’ tim
bility of metals
8 13 The TCLP extract is now prepared
as follows
B 13 1 If the waste contained no Initial
liquid phase, the filtered liquid material ob-
Pt. 268, App. I
8 10 The solid portion of the waste is pre-
pared for extraction by crushing, cutting, or
grinding the waste to a surface area of par-
ticle-size as described in Step ‘7 3 When the
surface area of particle-size has been appro-
prIately altered, quantItatively transfer the
solid material into the extractor vessel, in-
hiding the filter used to separate the InitIal
liquid from the solId phase
NOTe Sieving of the waste through a sieve
that is not Teflon coated should not be done
dun’ to avoid possible contaminatIon of the
sample Surface area requIrements are
meant for filamentous (e g., paper, cloth)
and similar waste materials Actual meas-
urement of surface area is not recommend-
ed
8 11 Determine the amount of extraction
fluid to add to the extractor vessel as fol-
lows
tamed from Step 8 12 is defined as 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 8 12 Is combined
with the initial liquid phase of the waste as
obtained in Step 8 ‘7. This combined liquid is
defined as the TCLP extract Proceed to
Step 8 14
8 133 IF the initial liquid phase of the
waste, as obtained from Step 8 7, is not or
may not be compatible with the Filtered
liquid resulting from Step 8 12, these liquids
are not combined These liquids, collectively
defined as the TCLP extract, arc analyzed
separately, and the results are combined
mathematically Proceed to Step 8 14
8 14 FollowIng collection of the TCLP ex-
tract, it is recommended that the pH of the
extract be recorded The extract should be
immediately allquoted for analysis and
properly preserved (metals aliquots must be
acidified with nitric acid to pH c2. 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 ex-
tracts to be analyzed for metals, other than
mercury, shall be acid dIgested If the mdi-
vidumal phases are to be analyzed separately,
determine the volume of the individual
phases (to ±0 5%), conduct the appropriate
analyses, and combine the results mathe-
matically by using a simple volume-weight-
ed average
20y% solids (Step? 1) x weight of waste filtered
_______ - (Step8 Sor87 )
100
788
789

-------
wi nrc
V -The volume of the IirsL phase (Li
C=The concentration or the contaminant
of concern in the first phase (mg/Li
V, -Tlie volume of the second pita_ce IL)
C, The coitcentratioti of 11w containiiiauit
of concern in the second phase (mg/L)
8 15 The contaminant concentrations in
the TCLP extract are compared with the
thresholds identified in the appropriate reg
ulations Refer to Section 100 for quality
assurance requirements
90 PROCEDURE WHEN VO1 ,AT II ,ES
ARE INVOLVED
‘i’Iie ZIIE device is used to obtain TC I.P
extracts For volatile analysis only Extiact
resulting From the use of the ZHE shall not
be used to evaluate the mobility of non-vola
tile analytes (e g , metals. pesticides. etc
‘the ZHE device has approximately a 500-
rnL internal capacity Although a minimum
sample si ,w of 100 grains was required in I lue
Section 80 procedure, the ZIIE can ouuly at-.
comnmodate a inaxzniu,ic of 25 crams of solid
(defined as that fraction or a sample from
which no liquid (additional) may be forced
out by au applied pressure oF t) psi I, (liii to
tue need to amid an anioiilui of extrat iuumui
fluid equal to 20 Lion-’. tIn’ wcugiit of liii’
soiid pliaae
The ZIIE is charged with sample only
once and the device is not opened until the
final extract (of the solid) has been collect-
ed Repeated filling of tue ZHE of obtain 25
grains of solid is not pcrniitted The initial
filtrate should be weighed and then stored
at 4 ‘C until either nitalyicd or rccoiuihuiued
with the final extract of the solid
Although the following procedure allows
for particle size reduction during tue con
duct. of the procedure, this could i t’seilt iii
the loss of volatile coinpuuiids II possible
Ic g , particle-size may be reduced easily by
cruinbliiig) particle sue rcdmic(ioii (Sec Step
9 2) slioiil d be onducted on it te s.einph is it
is being taken IF necessary. paiticie-si t’ re
duiction iii.cv be conductcd during the u ui_c
dure
In can imig out the following steps do uoi
allow the wa.ste, the i iii tial 11(1 iuid p liasu’ ui
the exti act to be exposed to thi. atmo’.i)i icrm’
for any moore time than is absolutely neces
sary Any manipulation of these materials
should be done when cold (4 C) to miniitii /,e
los.s of volatiles
1) 1 Pre weigh thee (evacuated) cont.euia
wiuk Ii wiii rNeive the fiiiuntm’ (Ste Slip 46)
aiiil set a_siite If iisiiig . ‘ -l Nl)I Alt limp’ ill
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 EdItion)
liquid iii iist hi’ cxpi e ..se (l it oft the devk v.
whether IL be for the initi,tl or Final liquid/
solid separation, and au-u aliquot. taken from
the liquid in the bag, for analysis The con-
tainers listed in Step 4 6 are recommended
fur use’ tinder Lhc Following couiditlons
9 I 1 if a waste contains an aqueous
liquid phase or if the wa ,ste does not contain
a significant amount of non aqueous liquid
(i e, <1% of total waste), the TEDLAR bag
should be used to collect and combine the
initial liquid and solid extract The syringe
is not recommended in these cases
9 I 2 If a waste contains a significant
n,noeint of iioii aqueous initial liquid piiase
(I e , > 1% of total waste), tIn’ syringe or the
TEDLAR’ bag may be used for both the Ini-
tial solid/iiquid separation and the finai ex-
tract filtration However, analysts should
use one or tIme other, not both
9 1 3 II the waste contains no initial
liquid phase (is 100% soiid) or has no signifi-
cant solid phase (is 100% liquid), either the
TEDLAR bag or the syringe may be used
if the syringe Is used, discard i.he firat 5 mL
liquid expressed front time device The re
iiuaioiiig aiiquiot.s are used for analysis
9 2 Place’ tIn’ Zll S piston within the body
of I lie ZllE (it may be helpful first to moist-
eli I lie piston 0-rimmgs slightly with extrac-
tion riiiid) Adjust the piston within the
ZI-IS body to a height that will minimize the
distance the piston will have to move once
tue 7 ,HE is charged with sample (based
upon saimipie size ie’quirements deLerntined
from Section 90. Step 7 1 and/or 7 2)
Secure the gas inlet/outlet ilamige (bottom
Flange) onto tin’ ZliE body in accordance
with the manufacturer’s instructions
Secure the glass fiber filter between the
support screens and set aside Set liquid
iiulu’t/oui let flange (top flange) aside
93 If the waste is 100% solid (see Step
‘1 1) weigh out a repicse’mutative subsample
(25 gram maximum) of the waste record
weight. aii(i pioci’ed to Stilt 95
94 II the waste w,us showii to contain
<05% dry solids (Step 7 2), the waste, after
fill ratioui is eti’Iiuim’tl a.’, i lie TCI P extract
l- iuumi ’iu of I lie’ s.u,uil ,le slinmild be fmltci i’d ste
that. the a.noiiiil of filt,’i i’d liquid will sup—
port ati of the volatile anaiyses ieqeiircd
For wastes containing .05% dry solids
(Steps 7 I and/or 7 2). use the percent solids
information obtained in Step 7 1 to deter-
mine the opiiinmini sample site to charge
iiilo liii’ 7,ll ; ‘l’lii apliioimiiati’ ‘ ..uiiimlt si/i’
im I imuiiuuii’iietu’ul Is vs Fmmilu,w’,
790
Environmental ProtectIon Agency
94 1 For wastes containing 5% solids
(see Step 7 1), weIgh out a representative
500 gram sample or waste and record the
weight
942 For wastes containing >5% solids
(see Step 7 1), the nnuoiimii of waste in
chart’,’ 1 1 , 1cm liii’ ,‘.Iil’ Is ui, I. ui,uiii, ii C • Fot
low’,
25
% soimds (Step 100
71)
Weigh out a representative subsample of
the waste of the appropriate size and record
the weight
9 5 If particie-size reduction of the solid
portion of the waste was required in Step
7 3, proceed to Step 9 6 If particlc-si ,’.e re-
duiction was iiot required in Sti p 7 3, pro
ceed to Step 9’?
9 8 The waste is prepared for extraction
by crushing, cutting, or gi inding the solid
portion of the waste to a surface area or
particle-size as described in Step ‘1 3 Wastes
and appropriate redmu hon equipment
should be refrigerated, if possible, to 4 ‘C
prior to particle-size reduction The means
used to t’ffei t part Ic-si/c re’diicticeui must
not g.’iuerate heat in and of iLseIf If redeic-
Lion of the solid phase of tIme waste is neces-
sary exposure ol tue wa_sit’ Lii liii’ atinos-
ptn’i u’ ‘.iiouitd hit’ ievuuieti’tl tim liii’ ‘‘cit iii possm
bIt’
NoTe Sieving of thum’ wash c is imot ret oiui-
iueuuded dime to t lie pos.sibulity hunt volatile’.
nuay be host ‘l’lui’ use of au appi opni,ttely
graduated ruler is recommended as an ac-
ceptable alternative Surface area require-
nteuut.s are meant foi iiiameuitouis (e g
paper c loLl ii anti suiui u lam a a_ste utah mu mel’.
Actual nmeasuureiuum’uit. umf suuu i.u u’ .ui m’s is iuot
i ecomnineiu led
WI uen I lie sui r fact’ .ti (‘a oi pai tue’le si/u’ I us_s
been appropriately altered piocm’i’d to Step
97
97 Wa_sit’ shim lit’s ut-cd not be allowed to
sl.tnei to periiiei I lie solid pti,u.si to settle
Wastes I hat ‘.i’ii I.’ slowly shalt neil hi’ ce’iiti m—
fmigeel prior to fultrahuomu
98 Qiiamititaticely tuaiisfei liii’ m’mii me
5.Lmuilmhi’ I tiqmuicl mmiii su ,Iumt Piu,m_’.i 51 (lOut t.,lS hi)
time’ 7,111 Si iii.’ ito’ Iuite’i mud suiplomit
si_i ccii’. umuto liii’ top ltaiegi’ umf (hum’ dim iti’ end
sm’cmmn i P lu, top fIstic.’ ii, (tim’ ? ,tit bm> ,i tim ,it—
e m,ici.muuu u ,s’m)tu the’ mu i,,ummefam I mmmii s immsi,iim
iieuiis l’ui’tetu ii .iti ,‘,lIE: tuttmuum.’s .imiet l)I,im m’ I tim
dii me iii tIn’ vertii ai positimuui (g,is mmiii I!
outlet, flange out the bottmimii) Do pent att at ii
tin’ m’xli,mt out collie tmoii ctm’m um ‘ iii P him’ i i)))
plait’
Ni,re IF wa_sit’ unaim’ri,tI ( — l’ i, of oiugiim.iI
saittithi am guI I lie. m,lmvii,ui iv .mjhtmi ii d tmu
I hi i iiumt_imuui r uu ’ .m ml him ii tim i i I iii, ‘,.im,uiuii iii
liii’ ‘l ,ill’ mim ii’uumuimui un’ at ui’tmt mm) ito’. um ‘. 1
Pt. 268, App. I
due and subtract it from the sample weight
determined in Step 94. t. determine the
weight of the waste sample that will be Fil-
tered
Attach a gas line to the gas inlet/outlet
valve (bottom flaiige and, with the liquid
iumh’t /nmut 1,1 valvm’ (Loll fl.euigi ) umpu um be giiu
applying gentle pru’ssiure of 1 10 psi (or
more IF necessary) to force all headspace
(Into a hood) slowly out of the ZI-1E device
At the first appearance of liquid from the
liquid inlet/outlet valve. quickly chose the
valve and discontinue pressure If fiitratiomt
of the waste at 4’C reduces the amount of
expressed liquid over what. would be ex-
pressed at room temperature, then allow
the sample to warm up to room temperature
in the device before filtering If the waste is
100% solid (see Step ‘11). slowly increase the
pressure to a maximum of 50 psi to force
most. of the headspace out of the device and
proce’u’d to Step 9 12
9 9 Attach the evacuated pry-weighed fil-
trate 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-minute interval,
slowly increase the pressure In 10-psi mere-
menLs to a maximum of 50 psi After each
mncrenmental increase of 10 psI, if no addi-
tional liquid hia.s passed throughu the filter in
any 2 mmtiniite interval proceed to the next
10-psi uuucr miueiit Whmm’um liquid flow his_s
cm’a,su’d such tluat continued pu essure filtra
P10mm at 50 psi does not result In any addi-
tionai fult rate wuthmuu any 2-miuuuie period,
filtration is stopped Close the liquid uuilet/
outlet valve, discontinue pressure to the
piston, and disconnect the Filtrate collection
m oiitainer
No’m’E Instamitaneotis application of high
Pu essumre can degrade tue gtas.s fiber filter
amid imiay cause prematemie plmmgging
9 hO The material In Lime ZHE us defu,ted
as the solid phase of the waste and the fil-
trate is defined as the liquid phase
Note Sonic wastes such as oily wastes
amid souuie paint wa,sLes will obviously con•
P auut sonic material that appears to be a
liquid Hut m’vcmi after applying pressuume ful-
iu:mtioui lhut’, uuialc’i al will not Filter If thus is
(hum’ c n’.e I tie mat crud a uthi iii the flit u ation
ciet as’ is deFined as a solid and us can ed
I lurmmuigtm mIme ‘]‘CI.P exti action s_s a solid
It himu omiguumat wash’ ioiitaimuett 0 5% div
solids (sit’ Si m’p 7 2) this filtr.tte is itcfuiit’d
s_s tiuc’ TCL1’ extract aiud us aumaly ,o ’cI ciii e(
iy Prmeed 10 Step 9 15
9 II -t lit’ liquid phase may meow be m’uthier
am udeIy u-(t ni tied mahely (scm’ St eps 9 13
iii , imuiglm 9 15) or stored at 4 ‘C under mini
,uu,it hit ail’ ;i.n u’ enuitlit mints mimil ii I mime of anal
v’,is ‘liii wi ughut oF m xiiamiumiuu fhumimi MI to
,imtit 1mm ( him /ll l’ is tie Ii i imilmim ii ,i_’., imut iii’.’,’.
791
Pt, 268, A,.,.. I
Final Analyte —
Concentration —
(V,)(C,) p-(V,)(C,)
V. + V
Weight of
Waste’ to change -
ZIIE
iO-i4 1 0-—C’t-——2P’,

-------
Pt. 268 App. I
Weight of
extraction
fluid
9 12 The following &teps detail how to
add the appropriate amount of extraction
fluid to the solid material within the Z1IE
and agitation of I he 7,IIE vessel F,xti actioii
fluid dl is used In all cases (see Step 5 (,)
9 12 I With the ZHE in the vertical posi-
tIon, attach a line from the extraction fluid
reservior to the liquid inlet/outlet valve
The line used shall contain fresh extraction
fluid and should be prefiushed with fluId to
eliminate any air pockets In the line Re-
lease gas pressure on the ZI-IS piston (from
the gas intet/onUet valve), open the liquid
iiih’l /outl ,’t valve and begin I i aii— ,ferrii lg
-xi meLlon fluid (by l)iiinh)iIIg or similar
means) ml i i the ZILE Coiitiiuit’ lmrniiing cx
traction fluid into the ZI-lE until the appro-
priate amount of fluid has been introduced
into the device
9 12 2 After the extraction fluid has beeii
added, Immediately close the liquid inlet/
outlet valve and disconnect the extraction
fluid line Check the Z IIE to ensure that all
valves are in their closed positions Physical-
ly rotate the device in an end-over-end fash-
ion 2 or 3 times Reposition the ZIIE in the
vertical position with the liquid inlet/outlet
valve on top Put 5-10 psi behind the piston
(if necessary) and slowly open the liquid
inlet/outlet valve to bleed nut any head-
space (into a hood) that may have been iii-
troduced due to the addition of extraction
fluid This bleeding shall be done quickly
and shall be stopped at the first appearance
of liquid from the valve Re-pressurize the
ZHE with 5-10 psi and check all ZHE fit-
tings to ensure that they are closed
9123 Place the ZHE In the rotary ex-
tractor apparatus (if it is not already there)
and rotate the ZHE at 30±2 rpm for 18 2
hours Ambient temperature (I C - tempera-
Lii re of 10(1111 in whIch c-ti ra lion is to ta cur)
shall hi ,ii,iiiilaiiu-d at ‘22’ 1 C ilii,iuig ai’it.t
tioli
9 13 Following the 18t2 hour agitation
period, check the pressure behind the ZHE
piston by quickly opening and closing the
ga,,s inli-t/outiel valve and noting the escape
Final Analyte
Concentration
where
V. -=The volume of the first phases (I .)
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-89 EdItion)
of gas If the pressure mu, iiot been maui-
tamed (IC - no gas release observed), the
device is leaking Check the ZHE for leaking
as spe. ilted Iii Slip 42 I, and redo ihe cx-
ti .iction with a new sample of waste If the
pleasure within tue device has been main-
tained. the material in the extractor ves,sel
is once again separated into its component
liquid and solid phases If the waste con-
tained an initial liquid phase, the liquid may
be filtered directly into the same filtrate
collection container (I e. TEDLAR bag)
holding the inItial liquid phase of tile waste,
iimmieSh doing so would i-nate multiple
plin.’ses, or iiiilo’ ,s the,. is not enough
voutime h’fi, within liii’ filtrate collu ’ctioii
container A separate filtrate collection con-
tainer must be used In these cases Filter
through the glass fiber filter, using tile ZHE
device as discussed in Step 99 All extract
shall be filtered and collected in the
TEDLAR bag is used, if the extract is mul-
tiphasic. or if the waste contained an initial
liquid phase (see Steps 46 and 9 1)
Nor An in-line glass fiber filter may be
used to filter the material wIthin the ZHE
when it is suspected that tile glas.s fiber
filter has been ruptured
9 14 If the original waste contained no
initial liquid phase. tue filtered liquid mate
risi obtained from Step 9 13 Is defined as
the TCLP extract If the waste contained in
initial liquid phase, tue filtered liquid mate-
rial obtained from Step 9 13 and the initial
liquid phase (Step 9 9) are collectively de-
fined as the TCLP extract
9 15 Following collection of the TCLP ex-
tract, the extract should be Immediately alt-
quoted for analysis and stored with minimal
headspace at 4 ‘C until analyzed The TCLP
extract will be prepared and analyzed as-
, ording In ii i .’ a 1 propriatc anal yi hal ,,ieth-
tat’. II the l,idividiini pliases are to be aims
Iy.’ed at-parnteiy U u- , an’ not miscible) d-
terinlne the volume of tile individual phases
(to ±05%) conduct tile appropriate analy-
ses and combine the results mathematically
by using a simple voIiirne-weti hted average
(V .1(C, ) t (V,)(C,)
v , , V.
C,- Tile concentration of the contaminant
of concern iii the first phase (mg/Li
V , - ‘I’he volume of the second phase IL)
Environmental Protection Agency
C, The concentration of the contaminant
of concern in tIn’ secund phase (,ng/L)
9 16 The contaminant concentrations in
the TCLP extract are compared with the
thresholds identified in tin’ appiopriate reg-
ulations Refer to Section 100 for qualify
assurance ri-qimircimie liLs
100 QUALITY ASSURANCE
REQUIREMF,NTS
10 1 All data, iiu’ltiding luialitv asau ,rai ee
daL’s, should bi’ inainlaiii.- .,I ami(t availnllu- for
refereiice or inspect iou
102 A mliiiniumni 010111’ blank (exti action
fluid fil l for every lO extr.tetions that have
been conducted in an i’xtractlon vessel shall
be employed as a check to determine If any
memory effects from tile extraction equip-
ment are occurring
103 For each anal ticaI batch (lip 10
iwi’iii y ‘..‘htiii,hi ‘ .), ii is iii (Iilmiiiu-mi(te(t I hat a
iii. , lii x spike hi in I 1,1111(1 ii A. Id iii. Iii of
i,m,,tii’ ‘.l)lk,—s sii,,uilil i,iuuiI .iiii u- iii .- ‘i’( ‘II’
x trat t I isa. hi’i-ii gi I u-rated t v slot ild i nit
occur prior to perforrnani e of ti..’ ‘I ’CLP
pi oc,’duuri’) Tue purpose of I lie mn,strix spike
lu, Ii) mnouiiior I Iii’ adi—qusa y oF iii’ a.ialyi it
niethods used oum the ‘t C1.t’ c-ti ract and for
determ I i dng if inni ri X liii erfi-ii ill IS exist iii
aiiaiyii- del il I ion
104 All qiiaiitv oiii i ,‘l iii .-,csiiru-s di-—
st I ibt-d ill tile 5PP Oiii lvi I- ii,ilvi ii al hut ii—
unis 511511 be iud los’, (SI
105 liii’ nut 110(1 (It St ui,t,i iii autdii m.uui
shall hi- i-niIlli .ved for i’,u Ii .tiialyi e ii 1) ic
((IVI’? V (IF tiii’ COi lIl)Oiiiud from liii’ TCIP t-
us. I is .ini 1)1-i V,I’l’ii 5(1 .uiitl 1 v 1 () 01 2) it
iti,- I (liii i—ui i,ti iuiii iii I Iii I tiii— ,iilli , iii 1(11 ,LS
iiii-d iii iii . u-’cli.u I is alt iiiii 20’ i ii Ito .ip
pruI 1:111- ru-uziitaii.i i , liii .-siii.id IF miluiri’
iti,vii nih’ (-\ii.u I iou is lu-iiig huh i)ii S.lihillii’s
of liii- salin wash- (up 1(1 t eiil iy s.tiiii)ii-s)
the nwthiod of stauidaid addition need be ap-
plied only 0111 C and I lie percent recoveries
applied to tile remainder of the cxtrsetions
106 Saniphu’s niusl iindi-rgo ‘1 CL I ’ extrac-
lOll WI (11.11 tIn- fol lowing 111111’ period a fter
caiiupii’ I (‘ct-lilt Votat tI , ’ . 14 divs Seuiuu Vo
tutu,-’. lii ,i,t ’ ,’, Mi ii ills 28 ii iv’. toil .ilui-r
l v i , I .1’. 1 1( 1) ii,’,, u’:suu ii,’, ‘‘I it .. —i .ti .I
iii , t’, i,i ‘ .ii,,iu l,i ii, iuiiii,it , ii 1,
Pt. 268, App.I
soon as possible following initial solid/liquid
separation TCLP extracts shall be aiialyzed
after generation and preservation within
the following periods Volatiles. 14 days.
Semi-Volatiles, 40 days, Mercury, 28 days.
aiud other Metals. 180 days
TABLE 1—VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS
Conipound CAS No
67 64 I
71 36 6
75-15 0
56 23 5
08 90 7
75-09-2
78-93-3
(08- tO-i
(27— 18-4
108-88-3
7i-S5-8
79 01 6
75 (71 4
11(0 20 7
‘inCk ,iias cempoiauds ,iont .Iued in the Land Disposal H ,,
Sinct,Ons Rate ii any ci at 01 11,010 Counp000ds 1t 01
concern the zevo heisdspaco eot,ncto, vessel thaii be ,,sed
Ii oils-i mon ao(aidc) compounds aio oi co,,ce,n the Coil
vc’u,t,o,ia( 1,01110 e ,l,acIo . si ,aU bo used
TABLE 2—SuiTABLE ROTARY AGITATION
Cornp ny
APPARATUS I
As ’ .OC,aIelI Ui sail,
and
Mn ’mlaci n i ’,i
0’, valet,
Maniact ., .ii.g
lilA M irh,n, Shop
,iiai Laisirlulay
Eli ii Cci ,,, to,
ilL XNOF1I)
Anatyiicai Testing
and Consvihng
Sc,viCes Inc
Any ,Ievico ihal .otaics ih.’ evtuacl,00 ces-,cI a, an i ’nd
in,’. ,,wi fa’ti,n, , it hO’ 7 ui,n, is a cc , piahie
AIIIn’u,qtl ii , ’ , i ye I ‘,uiuiili’ II 5 1,01 roi .,,ua’tflafly
Ii I II lv .1.1,1., 7,,,, I’ i ’d lIi l l ii i ’ I’’’ ’’l
20 x % solids (Step ‘ill x weight oF wash’ fittered (Step 94 or 98)
100
Acciono
n Balyl alcohol
Ca,boo Osutt,de
Ca,bon ioiuachks,d,-
Ciuto . 0 0 0nz eno
Motliyicne CI11OIKIO
Methyl ethyl icetoa .e
Methyl iso 8 uiiy t kelone
le hacNo .oeth y le v ie
Totuene
1 1 I Trint,kaoethano
ii ., iiiOuOi’Iiuylcnio
I ,, Iiio.,,tiune,,,,, ii, i.e
xvi , ‘I,-
I OC OI, 0 0
Mn,iai
AIe,nn,tua VA 4 vessel device 6
17031 529-5909 vessel ,Wvlce
Wi,,i,,vae LaS,- Mi
13131 449-4111,
S niurc,’ Pit
1809) 752 4904
M,iwaukeo WI
(4141643-S850
Wallingion PA
(2i5) 343-4490
I Sv, ‘ .‘aI,ievee
5 vUSSti dr’vlC,
16 vessI I device
6 vessel deviCe
6 vessel d, v,Cc
4 vessel device
1 3 -Suii tE Zino FIEAIJSPACE EX1RACTOR VESSELS
A Scit, il,,l ii U I ’, 5 1,1 ,U,li,II,fl , vi Al,.,,c l,,_, VS 1,1)1 I_i’ll’ I ’)
(0
M,ll,pv .,’ (oip Ii, ilc,ll MA (It’IOI 27’ , 3 ia-I
A,,.,lyi,, iI I, si,,, , S I en l ,tt ,,ci ‘— ‘ S’J.v lc t i ,n ‘A I ’ ‘.1 iii I 1511
cc’s i,v
Mitt, I N,,
3/Ill /t IA (, ,s i’,,’Ss,c I), vICU
SOI P581 C ’ , Gas P,osse,e Dec ,re
Ci(12 Mc-cI,a,ccal P,css,no 0,v,cc’
792
793

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
WET WASTE SAMPLE __________
CONTAINS NO OR
INSIGNIFICANT
NON-FILTERABLE
Si: loS
L IQU ID/S DL ID
SEPARAT ION:
0.6- TO 0.8-urn DISCARD
GEASS FIBER SOLID
FILTRATION
L
Pt. 268, App. I
WET WASTE SAMPLE
CON TA INS
SIGNIFICANT
NON-F ILTERABI E
SOl lOS
.1.
LIQUID/SOLID 1
SEPARATION:
0.6- TO O.8.um I DISCARD
GLASS FIBER SOLID
FILTRATION
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION.
0.6- TO 0.8-urn
GLASS FIBER
F IL I RA I ION
LIQUID
TCLP TRACI I
.1
1ANALYTICAL 14 — — —TCLP EXTRACT
METHODS
1 The extractIon fluid employed is a
phase of the waste.
function of the alkalinity of the solid
FIGURE I ICLP FLOWCHART
Pt. 268, App. I
TABLE 4—SUITABLE FILTER HOLOERS
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1.89 EdItion)
Con,pasry — I Locabue J___Mode l S ize
Ptoaswitno CA (600) 682-7711
NuClepmO Corp I 425910 142 iran
I 410400 147 nm
Mere tiltratmo Sysloms I Dr4 .lrn (A (4151 8?8 6010 302400 I 142 nan
M .D .poio Corp liadloid MA (800) 225-3384 Y 130 142HW 142 i i8ii
_____ _j XX 10047 0 0j47 own
Any deuce capable 0) $85818609 I O U I tuUJ Irons the solid phaSe 01 (he waSte .s Ie1dO. prosi ithg thaI IllS chorrucatly
con9 ratrbto wIth the w rrsta wrd the cois I,tuOfll5 to be onalyred Plastic deuces (not listed deono) may be used whOA only
amorganic contt . .flutaflts are of concern the (42 mm size (hId holder is recommended
TABLE 5—SUITABLE FILTER MEDIA
C 058 ,afly I
JREPRESENIATIVE
WASTE SAMPLE
Whatman Laboratory Products Uric
Nominal p0.0 silO
DRY WAS ( SAMPLE
I Pore
Locat ron Model
alien N-i (201) 773-5800 GFF 7
SOLID
REDUCE PARTICLE-SIZE
IF >1 cm IN NARROWEST
DIMENSION OR SURFACE
AREA <3.1 cm 2
IQUID
ICLP EXTRACTION 1
OF SOLID
ZERO-NEAOSPACE EXIRACIOR
REQUIRED FOR VOLATILES
AT 4C
LIQUID
TCLP E
794
795

-------
Pt. 268, App. I
m
— I ii
—LI Motor
1.2
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 Edition)
___ -
II I
Extraction V.a..t HoId.r
Environmental Protection Agency
L qu d rilet’Outlet Valve
Pt. 268, App. I
Top
F a ng e
I I
Press rizin Gas Inlet /Outlet Valve
FiQure 3: 2e o-Headspace xtractio ’ VesseL
(51 ‘R 40643 Nov 1 (986 52 FR 210)8 4 (9871
Figure 2 Rotary Agitation
TOt
O-r ings
Bot tow
Flange
796
797

-------
Pt. 268, App. III
(51 FR 40653 Nov 7, 19861
APPENDIX 111—LIsT OF HALOGENATED
ORGANIC COMPouNDs REGULATED
UNDFR § 268 32
Iii ,l ,ii I iuitiiii iU ( 1w 0111 u’iaral 11)11 i ,1
lIOC s Iii a hn7ardous wa.sI r lot urpos ,’s of
(lie 268 ‘32 land disposal i ,roiilb ltloti. EPA
has defined (lie HOCs that must be lncl,id
ed in liii ’ cat, ulat iou a.s aiuy uOml)(liilid’ .
Iiaviiit .t eal but, liaiciu’i’uI lunuid winch .uii
lIsted iii this Appendix is,, 24,82) App ’ii
dix III to Part 268 couisistS of tile IoIIi)wiiig
con ipo uiiid s
Vol at it es
Bromod ich lorOmCth a l w
Bron ,oii iet iiafle
Cnrbou ‘I etracliloridi
Ciilorobvn,.ene
2-Chloro•1 3 butadieuie
40 CFR Ch. 1(7-1-89 EditIon)
Chiorodibro lnonwt iiafl e
Chioroethane
2 Chioroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Cl i loroinettiafle
3 ChloroprOlaile
I 2 I )ibrouno ‘1 ii loroliruip liii’
I 2 I )ibi u)fll()ullt’l ii till’
Dibroinunici I lu ll’
‘1 ramis I.’ l)n Iii iro 2 but elue
o k Iilorodilluiiui ounu I lia luc
I I l)o tiloroit linuit
I 2 1) 1, iiluiI uu I li. i uiu
I 1)1, liloro ’ I tivIt it
1 rans 1.2 oh I broil lieu ut
I .2-L)iclulorol)I opane
‘1 mi ss -I ,3.DuciiiorOprOPefl(’
ci -1.3DI( lilot UI)! OP&Ii(’
lodomettinhi e
Mel _i i y lciue cli bride
1.1.1.2 1 etral lihit iii thauii’
1 1,2,2114 rio lutui ou Luau ,’
tel_rat tilorori Ii i iie
Environmental Protection Agency
Tribromoinethane
1.1. 1 -Trlchloroethane
1. 1.2-Trlchloroetliane
Trichioroethene
‘ I rlchloromonofluoron sct haiw
I 2 3 ‘rrlcti loroproi ,n ut’
V iiiyi i iloridi’
Send iiolitt il, ,
Bbs! 2-chloroethoxy )etliane
Bis! 2-chioroethyl )ethcr
Ilis( 2-chlorolsopropyl) ether
p-Ch boroanillne
Ch lorobenzi late
p-Ch boro-m-creso l
2-Chloronaphthaiene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloroproplonlt.rlle
rn-Dlchlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichloroben,A ’,Ie
3.3-Duchiorobcnzidi uie
2,4.Dichloropbienol
2,6-Dichborophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachiorobtibadiene
1- Iexachlorocyclope , itauiie uit ’
Hexaclu iorotLIiau ic
Hexacluloropropliene
Hexactiloropropene
4,4-Me thybcnebts(2-elu boroa , ,ulin ,)
Pentaciilorobi -nzene
Pentachioroetliane
Pentacltloronitrobemwei ,c-
Pentachlorop li tu ,oi
Pronamide
1.2 4.5 Tel raciuloi obcn ’,i ’. , ,
2,3 4 6—l ’i macltloriuu,iuiit ,i
1 24-lu ut_iilorob ,-uI,. ,’I II
2,4.S-Tricliioropiie u ,ol
2,4 6-Trlchtorophtuiol
Tris( 2,3-dibromopropyl )pi sospliate
Organochloriiue Pesticides
AIdrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-B IIC
gamma-BlOC
Chiordaui ,’
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endostilfaii I
Endosuif,iii ii
Endruui
Endrin ald ,’ii , ile
Heptachlor
Heptachior epoxide
Isodrin
Kepone
Methoxycior
Toxapheni’
Ph ,’ui ox uuuis-Ln il itt II , , l ,u, uyl ,s
2.4-Dichboroplienoxynu clue arid
Silvex
24.5 T
Aroclor 1016
Arocior 1221
Arocbor 1232
Arocior 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
PCBs not otherwise specified
D,oxans and Furons
1-lexach Iorodlbenzop-d lox ins
Hexach lorodibenzoluran
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxlns
Pentachiorodlbenzolturan
Tetractilorodibemizo-pdtoxins
Tetractuiorod lbei iwluran
2.3 ,7,8- ’retrachlorodibenzo-p-dlox it,
152 FR 25291 July 8. 19811
Part 270
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARD-
OUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
Subparl A—G.n.ral information
Sec
270 1 Purpose and scope of these regula-
(ions
270 2 DefinitIons
274)3 Couisi ,Irrnt louis under Federal I,tw
270 4 EfFect of a permit
270 5 Noncompliance and program report-
inn by the Director
270 6 References
Subpar$ B—Pe,mit Application
270 10 General application reqiiirenuents
270 11 SignatorIes to permit applications
and reports
270 12 ConFidentiality of InformatIon
270 13 Conteiils of Part A oF the permit
aplulitai bus
270 14 Contents or i’art II General me-
quuren icuits
270 IS Specuf Ic Part B information require
ni ,’iits for containers
270 16 Sp ,’tifbc Part B li i lorn iai Ion require-
lI nt I. mr (ai ik sy.tu-uus
270 17 SpecifIc Part B Information require-
nicuits for surface impoundments
270 18 Specif ic Part B information require.
nients for waste piles
270 19 Specific Part B information require-
melits for incinerators
27020 Specific Part B In Formal ton require-
uiiu uil.s [ or laud treat uncut factiut lu’s
27(421 Specific Part II Iuiforma(ioii rt’qiiire-
nuemuts for iatuclliul,
PCBs
APPENDIX Il—TREATMENT STANDARDS (AS CONCENTRATIONS IN TI-IE TREATMENT RESIDUAL
EXTRACT)
iNote Inn iecflnoIo C5 stuOwn iluf tho ba 5 01 tho i,catuuueuCl slandaicis 11107 flue 1101 leqeeCd us be usd1 elcotiny the
u,eat , ,,, flu stand.vd 5 I
I ,, t ,i kty (.. ,u ,ps to. I (Xii I (X) 5 SpouuI Soleu’uul Wectn. (ucqIii
( ,oIcStdu1 nts cut root FOOl. Spcuul wa iowaI C
S0 10011 1 Ws ’Oos Wasluwato I echilutoqy Basts All OIhc’.’
Ptanl ’
Acetone 005 SS 059
n But yi Alcohol 500 SS 600
aut,ond .s t4feio 105 SS 404
CaOton ietuachloode 005 8 096
cuu l 1 0obcnzen e 015 B8AC 005
Ciesols (cuesy5c scud) 282 AC 075
Cycicitetanone 0 125 SS 0 75
1 2 Dchio .obcnzene 065 BAAC 0 125
Ethyl aCCtatO 005 SS 0 75
Eihyibe nzeoc 005 B 0053
EIhytOtIu e l 005 SS 075
Isoltotanol 500 SS 500
Moituanot 0 25 SS 0 75
Methylone citlinude 0 20 B I 2 7 098
Methyl ethyl 571008 005 SS 0 75
Methyl . nt,oli4 Scuffle 005 SS 0 33
N ,t ,olues ,eO e 066 SSSA( 0125
Py , e Su lo I 12 BAA!. 0 33
b et,aciulo,ou’tbyl f lu iO 0071 B 005
bol ,uefle I 12 BAA( 033
I I tuetutouoet l’aflO I 05 SS 0 41
I 2 I ,inlyinO I 22 tnlh ,ol0 ,’th l ”e 105 SS 096
l ,.chlo.oothylen C ’ 0062 RAM. 009’
I , ,ct ,io , ol!u CwOrrn ’ttu XW 005 B 096
Xyienn 005 AC 015
• In some instances ethel u ,chnoiog.e’ aclueved so.I ic’wtI,uI low,, healifleult values but waste cl iauactouzflhuofl Clots wele
un.olIin ,00I to ulentily sepauatu- tuetlabiuily , ,uyy’ , II, Ic, 10 I I , FIliAl tnukuju . au1 ,lnoucueu ,i Ic, a Ii? etuci , ,ptanat.0 lu DI I SO
ii, Inu,flfllttll 01 the I I, alt,., II st_mCI 11,1
SS Stisitul Iu96fltg
o biological utcatinuni
AC acutsaled caubon
Waslowatels ycneuated by plmaumaceutucal plani’. lultisI (mm heated ID tIme st ut,da,mit. mIule,, lo all outmel inOfilewaleus e ,CePt
in the case ci otothylene chlondo
‘Thu tluatehutnI standards ut the ircalabtimly guoump SIC based on ,ncuneuatmon
‘198
799

-------
II

-------
Friday
June 1, 1990
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 148 et al.
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes Rule

-------
22520 ,... Federal Reglalar / VoL
55, No. 100 1. Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148,261,262,264,265,
268,270,271, and 302
(EPA/OSW-FR-90-010 SWH-FRL-3751-11
RIN 2050-AC13
Land Disposal Restrictions for Third
Third Scheduled Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACflOIC Final rule.
SUMMARY The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) today is promulgating
regulations Implementing the last of five
Congressionally mandated prohibitions
on land disposal of hazardous wastes
(the third one-third of the schedule of
restricted hazardous wastes, hereafter
referred to as the Third Third). This
action Is taken in response to
amendments to the Resource
Conservalion and Recovery Act
(RCRA), enacted In the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984. When fully effective In May 1992,
this rule. &rnibined with the previous
rulemakings. is expected to require
treatment of a total of seven million tons
of hazardous waste managed in RCRA-
regulated facilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE This final rule is
effective on May 8. 1990. .
ADORESSES The official record for this
rulemaking Is Identified as Docket
Number P-00-LDI3-FFFFF. and Is
located In the EPA RCRA Docket room
2427. 401 M Street SW.. Washington. DC
20480. The docket is open from 9 a.m. to
4 p.m.. Monday through Friday, except
on Federal holidays. The public must
make an appointment to review docket
materials by calling (202) 475-9327. The
public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any regulatory document at
no cost. Additional copI s cost $15 per
page.
FOR FURThER INFORM I 10II CONTACT
For general formafio cofltaCt the
RCRA Hotilne at (800)424-0346 (toll-
free) or (202) 382—3000 locally. -
For information on specific aspects of
this final rule, contact Richard Kinch or
Rhonda Craig, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-333). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460. (202) 382—7917. For specific
information on BDAT treatment
standards, contact Larry Rosengrant.
Office of Solid Waste (OS—322). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460. (202)
382—7917. For specific information on the
Underground Injection Control Program
and hazardous waste injection wells,
contact Bruce Kobeiski, Office of -
D, nldng Water (WH- .550), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460, (202)
382—7275. For specific Information on
capacity determinations or national
variances, contact Jo-Ann Basal, Office
of Solid Waste (OS-322). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460. (202)
475—6873.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOPt
Expanded Sununary -
Today’s notice promulgates specific
treatment standards and effective dates
for the Third Third wastes, “soft
hammer” First and Second Third.
wastes, and five newly listed wastes.
Today’s notice also promulgates
treatment standards and effective dates
for multi-source leachate and mixed
radioactive/hazardous wastes. which
were re-scheduled to the Third Third.
The Agency has also re-scheduled
wastes from the petroleum refining
Industry, EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
K048-K052. to the Third Third, is
revising the treatment standards for
these wastes, and is granting a six-
month national capacity variance for
K048-K052 nonwastewaters. The
Agency Is also promulgating alternate
treatment standards for lab packs.
The Agency is also promulgating
- treatmentatandards and effective dates.
-fos hazardous wastes that exhibit one or
more of the following characteristics:
Ignitiblilty. corrosivity, reactivity or EP -
toxIcity (40 CFR 261.21-281.24). The
Agency has revised the proposed.
treatment standards for these wastes to
reflect data submitted during the
comment period showing wide
variability in the wastestreams. Today’s
final rule establishes treatment
standards for the characteristic wastes
in one of four forms: (1) A concentration
level equal to. or greater than the
characteristic level: (2) a concentration
level less than the characteristic level;
(3) a specified treatment technology
which in many cases will result in.
treatment below the characteristic leveb-
or (4) a treatment standard of -
“deactivation” to remove the
characteristic, with guidance on
technologies the Agency believes will
remove the characteristics (see
appendix Vito part 268).
In promulgating treatment standards
for characteristic wastes, EPA has
evaluated the applicability of certain
provisions of the land disposal
restrictions’ framework with respect to
characteristic wastes Induding wastes
regulated under the National Pollutant
Discharge Filminatlon System (NPDES)
program. sectIons 307(b) and 402 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) programs
regulating deep well injection to ensure
successful integration of these programs
with the regulations being promulgated
today. Specifically, the Agency
considered the appropriateness of the
dilution prohibition for each of the
characteristic wastestreams, and the
applicability of treatment standards
expressed as specified methods.
In general, the Agency believes that
the mixing of waste streams to eliminate
certain characteristics is appropriate
and should be permissible for certain
characteristic waste streams (e.g., most
wastes that are purely corrosIve).
Furthermore, EPA believes that the
dilution prohibition should not apply to
characteristic wastes that are managed
In treatment trains regulated under the
Pretreatment and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
programs under sections 307(b) and 402
of the CWA or In Class I underground
injection well systems regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The Agency believes that the tre tment
- requirements and associated diletion
rules under the CWA are generally
consistent with the dilution rules under
RCRA, and that the Agency should rely
on the existing CWA provisions.
Similarly. EPA has established a
regulatory program under the SDWA to
prevàt underground Injection which
endangers drlnldng water sources. Class
I deep wells Inject below the lowermost
geologic formation containing an
underground source of drinking water,
and are subject to minimum location.
- consthzctlon. and operation
requirements. The Agency believes that
application of dilution rules to these
wastes would not further minimize
threats to human health and the
environment. and that disposal of these
wastes by underground Injection at the
characteristic levels Is as sound as the
treatment option. However, hazardous
• effluent sludges. or other residues
generated from these treatment trains,
- or p etreatn1ent from CWA or SDWA
systems. that are subsequently land
disposed are subject to the land disposal
restriction provisions.
The Agency also Is limiting the
circumstances under which treatment
standards expressed as specified
methods apply to wastes regulated
under the CWA and SDWA programs.
- In general. the Agency believes that
where a treatment standard Is
expressed as a specified method, and
where application of that method is
consistent with and promotes the
objectives of the program. It should be

-------
Fd 5 ral Register / Vol. 55, No. 100 / FrIday, J me’ 1, 1990 / Rales and Regulations
Impermissible to dilute these wastes and
avoid freathig them by the designated
tr itwent method. With respect to
existing CWA regulations, the Agency
believes that this Is true for all specified
methods in today’s rule. Therefore, the
Agency is specifying that dilution is
impermissible for these wastes, and that
the treatment standards expressed as
specified methods apply. The Agency,
however, is not requiring treatment of
underground injected wastes with the
specified methods, based on the
previously-stated belief that disposal of
such characteristic wastes by this
method is as sound as the treatment
option. (The Agency emphasizes that
any mixture of listed and characteristic
wastes is subject to the existing dilution
prohibition rule, and must comply with
the treatment standard for the listed
waste, even if It is a spemfled method.)
The Agency received comments
Indicating that generators may be likely
to change waste codes and ship their
wastes as characterIstic wastes rather
than as listed wastes as a result of this
rulemaking. The Agency is concerned
with the potential for mislabeling
hazardous wastes, but believes that this
incentive has always existed since
characteristic wastes may be disposed
in a subtitle D facility once they no
longer exhibit a hazardous
characteristic. Furthermore, the Agency
is revising the waste identification
requirements of 40 CFR parts 261, 262.
264, and 285 to require that all relevant
waste codes must be provided we
believe this revision will pnKnnce the
ability to enforce the accurate labeling
of hazardous wastes. Finally, the
Agency emphasizes that the mislabeling
of hazardous wastes Is a senoes
violation of the land disposal
restrictions, and potentiaLly a aiminal
act. The Agency will be modifying the
existing Waste Malysfe P’an Guidance
to aid treatment and disposal facilities
in determining whether waste has been
properly classified. -
The Agency is pr ulgatLng certain
provisions of genma applicability in
today’s rclemaking,h nding certain
revisions to the exlsdnjrule that
prohibits dilution of prohibited wastes,
amendments to 40 CFR 2 .11. which
outlines the procedures for identification
of hazardous wastes, and modifications
to the tracking and recordkeeplng
requirements of 40 CFR 26&7. In
addition, EPA is modifying existing
testing requirements for treatment and
disposal facilities, and amending
subparagraph (c) of 40 CFR 281.33
(commercial chemicals that are
hazardous wastes when discarded) due
to the possible lack of cLarity that
became apparent In the course of
establishing treatment standards for
these wastes. The Agency also is
clarifying certain questions of
applicability, such as whether wastes
formerly excluded by the Bevill
Amendment are to be considered newly
identified for purposes of the land
disposal restrictions, and applicability
of California list prohibitions to newly
identified and newly Lifted hazardous
wastes.
Unless a longer national capacity
variance is specified, the effective date
for compliance with treatment standards
for all waste codes In the final rule has
been extended to August 8, 1990 by
granting a three-month national capacity
variance. The effective date is being
delayed because the Agency realizes
that even where data indicate that
sufficient treatment capacity exists, it is
not immediately available. Nonetheb.’ts,
all Third Third wastes become restricted
on May 8. 1990 and therefore subject to
a number of LDR provisions. For
example, If hazardous wastes not
treated in compliance with applicabLe
treatment standards are disposed of in
surface impoundments or landfills, snob
units must meet minimum technological
requirements. Furthermore, wastes
subject to this extension of the effective
date must be in compliance with all
applicable recordkeeplng requirements,
and California list prohibitions, If
applicable.
Finally, wastes for which treatment
standards are. being promulgated may
be land disposed after their effective
dates only if the applicable treatment
standards are met, or if disposal occurs
in units that satisfy the ‘no migration”
standard.
Outline
d d
A. Summary of the Hazardou, and Solid
West. Amendments of 1954 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
1. Statutory Requirements
2. Applicability to Injected West.,
3. Solvents and Dioxins
4. CalifornIa List Westes
5 Dl p aI of Solvents, Dioxin., and
tahforiua List Wastes in Injection
Wells
6. Sdieduled Wastes
7. Newly Identified end Listed Wastes
B. Regulatory Framework
1. Apçllcabilfty
2. Treatment Standards
. National Capacity Variances from the
Effective Dates
4. Case-By-Case Extensions of the Effec-
twa Dates
5. No MIgratlon Exemptions from the
Restrictions
6. Variance, from the Treatment Stand-
ards
7. ExemptIon for Treatment in Surface
bnpounthnents
8. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
6. ‘Soft Hammer” Provnions
C. Pollution Prevention (Waste Minimiza-
tion) Benefits
D, Snnmiaiy of the Proposed Rule
1. Characteristic Waste,
2. DeterminIng When Dilution is Permis-
sible
3 Other lniperrnissible Dilution Issues
4. Treatment Standards for Multi-Source
Leachate
5. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
6. ApplicabIlity to Mineral Processuig
Wastes
7. ClarificatIon of P” and ‘U” Solid
Wastes
8. Treatment/Disposal Facility Testing
Requirements
9. TestIng of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
10. Generator Notification Requirements
Ii. Storage Prohibition
12. Applicability of California List Prohi-
bition. After May 8. 1990
U. Summary of Today’s Fuial Rule
A. Applicability of Today a Final Rule
1. Three Month National Capacity Vari-
ance for Third Third Wastes
2. Hazardous Waste Injection Wells
Regulated Under 40 CFR 148
3. Remaining Scheduled Listed Haz .ird-
otis Waste.
4. CharacteristIc Hazardous Wastes
5. Characteristic Wastes Regulated
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SWDA) and the aean Water Act
(CWA) and RCRA
6. MIneral Processing Wastes
B. Implementation of Requirements for
Characteristic Wastes
1. Overlap of Standards for Listed
Wastes that also Exhibit a Character-
istic
2. RevIsions to Waste Identification Re-
quirements
3. Wastes Subject to a Capacity Van-
ance
4. Use of TCLP v. LP Analytical twleth-
ode for Compliance
5. Newly Identified Toxicity Qiaracleris-
tic (it) Wastes

-------
22S22
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
6. Further Principles Governing Applica-
bility
C. Amended Tracking Cliarac-
terietic Prohibited Wastes
D. The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies to
Centralized Treatment
S. Treatment Standards for Multi-Source
Leachate
F. Alternate Treatment Standards for Lab
Packs
C. Mixed (Hazardous/Radioactive) Wastes
I-i. Nationwide Variances from the Effec-
tive Date
I. Generator Notification Requirements
J. Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
K. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
L. Clarification of “P ’ and “U” Solid
Wastes
M. Storage Prohibition
N. Case-by-Case Extension Petitions
0. Applicability of California List Prohibi-
tions After May 8. 1990
P. Analysis of Treated Wastes
Q. Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLa)
9.. Best Demonstrated Available Technol-
ogies (BOAT)
S. Reformatting of Treatment Standard
Tables and Addition of Appendix VII to
Part 288. Effective Dates for Prohibited
Wastes
T Relatloa ship of Hazardous Waste
Treatmeat Council v. EPA to Treatment
Standards Promulgated In Today’s Final
Rule
II1.A. Detailed Discussion of Today s Final
Rule
1. Development and Identification of
Treatment Standards
a. The BOAT Methodology
b. Use of Technologies Identified As
BOAT
c. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Treatment Residues Identified as
“Derived-From” Wastes and to Waste
Mixtures
d. Wasteweter Versus Nonwastewater
Standards
e. Transfer of Treatment Standards
f. Treatment Standards Based on Single
Facility Data. Grab Samples Versus
Composite Samples. and Waste Anal-
ysis Plans
8. AnalytIcal Requirements. the BDAT
List and Relationsblp of PQLs to
BDAT . . -
h. Relationship of Detection Limits to
Concentration-Based Stafidards
I. Relation of Hazardous- Waste Treat-
ment Council v. EPA
Ifl.A2.. Treatment Standards for Certain
Characteristic Wastes
a. General Issues on Developing Treatment
Standards for Characteristic Wastes
hi Ignitable Characteristic Wastes
C. Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
d. Reactive Characteristic Wastes
e. Effect of Treatment Standards on Dis-
posal Provisions In 40 CFR 264 and 265
for Ignitable and Reactive Wastes
1. EP Toxic Halogenated Pesticide Wastes
IILA3. Treatment Standards for Metal
Wastes
a. Introduction
b. Arsenic [ 1)004. 1(031. 1(084. 1(101. 1(102.
POlO. P011. P012. P038. P038. U138J
c. Barium [ D005. P013]
d. Cadmium [ 1)008. Cadmium Batteries]
e. Chromium [ 0007, U0321
t Lead [ 0008. 1(069. 1(100, P110, U144.
U145, U148J
s- Mercury [ 0009. 1(071. 1Q06. P065. P092,
U151J
hi SelenIum [ 1)010, P103, P114. U204. U205)
L Silver [ 0011. P099, P104)
J. ThallIum (P113. P114, P115, U214. UZIS.
U216. U217!
hi Vanadium [ P119. P1201
liLA 4. Treatment Standards for Remaining F
and K Wastes
a. P002 and P005
b. F006 and F019
C. F0Z4
d. F025
e.K O OlandU O5 l
1. 1(002, K003. KOOL 1(005. 1(006 K007. and
1(008
5.1(011.1(013. and 1(014
hi 1(015
I. K017 and K073
l.1(021
hi Kon 1(025.1(026 1(035. and 1(083
L 1(028.1(028.1(095, and 1(096
m. 1(032,1(033.1(034,1(041.1(097, and 1(098
a. 1(038 and 1(037
0.1(042,1(085. and 1(105
p. K044. 1(045,1(048. and 1(047
q 1(048.1(049.1(050,1(051, and 1(052
r.K900
a. K081
t. K086
IILA .5. Development of Trsatrn , nt Standards
for U and P Wastewaters and Non-
wastewaters Excluding Metal Salts and
Organo-metallica
a. Concentration-based Standards for Spe-
cific Organics
b. Technology-based Standards for Specif-
ic Organics
c. U and P Wastes That are Potentially
Reactive
d. Cases
e. U and P Cyanogans
Ill.A.8 . Development of Treatment Standards
for Multi-Source Leachate
a. Background
hi Final Approach for Regulating Multi-
Source Leachate
C. Mult i.Source Leachate That Exhibits a
Characteristic of Hazardous Waste
d. Multi-Source Leachate Containing Diox-
Ins and Furans
e. Statue of Multi-source Leachate that Is
Mixed with Other Prohibited Wastes
I]LA.7. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Soil and Debris
IILA.8. Radioactive Mixed Waste
a. Characterization and Industries Affect-
ed
b. Applicable Technologies
c. Determination of BDAT for Certain
Mixed Wastes
11LA9. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
a Capacity Determinations
1. Determination of Alternative Capacity
and Effective Dates for Surface Land-
Disposed Wastes for which Treatment
Standards are Proposed
a. Total Quantity of Lend-Disposed
Wastes
hi Required Alternative Capacity for
Surface Lend-Disposed Wastes
C. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates
2. Contaminated Soil and Debris Capac-
ity Variance
3. Capacity Determination for Under-
ground Injected Wastes
C. Ninety-Day Capacity Variance fca Thrd
Third Wastes
D. Applicability of Land Disposal Rhatric-
lions
1. Introduction
2. Legal Authority Over Characteristic
Wastes
a. Introduction
hi General Standard for Agency Con-
struction of Statutes
a. Scope of Agency Authority for
Treatment Requirements
di Agency Framework for Addressing
Treatment Standards for Character-
istic Wastes and integrating Them
with Other Regulatory Programs
3. Treatment Levels
a. Environmental Considerations
(1) Toxic Waatewaters
(2) ToxIc Nonwastewaters
(3) Other Characteristic Wastes
hi Regulatory Problems
4- Methods of Treatment
a. Environmental Considerations
hi Regulatory Problems
5. General Dilution Prohibition
a. Environmental Considerations
b. Regulatory Problems
8. ExemptIon ts Dilution Prohibition for
Characteristic Wastes Treated for Pur-
poses of Certain Clean Water Act Pro-
grams
a. Introduction

-------
fera1 Re tèr I Vol. 55 No. 1OO Ftiday, June.1 , .i990 I Rules and Regulations
523
b Envirom iental Considerations
c Regulatory Problems
7. mptlon fi*1.OR Prohibitions for
Characteristic Wastes Disposed Below
Characteristic L vela In Wells Regu-
lated Under the Sale Drinking Water
Act
a. Introduction
b. Environmental Considerations
c. Regulatory Problems
E. Implementation of Requirements for
Characteristic Wastes
1. Overlap of Treatment Standards for
Listed Wastes that also Exhibit a
Characteristic
2. Revision. to Waste Identification Re-
quirements
3. Wastes Subject to a Capacity Vari-
ance
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical Meth-
ods for Compliance
5. Newly Identified TC Wastes
8. Further Principles Governing Applica-
bility
a. Other Statutory Exemptions or Ex-
clusions
b. Restricted Wastes Versus Prohibit-
ed Wastes
c . Changes in Treatabllity Groups
F. Amended Tracking System for Charac-
teristic Prohibited Wastes
C. The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies to
trallzed Treatment
H. Applicability of Today’s Final Rule to
Mineral Processing Wastes
L Generator Notification Requirements
J. Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
K. Testing of Wastes Treated in 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
L Clarification of “F’ and “U” Solid
Wastes
M. The Storage Prohibition
N. Case-By-Case Extensions
O Applicability of California List Prohibi-
tions After May 8, 1990
IV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
C. State Implementation
V. Effect of the Land Disposal Restrictions
Program on Other Environmental Programs
A. Discharges Regulated under the Clean
Water Act
B. Discharges Reat 1e4Under the Marine
Protection, Reaear h,, and Sanctuaries
Act
C. Welihead Pote ti ’ Regulated Under
the Sale Drinking Water Act
D. Air Emissions Regulated. Under the -
Clean Air Act (CAA)
B. Clean-Up Actions Regulated Under the
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse. Compensation. and Liability Act
F. 4pplicability of Treatment Standards to
Wastes from Pesticides Regulated Under
the Federal insecticide. Fungicide, and
Rodentlalde Act
C. Regulatory Overlap of Polyclilorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) Under the Toxic Sub-
8tancee Control Act (TSCA) and Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act
VL Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis—Surface
Disposed Wastes
1. Overview of Affected Wastes. Facili-
ties, and Management
a. Quantity of Affected Waste
b. Affected Facilities
c. Waste Management Practices
2. Benefits of the Final Rule
a. Human Health Benefits
b. Safety Benefits
C. Environmental Benefits
3. Costs
4. EconomIc Impacts
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis—Sur-
face Disposed Wastes
C. Regulatory Impact Analysis—Under-
ground Injected Wastes
D Regulatory FIe,dblluty Analysis—Under-
ground Iniected Wastes
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Review of Supporting Documents
L Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 and the
Land Disposal Restrictions Framework
1. Statutory Requirements -
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA). enacted on.
November 8, 1984, prohibIt the land
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Specifically, the amendments specify
dates when particular groups of
hazardous wastes are prohibited from
land disposal unless * has been
demonstrated to the Administrator, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will-be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous” (RCRA sectIons 3004
(d) 1), (e)(1), (g)(5)42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(1),
(e)(1), (g)(5fl.
The amendments also require the
Agency to set”’ ‘ ‘levels or methods
of treatment, if any which substantIally
diminish thz to ddty of the waete or
- substantially mdu 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)(1 ) , 42 US.C. 6924(m)(t)).
Wastes that meet treatment standards
established by EPA are not prohibited
and may be land disposed. In addition, a
hazardous waste that doesuot meet the
treatment standard may be land
disposed provided the “no migration”
demonstration specified in RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(1) 1 (e)(1) and (g)(5) Is
accepted by EPA.
For the purposes of the restrictions.
HSWA defines land disposal”• ‘ ‘to
include, but not be limited to, any
placement of such hazardous waste in a
landfill, surface Impoundment, waste
pile. injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation. salt bed
formation, or underground mine or
cave” (RCRA section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C.
6924(k)).
The land disposal restrictions are
effective when promulgated unless the
Administrator grants a national capacity
variance from the otherwise-applicable
date and establishes a different date
(not to exceed two years beyond the
statutory deadline) based on “ ‘the
earliest date on which adequate
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity which protects human
health and the environment will be
available” (RCRA section 3004(h)(2), 42
U.S.C. 6924(h)(2)). The Administrator
may also grant a case-by-case extension
of the effective date for up to one year,
renewable once for up to one additional
year, when an applicant successfully
makes certain demonstrations (RCRA
section 3004(h)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6924(h) (3)).
A case-by-case extension can be
granted whether or not a national
capacity variance has been granted.
The statute also allows treatment of
hazardous wastes in surface
impoundments that meet certain
minimum technological requirements (or
certain exceptions thereto). Treatment
in surface impoundments is permissible
provided-the treatment residues that do
not meet the treatment standard(s) (or
applicable statutory prohibition levels)
are “ ‘removed for subsequent
management within one year of the
entry of the waste into the surface
Impoundment” (RCRA section
3005(J)(11)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(11)(B)).
In addition to prohibiting the land
disposal of hazardous wastes, Congress
prohibited storage of any waste which Is
prohibited from land disposal unless
ouch 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.C 6924 (j)).
2. ApplicabIlity to Injected Wastes
Aanoted above, disposal of
hazardous wastes in injection wells is
subject to the provisions of HSWA. The
injection of hazardous wastes Is
controlled by two statutes. RCRA and
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The regulations governing injection of
these wastes have been codified along

-------
P dsroI egistne / Vd. 55, No. 108 / Friday, Ju 1, 1890 / Rales and R uIatians
with othor iegelatieaa of the -
Under ound Injectf on JIC)
p am esdor the SOWA inpez 124,
144.143,148, i , id of the Cods of
Federal Regulations.
3. Solvents and Dio.,dns
Effective Noveusber 8 1988, HSWA
prohihited land disposal (except by deep
well lnjectton) olaolvent-COUtaifliflS
hazardous wastes numbered FtIJ1-FUU5
listed In 40 CFR 261.31 and dioxin-
coat i.hi1iig hazardous wastes numbesed
F -F and -F0Z8 (R A
sections 3004 (efll ) . (eK2). 42 U.S.C. 6024
(e 1), (e Z)). in i p eS to this
manda . A promulgated a final rule
(51 FR *1572) on November 7, 1988,
implementing RC A sedkm 2004(e).
This rule established the general
framework for the lend disposal
and eetahiiabed
treat t standerds for ti F -R)05
solvent westea and and F026-
FDa cont inlng wastes.
4. CalifornI LIst Wastes
Filp th,e JuLy 4.1987. the etabLte
prohibited ther land disposal (except
by deep weWInjec*iouI 41 the following
listed or h$i’intified wastes (R( A
section 9001) set out In RCRA s& °
3004 (d 1) and (dX2) (42 U.S.C. 6824
(d)(1), (dX2))
(A) Liquid hazardous wastes.
Including free liquids associated with
any solid or sludge. oontPin 4 ng free
cyanides at concentrations puater than
orequel toi.000nsgII.
(B) Liquid hazardous wastes.
imclndh’g free liquids us4x ated with
any solid or sludge. containing the
foilow metain (or eI nts) or
compounds of these metals (or elements)
at c . ti*tiem eater than or equal
to those-specified below
(i) Arses c and/or ip $JW (as As)
500
(ii) Cadmium and/or compowids (as
Cd) lOO aig/l __
(iii ) Chiemlum (VI (áçompoands
(as ( VI)) 500 mgfl .I - JJ
(iv) Lead and/or uaiq 5 Wil (as Pb)
500mg/b ______
(v) Mez y and/or wu4ju ,nhile (aS
H)mg/ 1
(vi) Niohol and/or compowuls (as NI)
134 mg/I;
(v ii) Selenium and/or compounds (as
Se) 100 mg/I; and
(viii) Thallium and/or uunv.,uflde (as
fl) 130 mg(L
(C) Liquid hazardous waste having a
pH less than or equal te two (2.0).
(D) Liquid hazardoza wastes
containing polyvhloriaated blphenyls
(P sI at coscen utl ms caster than or
to ppm .
&lssdous w te oont g-
helsed -ete cowpaords (HOCa)
tend ,QI 1teaUon cea than or
equal to i. 0 0 0 m g/kg. ____
On )uiy 3. 1987. ‘A puuml etod a
final rule (52 FR 90 ) heplementhig
RCRA section 3004(d). Thin rule
established treatment standards for
California list wastes contdnlug
and certain HOCa. andcodlfled the
statutory prohibition on liquid corrosive
wastes. The st It .d y pcoh Mlioa also is
In effect for the CaLIfrnla lint wastes
containing free cy.uides. metals, and
the California list dilute 140C
wastewaters.
5. Disposal of SoIv , Cinxios and
California L Wastes In buiec*isn Wells
Section 3004(I) of RCRA required that
the AduiinLs atcr prohibit the disposal
of solvents. dioxias and Ca]1f 1a list
wastes hi deep wells. ectIve August 8,
1988. unless such dispowl h d been
determined to be pcAcdUve 41 hemas.
health and the tforas i m ig
as the wastes remained hazardous. or
unless a variance had been punted
under RCRA section 3004(h). On July 28.
1988. the Agency estab’lished effective
dates for the prohibition on injection of
eolventn end hs wastes 3 PR
281181. In another regulation. e cthe
August 8,1988 end published August Th,
1988 In the Federal &agistsr the Ageecy
established effective dates for the
prohibition on hijactiun 41 CalifornIa list
wastes (53 PR 30999).
0. Scheduled Wastes.
1 WA reqafred the Agency to
prepare a thebde by November 8.1988,
for reetz4ding the leaf dtspoeal of all
be dous wastes, hu wiIag
undercowid 1 . 1 } d l wastes. listed or
ldendfied as of November $, 1984. Ia 40
4YR past 20L ev 1 dhig soiwat- and
dIo,dn-ooattbdu8 waste. and Celifomla
list wastes ou ered aidaihe schedule’
vet byCor oss. The based on
area thsgof the listed cinstes t
considers their Intrinsic hazard end timir
vob . en as thet pr li xm end
treatment standards are promulgated
first for high volume .ardaus wastes
with high 1ut c hazard bofora
standasthase set for low - lasia wastes
with low leAr4a in bwisrd.The sta
ferther requlins t these
deteeminadow be mede by th
following
(A)AtleaatoDe-thkd cIaIlllsted
ha ..A kea w tes by August a 1808
( B) At least two4hirds of all listed
Lrds.swee by June 8, IOOR ond
-(C) All r ’ ’ ”g listed hazardous
wastes .11 heesidoes wastes
Id. , .f4fi.d as 41 No,omber 8.1884, by
one or more of the oharec Isdcs-
defined 10 40a ’Rpart 261 by May 8.
1990.
Fszth n. II A failed in act a
eatewat dasdard byth statatory
dline for any ardom w te In the
fist or cond thfrd 41 the schedule.
should such waste be disposed In a
landfill or surface lmpomdm± nt . that
unit must meet the n inImum
technological requirements specified in
RCRA section 3004(o) for new facilities
(RQ A aechon 3004(g)(8 )). (Nate: In the
August 17,1988 First Third final rule,
EPA interpreted the tona “such facility”
in section 4(EX 4to refer to the
Individual surface mpoinicheent or
landfill unit) In addition, prior to
disposal In such unit, the generator was
required to certlfy to the Mministrator
that he had Investigated the availability
of freatm n capacity and had
determined that disposal In such landfill
or surface Impoundment was the only
practical alternative to treatnw
i wiviitl7 available to the gunerator.
This restriction on the ane of landfills
and aorf zce i 1rentS that x t the
minimum tethneio caI uhem s
applied until EPA set a beatment&
standard for the waste, or until Mu r 8.
199 whichever wee sooner. These
requl.rementa were collect ively referred
to en the soft hammer provisions. Other
farms of land dlspceal. ln lud
enderpound M$ction. were not
similarly restricted. snd could cimtlnne
to be used for disposal of untreated
wastes until EPA promulgated a
treatment standard, or until May 3.1990.
whichever was sooner.
U the Agency falls toast a treatment
standard for any scheduled hazardous
waste by May 8. 1990. the soft hemmer
provisions are superseded by the hard
hammer. (Note: It Is EPA’s intmpretatiofl
that the herdbemmer applie . to
characteristic wnztes. See 54 FR 43480.)
These wastes are aatvmat1caUy
prohibited from nfl forms of disposal on
May 8. 1990, unless the wastes are the
ub ect of a secceasful “no mi ation ”
den,ogssfratlen (RCRA section 3004(g) (5),
42 U.S.C. 6924(g)(5)). (Note: RCRA
section 3004(b)(2) p mits extensions of
the effective date such as national
capacity extension. or case-bycase
extensions beyond the hard hammer
date.)
On May28. 1988. EPA promulgated
the schedule for setting treatment
standards for the listed and Identified
hazardous wastes (51 FR 19300). All
wastes that are Identified as hazardous
by characteristic are scheduled in the
Third Third. This. schedule Is
incorporated in 40 CFR 288.10, 288.11
and 260.12.

-------
. .Yedekal Register .1 VoL 55 . No.106/. Frfday June 1, 1990 1. Rules and Regulations
For the scheduled wastes, the statute
does not provide ,dlferent deadlines for
restriction of wastes!bat are injected
underground versus disposed of En
surface land units. The Agency did.
however, propose and promulgate First
Third regulations for surface disposed
and injected wastes on separate dates.
The First Third final rule, promulgated
on August 8, 1988, and published in the
Federal Register on August 17, 1988 (53
FR 31138), set out the conditions under
which wastes Included in the first one-
third of the schedule of restricted
hazardous wastes may continue to be
land disposed (other than by Injection).
Final regulations prohibiting deep well
injection of certain First Third wastes
were published on August 16, 1988 (53
FR 30908) and on June 14, 1989 (54 FR
25416).
The Second Third final rule.
promulgated on June 8, 1989, and
published In the Federal Register on
June 23, 1989, (54 FR 28594) established
treatment standards and prohibition
effect e dates for land disposal and
underground Injection for certain
wastes. In addition. EPA promulgated
treatnnt standards and effective dates
for c tain First Third soft hammer
wastes, Third Third wastes and newly
listed wastes.
Today’s notice promulgates the
conditions under which Third Third
wastes may continue to be land
disposed. It also promulgates treatment
standards for some First and Second
Third restricted hazardous wastes, five
newly listed wastes (i.e.. listed after
November 8, 1984), promulgates
alternate treatment standards for lab
packs, and revises the treatment
standards for petroleum refining wastes
(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K048-K052).
This rule applies to all forms of land
disposal, including deep well injection,
and finalizes the November 22, 1989
proposed rulemaking (54 FR 48372).,
7. Newly Identified and Listed Wastes
RCRA requires tha,Ag!ncy to make a
land disposal prohibItIo determination
for any hazardous waate that Is newly
identified or listed h, ) CFR part 281
after November 8, 1984, wIthin six
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 provide for an automatic
prohibition of the land disposal of such
wastes if EPA fails to meet this
deadline. Today’s notice promulgates
treatment standards for five newly
listed wastes (see section lILA).
B. Regulator,’ Fmmework
The November 7, 1988, final rule (51
FR 40572) established the regulatory
framework for Implementing the land
disposal restrictions program. Some
changes to the framework were made In
the July 8, 1987, final rule (52 FR 25760)
that prohibited the land disposal of
California list wastes, and In the August
17,1988, First Third final rule. Some
additional changes are also being
promulgated in today’s final rule,
particularly with respect to
characteristic wastes. Regulations
specifying how the framework applies to
injected wastes were promulgated July
26, 1988(53 FR 28118). The following
discussion summarizes the major
provisions of the land disposal
restrictions framework.
1. Applicability
The land disposal restrictions apply
prospectively to the affected wastes. In
other words, hazardous wastes land
disposed after the applicable effective
dates are subject to the restrictions, but
wastes land disposed prior to the
effective dates are not required to be
removed or exhumed for treatment (51
FR 40577). However, if these wastes or
contaminated media are excavated and
removed, these wastes are subject to the
land disposal restrictions. Similarly,
only surface Impoundments receiving
restricted wastes after the applicable
deadline are subject to the restrictions
on treatment in surface impoundments
contained in 40 CFR 288.4 and RCRA
section 3005(j)(11). Also, the storage
prohibition applies to wastes placed In
storage after the effective dates.
The provisions of the land disposal
restrictions apply to wastes produced by
generators of greater than 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
calendar month, as well as small
quantity generators of 100 to 1,000
kilograms of hazardous waste (or
greater than 1 kilogram of acute
hazardous waste) in a calendar month.
However, wastes produced by small
quantity generators of less than 100-
kilograms of hazardous waste (or lena
than 1 kilogram. of acute hazardous
waste) per calendar month are
conditionally exempt from RCRA.
including the land disposal restrictions
(see 40 CFR 288.1).
Thejand disposal restrictions apply to
all facilities subject to RCRA, including
both interim status and permitted
facilities. The requirements of the Land
disposal restrictions program supersede
40 CFR 270.4(a). whIch currently
provides that compliance with a RCRA
permit constitutes compliance with
subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, even
though the requirements may not be
specified in the permit conditions, all
permitted facilities are subject to the
restrictions. Moreover, the land disposal
resthctlons are material conditions or
requirements of the interim status
standards that may be enforced in either
a criminal or civil action. Although EPA
attempted to clarify this point in the
June 4.1987 correction notIce (54 FR
21010, item #1, and 21018, item #27), the
Agency’s correction has been viewed as
imprecise in that it characterized part
265 as requirements of persons
managing wastes pursuant to part 268.
Although the Agency believes that this
point is already established, EPA is
clarifying today that the part 268
provisions should be characterized as
material conditions or requirements of
part 265. Therefore, 265.1(e) is modified
accordingly.
2. Treatment Standards
By each statutory deadline, the
Agency must establish the applicable
treatment standards under 40 CFR part
268 subpart D for each restricted
hazardous waste (RCRA section
3004(m)(1)). After the applicable
effective dates, restricted wastes may be
land disposed only if they meet the
treatment standards, or it has been
demonstrated to a reasonable degree of
certainty, that there will be no migration
of hazardous constituents from the
disposal unit or Injection zone for as
long as the wastes remain hazardous. if
EPA does not promulgate treatment
standards by the statutory deadlines,
such wastes are prohibited from land
disposal (with the exception of First and
Second Third scheduled hazardous
wastes, which were subject to the soft
hammer provisions of RCRA section
3004(g)(0) until May 8, 1990).
At present, a treatment standard is
based on the performance of the best
demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) to treat the waste (51 FR 40578).
EPA may establish treatment standards
either as specific technologies or as
performance standards based on the
performance of BDAT. Compliance with
performance standards may be
monitored by measuring the
concentration level of the hazardous
constituents (or in some circumstances.
indicator pollutants) in the waste,
treatment residual, or m the extract of
the waste or treatment residuaL When
treatment standards are set as
performance levels, the regulated
community may use any technology not
otherwise prohibited (such as
impermissible dilution) to treat the
waste to meet the treatment standard.
Thus, treatment Is not limited to only
those technologies considered in
determining the treatment standard.
However, when treatment standards are

-------
22526 federal Register I Vol. 55 No. 106 I Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
expressed as specific technologies, such
technologies mast be employed.
3. National Capacity Vari From the
Effective Dates
The Agency has the authority to grant
national capacity var1ance from the
statutory effective dates, not to exceed
two years, if there Is Insufficient
alternative protective treatment,
recovery or disposal capacity for the
wastes (RCRA section 3004{hX2fl. To
make capacity determinations, ‘A
compares the nationally available
alternative freabnent, recovery, or
protective disposal capacity at
peceittad and interim status fealities
wh lthwd l be In operation by the
effective date with the quantity of
restricted waste generated. If there is a
significant shortage of such capacity
nationwide, EPA will establish an
alternative effective date be on the
earliest date such capacity will be
available. Dining the period inch a
capacity v n e is In place, if the
waste Is di sed In a landfill or surface
impoandmeq such disposal may only
be in a unit meeting the minimum
technologicaLxequfremente of RQ A
section 3OOU pj 153 FR 31186 and 40 CFR
288.5(h)f21). It should be on ted, however,
that ifs waste subject to a national
capacity variance Is treated to meet the
applicable treatment pfnn nrds, the land
disposal restrictions allow auth waite to
be disposed in a subtitle C Iandflfl or
surface impoundment regardless of
whether the unit meets minimum
technological requirements. Note,
however, that independent RCBA
provisions may require such wastes to
be disposed in units meeting minimum
technological requirement.
4. Case-By-Case Ext ioos of ti
Effective Date
The Agency will consider granting up
to a one-year extension (renewable only
once) of a prohibition effective date on a
case-by-case basis. The ri qpirements
outlined In 40 CFR 85 1mist e
satisfied. Including a dei tinilon that
adequate alternative td s t
recovery, or disposal cajiIb yfur the
petitioner’s waste cannot reasonably be
made available by the effective date due
to cirtzunstances beyond the applicant’s
control, and that the petitioner has
entered into a binding confractual
commitment to construct or otherwise
provide such capacity, if a waste is
placed In a surface Impuuiiduierit or
landfill during the period that such a
case-by-case extension is In place, such
umt must meet the minimmu
technological requirements of RC A
section 004(o .
5. “No Migration” Exemptions From the
Restrictions
EPA has the authority to allow the
land disposal of a restricted hazardous
waste which does not meet the
treatment standard provided that the
petitioner demonstrates that there will
be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
Injection zone for as long as the waste
remains hazai dous (40 CFR 288.4118
pethlon La granted wider 40 CP’R part
288, It can rmnain In effect no longer
than ten years for disposal in interim
status land disposal ‘ mits end Lot no
longer than the term of the RA pennit
for disposal in permitted sails (413 C R
268.6(h) ). _____
However, for injected wastes , 40 R
148.20 (pomulgated on July 26, 1888, ice
53 FR28i18 outlines In detail the
Agencys seqairmuenta “no
ini sthm ’ petitiona hamidona
waste Injection facilities. &ie y, a
petitioner is nn alre& thiwgb medeling,
to d metrafu that these lion
migration of hazardoon onnatituents
from Inledion none for an tong as the
waste remsias This
demonstration be made In one of
two wny the um of 6ow and bnnsport
models to show that Injected flulds will
not migrate vertically mit of the
injection for a period of l0
year or, use of geochemical modeling
to show that the waste Is transformed so
it will become nonhanardoas at the edge
of the tojection sone. Also, a showing
must be made that the well was in
compliance with the substantive ares of
review, corrective action, and
mechanical Integrity requirements of
part 146.
8. Variances From the Treatment
Standards
EPA established the variance from the-
treatment standard to accmmt for those
wastes that cannet be eated to meet
the applicable treatment standards,
even if well-designed and wee-operated
BDAT treatment 5yM uxe me used. or if
treatment technologies are lmippw 1 iriate
for the waste (40 CFR 268.44). ThIs
variance is somewhat analogous to the
fundamentally different & ctors variance
iii the Agmcy’ s Clean Water Act
effleent liantatiom guidelines
regulations. Among other thtege ,
petitioners must dVUlUUatrute that the
waste Is sigrnlficandy different from the
wastes evuhmated by EPA hi establishing
the tre , 1raent standard, and the waste
cannotbeti ent ed t otlve lorby the
method specified by the treuthient
standard. or that audi staudard or
method Is thnp pr1dte k the waste
(51 FR 4O This ar1 ce rot , th v
can result in the establishment of a new
tieatabflity group and coffespondlng
trea en1 standard That applies to all
wastes meeting the eriterla of the new
waste treatabfllty group. A site-specific
variance from the treatment standard
niay also be granted administratively
(without rulemaklnaj, but the variance
has no generic applicability to other
wastes at other sites (53 FR 31199).
7. ption for Treatment in Sur e
Impoundments
Wastes that would otherwise be
prohibited from one or more methods of
land disposal may be treated in a
surface impoundment that meets certain
technological requirements (40 Q ’R
268.4 [ a)f3)) as long as treatment
residuals that do not meet the applicable
treatment standard (or statutory
prohibition levels where no treatment
standards are established) are removed
for subsequent aian gament within one
year of entry Into the impoundment and
the wastes are not placed into any other
surface impoundment. The owner
operator of each an impoundment uat
certify to the Regional Administratqr
that the technical requirements ha
been met and must also submit a copy
of the waste analysis plan to the
Regional Administrator that shows the
waste analysis plan has been modified
to provide for testing of treatment
residuals in acourdance with 1288.4
requirements.
8. Strange of Prohibited Wastes
Storage if prohibited wastes in tanks
and containers is prohibited except
where itmoge is solely far the piupose
of accumulating so dent quantities of
wastes to f Ift te tiea t ,
rem ’y. or diatnisal (40 CFR .S0). A
facility that stui c$ a prohibited waste
for mere than one year bears the burden
of prouf that storage as solely for
this purp I d EPA bears the burden
of proof if the Agency believes that
storage of a restricted waste by a
facility for ep to one year Is net for the
purpose of ecceimilathig sufficient
quantities to facilitate pfup r tnie it.
recovery. or disposaL id. -
9. The “Soft Hammer” Provisions
First end Second ThinI wastes for
which EPAdId notpmoinulgaie
treatment tandurdahy their respective
effective dates could centinue to be
disposed ofin lani iU and. mnfnce
impoundment units mmii i May 8 , 1990.
Such land disposa ccreld.uwur only if
certain demonaIrst1u s e made, and
provided technology reqarremeals of
- RCRA section 3004 ( 0) (see 53 FR 31181,
August 17. T . Other types of land

-------
FeJóel bglster F Vol. 55 P k 1($ F Friday, Tone 1, 1 O / Reles and Reguletlona
disposal were not similarly ventilated
(e.g.. under usnd fnfrclkm). i May 8
1990. wastes forwhicb ’Ahas not
established treatment standards ale
prohibited from land disposal (Including
undesgronnd iniectkm). This jwuhibltion
is referred to as the hard ha er.
Effective Maya 1990, therefore, the soft
hammer provisions are no longer in
effect.
C. PaIh,Lion P,eventiarj (Wonle
Minimization) Benefitr
EPA’, pio a aver the years In
improving cnvlrvsnnental quality
throu& its media-spethficpoliutias
control prcgrann has been substantial.
Over the past two decades., s*an d
indnotiial practice far pollution control
concentrated to a large extent on “end
of pipe” treatment or land disposal of
hazardous and non-hmardou. wastes.
However, EPA realizes that there are
limits La bow much enviinnrnontat
Improve ment can be achieved under
these pro nms which emphasize
management after pollutants have been
generated. EPA believes that Ineing or
elimInat discharg s audio, mf*Ri
to theenviren t through the
1rmp h.In ntnt n of cost-effective source
re bwth i and environmentally sound
recycling practices can provide
additional envirnnnipnt 1 Improvements.
Many corporatiena are seeking to
Incorporate waste m nnT atlon
planning psograme into their strategic
planning to lower emission volwnes and
toxicities an a function of actual plant
processes through either recycling or
source retturffoo.
Under sections 3(X bJ end 3005(hJ.
hazardoes waste generators are
required to certify that they have a
pro ’am laplace to rednor the vaimse
or quantity and toxicity of hnoardou,
waste to the degree determined by the
generator to be economically
practicable. EPA encourages baz duus
waste generators to parsee source
reduction arid environmenta y sound
recycling wherever pasI’thle to rednon
the need for and casts dfsnlmequent
treatment, storage and bpesaL in many
cases, there may be e4xrsuw c as well as
environmental benefits for cempumies -
that purser pollution pr v ution optlons
Waste minimizatIon planning pm ams
have beeii suggested by EPA arid
mandated by some state gu’n mzz nQri .
Several EPA documents on waste
iuhiiwic tion are available to the public
(Draft Geldunce to Hazardous Waste
Generators on the Elements of. Waste
Mhi;m6 .non rogrsrn Notice and
Request for Comment Federal R trr
Vol. S4. No. 111. June IZ 19 9 The EPA
Manual for Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assesmnents, EPA 600/2-
88/O25 April 1 4 Several state
goverrunouts have already enacted
waste min mi’ fion legislation
(Massachusetts Toxica Use Redaction
Act of 1989 Oregon Toxica Use
Reduction and Hazardous Waste
Reduction Act, House Bill 3515, July!.
198fl About six other states have
legislation pending that will mandate
some type of waste mnfm tiou
program and/or faci pimmiug , About
25 ot ’staXes offer some typed
technical assistance to companies that
seek abernatives to treatment, storage
and cilapasal of waste.
Many companies have already
1mpZP ni ..nfrd waste minfTnfrntfua
programs. Most of these waste
minfml ion programs have elements In
Common. The moat succeasM programs
have Incorporated waste mmnfmfzatjon
into cnmpeny policy. It Is advantageous
for top corporate m i,w ’nt and/or
Individual plant management to provide
support for assessing and understanding
the esnoomic and segulatosy bene ts of
pursuing waste minimization verma
tre d , storage and disposal op ” ,
Typic*, ama supports
assessn l of the true costs associated
with waste production, including the
costs of c pliance. loss of peockscthm
potential. id poi tIiaI liability.
ograa u
that each Ind Ividual. regardless of states
or rank, be encuaragcd to make a
contribution to
Collective and individual pay meentives
can be provided for jwcdnthvity
L,. ., , , .ts . Waste m ...f ,m tiOfl
can be e hab i.d nong self-
maag te chosen fr . broad
sp t c1prod .r i... . a nd
mana PrII pey5. ... ..PI These
mano ‘ can be piovi
with all Information necessary to
adequately assess waste m’nimi’atioa
opportunitIes. AddftfonaBy . It Is veiy
beneficial for production personnel to be
trained and retrained In Upil..mm me of
plaid eqvlpwenl and raw materials.
Some a ponies set explicitly defined
ol5ectlves for the redaction of waste
volume and toxicity that are achievable
within a reasonable time frame.
Typically, the ob divrs.glio.Id not
exceed the ability of the operations
persormel to support and maintain them.
In all s. ft is nec ary to
determine the causee 01 waste
generation. This can be done for
individual proces,za or fee several
combined if the plant process
waste streams are pe,tladarly amiplex.
Many ccwponftiv ,Is have fuipleinonted
this type of weste
assesamear as pert of an overo8 waste
minimization program.
For, waste i ivatkm assesameut,
it is generally i .sry to aonirately
characterize the typ. of wi ufs generated
by volume, toxicity and $ c( 5). Most
companies track thefr waste generation
bya variety ofmcanasndthen
normAlize the results to account for
variations hi production rate(sJ. One
State (Massachusetts Toxins Use
Reduction Act) re ufr s each generator
of a toxic or hazardous substance to
track the rate of waste teratlon and
reieszeftsanzfey per unit of product. The
EPA Manual for Waste hfir izaticn
Opportunity Assessments aids lii
tracking waste streams which can be
quite difficult to analyze hi complex
plant operations, where many processes
discharge frito one waste stream.
Next, individual processes can be
examined to search for opportunities for
waste redaction meh as recycling.
substituting less hazardous raw
inafrr ak , modifying existing equipment,
novel technologies. capital
mprov m”nh . and increasing process
e lenq. EPA and State fimded
technical assistance programs (e.g..
Minnesota T. hn al Assistance
Progrein—MaTAP, California Waste
Minimization Cleariugjwuae. U S EPA
Pollution Prevention Information
Cleario#ozioej are becoming
Increas ingly aw d bfr to Identify some
of these opportunities, information is
also available through Lnduatry trade
aesod_ationa, p n l consultants
apemalixing in waste minimization,
technical literature, and ch m cal and
equipment vendors.
It is Important to paIrzn that waste
mint wzatkss . especially when
incorporated into company policy. is a
continual process. Ideally, a waste
minimization program becomes an
Integral part of the company 8trat . le
plan to hazeuse m m .façh th g
productivity.
D. Summary of the Proposed Thile
On November 1 the Agency
proposed treutw d nianilards and
prohibitinm ffectiv dates for
approximately 260 hazardous wastes.
including hmar&nm wastes listed in 40
CFR 268.12 (Third Third wastes). certam
wastes betad in 40 R 268.10 and
288.11 (First and Second Third wastes),
five newly batedwastes. and wastes
exhibiting a thwe istm (i.e.,
ignitabillty, corrosivity. reactivity. and
EP toxicity) as described in 40 CFR
261.2t- T24. In addition, the’ Agency
proposed one modification to the land
disposal resthctiorw regulatory
framvwvvk and several interpretations
of general applicability. Ftirthermore,
the Agency proposed to e -visc lbs

-------
2252k
Federal Regigter I Vot 55 No. 108 / FrIday, June 1. 1990’/ Rules and Regulations
treatment standards for wastes from the
petroleum refining Induit EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. 1C048-K052.
Today’s rulemaking finalizes the
November 22, 1989 proposaL
1. Characteristic Wastes
In the November 22, 1989 notIce, EPA
proposed two alternatives: (1) Set the
treatment standards at the characteristic
level for all of the characteristic wastes;
or (2) set treatment standards at the
lowest level which data indicated could
be consistently achieved, some of which
were below the characteristic levels,
and require these standards to be met
before the waste could be land dIsposed
(even though the waste was no longer
defined as hazardous). This second
alternative was based on a reading of
the statute that the land disposal
prohibitions can attach at the point a
waste becomes hazardous, and that the
section 3004(m) requirements to treat to
a level (or by a method) that minimizes
threats toliuman health and the
environm t can attachat that point.
Waste thai Is hazardous at the point of
generatIo and destined forland
disposal r inains subject to the
requirem ts of section 3004(m}
regardless of its concentration at any
subsequent time. See 54 FR 48490.
In addition. If a waste is Identified as
carrying more than one characteristic, It
would need to meet each treatment
standard or utilize each method for
those characteristIcs. If a listed waste
could also be Identified for one or more
characteristic waste codes. EPA
proposed that the waste would have to
be treated to meet the treatment
standards for each of the waste codes.
See 54 FR 48491.
2. DetermIning When Dilution Is -
Permissible
The Agency also clarified the dilution
rules as they apply to centralized
treatment in the proposed rule. In
particular, the Agency indicated that
aggregation of wastes lhr.the purpose of
treatment in a central Iiieatment
system must, at a in1n4in pi ’resu1t in .,-
“actual reduction in th thxIcltyor -
mobility of at least one BDAT -
constituent In each prohibited waste
that is centrally treated to the extent
that these constituents are present in
initial concentrations that exceed the
treatment standard for that prohibited
waste.” See 54 FR 48494.
3. Other Imperinissible Dilution Issues
The Agency propoaed that. (1)
Impermissible dilution (as previously
defined for listed wastes) of a waste
that exhibits a characteristic be
prohibited; and (2) Impermissible
dilution of a listed waste to achieve a
delisting level be prohibited. See 54 FR
48495,
4. Treatment Standards for Multi-Source
Leachate
On February 27.1989, the Agency
amended the schedule for prohibiting
hazardous wastes from land disposal by
placing multi-source leachate derived
from listed spent solvents and scheduled
hazardous wastes (I.e., First, Second,
and Third Third) in the Third Third (see
54 FR 8204). Ia the Third Third proposed
rule, the Agency proposed two options
for the development of treatment
standards for multi-source leachate: (1)
Continued application of the treatment
standards developed for the underlying
wastes from which the leachate Is
derived: or (2) establishment of one set
of wastewater standards and one set of
nonwastewater standards which would
apply to all multi-source leachate. See
54 FR 48481.
5. Alternative Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
The Agency proposed an approach for
lab packs that establishes alternate
treatment standards expressed as
technologies for those lab packs meeting
certain criteria. In particular. EPA
proposed Incineration as the alternative
treatment standard for lab packs
contAining certain charactert stic waste
and listed organic hazardous waste
codes only, and stabilization for lab
packs containing certain EP toxic metals
only. The proposed approach was
intended to provide administrative relief
and simplify the management system for
lab pack wastes, because the treatment
residue for these wastes would not need
to be analyzed for compliance with
- Individual treatment standards. See 54
FR 48470.
6. Applicability to Mineral Pro easing
Wastes
On September 1, 1989 (54 FR 38592),
EPA narrowed the scope of the RCRA
exclusion for solid wastes from the
extraction. beneflclation. and processing
of.oree and minerals. limiting this
exclusion to 25 high volume/low toxicity
wastes. On january 23. 1990(55 FR
23227). the Agency removed five
additional wastes from the exclusion
based upon additional volume and/or
hazard data. In the Third Third
proposal. EPA proposed to consider the
wastes that were removed from the
exclusion to be “newly Identified” for
the purposes of these provisions, and
further proposed not to.apply the
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes to such wastes. Therefore, these
wastes would not be subject to the
BOAT treatment standards for
characteristic wastes. See 54 FR 48492
7. Clarification of “P” and “U” Solid
Wastes
The Agency proposed to modify the
existing language of 40 CFR 281.33 to
include residues of 40 CFR 281.33( 1)
materials remaining In containers and in
Inner liners, in addition to 40 CFR
281.33(e) residues already included In
the scope of the commercial chemical
product listings.
EPA also proposed that soils and spill
residues contaminated wIth 40 CFR
281.33(d) wastes be considered to be
solid wastes unless they are recycled
within 90 days of the spill, regardless of
intent to recycle In the future. See 54 FR
48493.
8. Treatment/DIsposal Facility Testing
Requirements
EPA proposed revisions to the facility
testing requirements contained in 40
CFR 284.13(a). 265.13(a), 288.7(b) and
268,7(c). Specifically, the Agency
proposed two approaches to specify
under what circumstances EPA may
require the owner/operator of a
treatment or disposal facility to analyze
a representative sample of a waste: (1)
State that the generator may supply
waste analysis Information only if an
EPA approved waste analysis plan
allows the generator to do so; or (2)
state that the owner/operator is
required to test the waste a minimum of
once a year, and that the Regional
Administrator may require more
frequent testing through the waste
analysis plan on a site-specific basis.
See 54 FR 48497.
9. TestIng of Wastes Treated In 90-Day
Tanks or Containers
Under 40 CFR 288.7(b), treatment
facilities treating prohibited hazardous
wastes must test the treatment residues
that they generate at a frequency
determined by their waste analysis plan
in order to ascertain compliance with
the applicable treatment standards.
There is a regulatory gap, however, with
respect to treatment of prohibited
wastes that Is conducted In 90-day tanks
or containers regulated under 282.34.
This Is because such tanks or containers
are not subject to a waste analysis plan
requirement To close this regulatory
gap EPA proposed that persons treating
prohibited wastes In such tanks and
containers must prepare a plan
justifying the frequency of testing based
on a. detailed analysis of a
representative sample of the prohibited
waste. The plan must contain all
information necessary to treat the waste

-------
Fedora) Esgistor / Vol. , No 108/ Pi day, June 1.1990/ Rules and Regulations
hr accordance with part and anet
be retained asa fasthlyre d. See SI
FR 48w.
10. Cenesa tar rktiflcutio i Requirements
EPA proposed to cLarify 40 (YR 288.7
by allowing generators to reference the
treatment standards in 40 (YR 2 .41,
285.42. or 285.43. Such a reference must
Include the EPA Hazardous Waste No.,
the treatability group(s of the waste(s).
and the CFR section where the
treatment standards appear. The
Agency also proposed to amend 40 (YR
268.7 to allow a one-time notlfkation
and certification requirement for smafl
quantity generator (SQ shipments
subject to tolling agreements. See 54 FR
48498.
11. Storage Pmhlhitiiau
Sectf on 3004{j) of RCRA provides that
storage of prohibited hazardous waste is
itself prohibited ‘ unless such
storage is solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as aie necessary to
facilitate proper- Iew ry . freatment or
d1 , r (40 (YR 26&5l aN2) and 51 FR
1799). The Agency proposed an
nterpretation of this section such that
the storage prohibition doe, not appiy
where storage jweced legithnate ,
protective treatment, or re ’t ry . See 54
FR 48498.
12. ApplIcability of Cahfornla List
Prohibitions After May 8, 1999
The Agency outlined three sdunticcm
where the CaM a List lsstifl
applicable (1) Liquid hazardous wastes
that contain ores 50 ppm PC . wf e
are not a regulated constituent hi
the treatment staadar (2) HOC-
containing wastes identified is
hazardous by a chara tc 1 .tlc pro paty
that does not contain HOC. and 13)
liquid hazardous wastes that t a
characteristic and also c . vt hi 13$
rng 1 of nickel and/or 130 mg /I of
thallium.
The Caldthnia 1atmy ur4
statutory prohibft{ meaaperueded by
more specific prohIbltf and trna nt
standards. However, EPA solicited
comment on a national capacity
variance (to May 8, 1992) for Infected
corrosive wastes, but did not propose a
capacity variance for c u.lve wastes
disposed of In surface imp thaent ,.
The legal basis for this appmech was
that without It. in the case of a waste
which received a national capacity
variance under the California list rule,
EPA would effectively yard a national
capacity varlanor for a California hat
waste for km z than two yours. EPA
also proposed to modify the langus , , of
4’) (YR 266 .3 hJ to eumue that there mu
no periods of e in which nether the
California list or usperseding HOC
standards would (çerate See 54 FR
48498.
IL Smnmiry of Todays FInal Rule
Today’s final rule is the fifth
rul making required undes the laud
disposal restrictions program as outlined
in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amp 1 ments to RCRA. The Agency is
required to promulgate regulations
establishing conditions under which the
ThudThfrd wastes included in 40 (YR
268.12 may be fend disposed by the
statutory deadline of May 8.1090.
A. A thazbility of Tothiyz Final Rule
The Agency today Is proxmzlgating
treatment standards and effective date,
for all Third Third wastes, including
wastes e thlbitfng a characteristic as
described lii 40 CFR 281.21—28124 (see
sections 117A3 and IILA.4J. The Agency
also is promulgating treatment
standards and effective date, for all
First and Second Third , ft hemmer
wastes (pievfoaely subject to the
requirements of 40 (YR 288.8).
In previous rulemakij , the Agency
amended the schedule so that certain
First and Second Third wastewater
reakh darivë bu was Ike.
multi-source leachate). and mixtures of
sthoth.lnd hazardcme/radioective
wastes were moved to the Third Third
of the schedule (see 53 FR 31214,
* 2(bMc ) ;ard(d)54FR8264: and
54 FR 28848.) 2 12 (b) and (c)). The
Agency today is promulgating treatment
standards far these wastes. In additloo
the Agency in pomulgatingtreatment
standards his five newly listed wastes
(i.e., wastes listed after cXment of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
A ulm nt , of 1284); four wastes that
fall into the FQ and F09 5 (spent
sobient) waste code. and F025.
In the S nd Third rufrmaking , the
Agency solicited cnmjnpnte dais. and
specific suggestions regarding the
regulation of lab packs. hi todays rule,
the Agency is p rmu lgexlrxg alternate
treatment standards expressed as
specified_techn.okgies for lab packs
meeting tdW criteria.
1. Three-Month National Capeaty
Variance for Thid Third Wastes
The Ageusy is granting a three-month
national capacity variance for all wastes
affected by thi, r 5lef based on the time
required forth, regulated community to
make a Iaiensnosue . to ply
with th. new reguisthais. The
prohibitions on land disposal La this
final rele, therefore, will be effective on
August& During theperlod
between May 8, 1990. and August 8.
1990, wastes Ithat do net meet the
treatment standards) disposed in
landfills or surface (aipoundinents. mast
be disposed in ursta thatnieet the
minimum technological requirements set
out in 40 (YR 26&5(h)(2). arid must
crsnply with the California hat
prohibitions, where applicable See 52
FR 25760. july 1W. In addition, the
recorikeeping requirements of 40 (YR
288.7 (aX3) and (b)(8) apply to all Third
Third wastes during the three-month
national capacity variance. See section
lll.C of todays preamble for a
discussion of this capacity variance.
2. Hazardous Waste injection Wells
Regulated Under 49 (YR Part 148
The Agency has. on occasion,
proposed and promulgated regulations
and effective dates for underground
injected hazardous wastes covered
under RCRA sections 3004 (f) and (gj
separately from regulations addressing
wastes disposed in surface facilities.
EPA isaddressmg aliniethods of laud
disposal of wastes in todays
rulemaking. InCIiIdiIIg hazardous waste
Injection wells regulated jointly un
the Safe Drinking Water Act (S1)WA)
and RCRA.
3. Remaining Scheduled Listed
Hazardous Wastes
Today’s final rule establishes
treatnierrt standards and effective dates
for those listed hazardoo wastes
included hi 40 CFR 288.10-298.12 for
which treatment standards have not
been promulgated to date. In section
lILA. the Agency identifies the waste
treetalnlity groups by waste code and
identifies the best demonstrated
available technology (BDA fl for each.
Treatment standards applicable to each
treatability group are based on the
performance levels achievable by the
BDAT identified for each group. The
Agency reiterates that any lechnolog)
not otherwise prohibited (e .g..
impennisaible dilution) may be used to
meet the omcentration-based treatment
standards.
In addition.. EPA is re.schedulmg
wastes from the petroleum refining
Industry. K048-K852. to the Third Thint.
and promulgating revisiosa to existing
treatment standards for these wastes.
The Agency is also rescinding all
exia& treatment standards expressed
as ‘no land disposer far
nouwastewaters. A detailed discussion
of the revised treatment standards for
these wastes may be foruid La section
LI lA

-------
Federal Reglst I VoL 55. No. 106 I Friday. June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
4. Characteristic Hazardous Wastes
In today’s final rule. EPA Is
promulgating treatment st ds and
effective dates for hazardous wastes
that exhibit one or more of the following
characteristics: Ignitibdity, c hosiv1ty,
reactivity or EP toxicity (40 CFR 28121—
281.24). In the November 22. 1989 notice,
the Agency proposed treatment
standards based on the performance of
best demonstrated available technology
without regard to the characteristic
level. The standards, however, were
transferred from treatment of listed
wastes, which after evaluating data
submitted by commenters, proved
unachievable for characteristic wastes.
The Agency today is promulgating
treatment standards for these wastes
that have been revised to reflect data
from treating characteristic wastes
submitted during the comment period.
These newly .submitted data show wide
variability in the wastestreams. Today’s
final rule establishes treatment
standards for the characteristic wastes
in one of foe forms: (1) A concentration
level equal tb or greater than the
characteris level for the El’ toxic
metals; (2) * specifled treatment
technology; (3) a treatment standard of
‘desctivation’ to remove the
characteristic, with guidance on
technologies the Agency believes will
remove the characteristics (see
appendix VI to part 288); or (4)
treatment to concentration levels below
the characteristic level (typically where
the standard can be based on a
treatment technology that is not matrix-
dependent. or the Agency has sufficient
data to find achievability). In addition.
the Agency believes that by specifying
technologies for certain of the
characteristic wastes (I.e., Incineration
of high-TOC ignitible nonwastewaters
and EP toxic pesticide wastewaters) . it
Is requiring treatment below the
characteristic levels for wastes where
such treatment Is technically achievable.
A detailed discussion of tieatment
standards promulgated ft’ l’ thi
characteristic wastes is prov(ded In
sections IIl.A.2. IILA.3 ridUhjD of
today’s preamble. -
5. Characteristic Wastes Regulated -
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) and the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and RCRA
Today’s final rule limits the
applicability of certain provisions of the
land disposal restrictions’ framework to
characteristic wastes subject to
regulation under the Clean Water Act
(i.e.. discharges permitted under the
NPDES or POTW pretreatment
regulations). and to characteristic
wastes managed in systems which
discharge to Class I underground
injection wells subject to regulation
under the Safe Drinking Water Act
First, the LDR dilution prohibition does
not apply to characteristic wastes
managed in NPDES or pretreatment
systems and subsequently discharged
under CINA regulations, unless a
method of treatment Is specified.
Second. the LDR dilution prohibition
does not apply to wastes disposed of in
Class I underground injection wells.
Third. where a specified technology Is
the treatment standard for a
characteristic waste, the method need
not be utilized if the waste Is disposed
of In a Class I injection well.
Characteristic wastes that are exempt
from the dilution prohibition and which
are managed and disposed of on-site.
are not subject to the full 1 268.7
requirements for waste analysis and
recordkeeping. The Agency believes that
this action Is necessary to successfully
Integrate RCRA and SDWA programs
the underlying rationale for these
decisions is provided In section tILl) of
today’s preamble.
6. MIneral Processing Wastes
On September 1. T989 and January 23,
1990, EPA published final rules In the
Federal Register (54 FR 38592 and 55 FR
2322, respectIvely) that removed a
number of mineral processing wastes
from the so-called “Bevill Exclusion.”
RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(A)(II) excludes
from the hazardous waste regulations.
pending completion of studies by the
Agency, solid wastes from the
extraction. beneficiation. and processing
of orer and metals.
All of these previously excluded
mineral processing wastes that exhibit
one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste will be subject to the
hazardous waste regulations when the
final rules become effective March 1,
1990, and July 23, 1990,
EPA believes that these wastes are
“newly identified” for the purposes of
determining applicability of the land
disposal prohibitions. Although
tethnically the wastes are not being
identified by a new characteristic, they
are being brought into the subtitle C
system after the data of enactment of
HSWA on November 8, 1984. The
Agency. therefore, Is clarifying In
today’s final rule that these newly
Identified mineral processing wastes are
not subject to the BDAT treatment
standards promulgated today for
characteristic hazardous wastes. A
detailed discussion Is provided In.
section LILH.
B. implementation of Requfrements for
Charucteristic Wastes
In today’s final rule, the Agency is
promulgating several new provisions,
and revising existing regulations to
Implement the treatment standards for
characteristic wastes,
1. Overlap of Standards for Listed
Wastes That Also Exhibit a
Characteristic
The Agency today is promulgating Its
proposed approach with respect to
determining applicable treatment
standards for wastes that carry more
than one waste code. Specifically,
wastes that carry more than one
characteristic waste code must be
treated to meet the treatment standard
for each characteristhz listed wastes
that also exhibit one or more hazardous
characteristics must be treated to meet
the treatment standard for each of the
waste codes, unless the characteristic
constituent or property is specifically
addressed In the treatment standard for
the listed waste. Finally, EPA is
specifying that disposal of a waste that
exhibits a characteristic at the pojat of
disposal is prohibited unless the
treatment standard for that
characteristic component Is above the
characteristic leveL See section IILE.i
for a more detailed discussion.
2. Revisions to Waste Identification
Requirements
SectIon 262.11 of 40 CFR currently sets
out an either/or scheme where, if the
generator determines that a waste is
listed. the generator does not need to
determine whether the waste exhibits a
characteristic. The Agency is amending
* 282.11 to indicate that generators must
determine whether listed wastes also
exhibit characteristics of hazardous
waste for purposes of compliance with
40 CFR part 268. In addition. the Agency
Is amending ** 261.21 through 281.24 to
indicate that wastes that carry
characteristic waste codes may also be
listed wastes. See section III.E.2 of
today’s preamble.
3. Wastes Subject to a Capacity
Variance
EPA Is clarifying the requirements
that are applicable to characteristic
wastes during the period of a capacity
variance. Under the present rule, It is
possible for prohibited characterIstic
wastes which are subject to a national
capacity variance to become
nonhazardous. If, during the period of
the variance the waste is treated to be
nonhazardous. arguably the landfill or
Impoundment unit would have to meet
minimum technological requirements.

-------
F Iera1 Register / Vol.- 55 No. 106 / Friday June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
EPA does not read the statute o ’ the
rules this way, and Is making this
clarification In sécth HiP 3 of today’s
preamble.
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analytical Methods
for Compliance
EPA Is establishing treatment
standards for several characteristic
wastes at the characteristic level, and
has determined that this level should be
measured by the TCLP. This La the
protocol which large quantity generators
will use to assess the toxicity of their
wastes starting on September 25, 1990
(small quantity generators are subject to
the revised testing protocol on March 29,
1990), and it is the protocol used to
measure the efficacy of stabilization or
other Immobilization treatment in most
of the BDAT standards. A detailed
discussion is provided In section m.E.4.
5. Newly Identified Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) Wastes
EPA is clarifying that wastes that
exhibit the TC but not the EP are not
presently prohibited, even If the
constibient causing the waste to exhibit
the TCLP is also a constituent controlled
by the EP. This point Is also discussed In
section ITLE.5 of today’s preamble.
In addition, EPA is clarifying that for
hazardous wastes that are subject to
more than one treatment standard,
during the period of a national capacity
variance for one of the wastes, the
treatment standards for any other waste
codes that have not received such an
extension must be met. As Indicated in
previous rulemakings, hazardous wastes
that are subject to a capacity extension
and contain California list constituents
must comply with the California list
prohibitions. See 53 FR 31188. A detailed
discussion Is provided In section IILE.3
of today’s preamble. -
6. Further Principles Governing - -
Applicability
The Agency notes that the issues In
this rulemaking concerning when
hazardous wastes besoine prohibited
from land disposal dbiiôt change the
status of other reguIatoi y ’or statutory
inclusions or exclusions to the definition
of solid or hazardous waste found at 40
CFR 281.2-261.6. These provisions can
override the LDR poInt of generation
evaluation to keep wastes from being
prohibited and subject to a dilution
prohibition or treatment standard.
Further, those who manage hazardous
waste will need to assess what LDR
prohibitions apply at different points in
the waste management process. The
question of whether a given waste Is
going to prohibited land disposal Is
complicated by the fact that wastes may
change form or treatability groups after
undergoing treatment. The Agency
explains these decision rules and
provides clarifying examples In section
IJLE.o of today’s final ruLe.
C. Amended Tracking System for
Characteristic Prohibited Wastes
EPA’s decisions concerning
characteristic wastes necessitate certain
modifications of the tracking provi8ions
contained in 40 CFR 288.?. These
changes are summarized below, and a
detailed discussion of each of these
provisions Is provided in section IILF of
today’s preamble.
1. ClarIfication of and Changes to
Generally Applicable Recordkeeping
Requirements
Most of the existing provisions of
§ 268.7 contemplate that restricted
wastes are being shipped off-site for
treatment or disposal (see H 268.7 (a)(2)
and (a)(3), and 268.7 (b)(4) and
(b)(5)J. The Agency is clarifying in
today’s rulemaking that for wastes
managed on-site, generators must
determine if the waste Is restricted, and
keep some documentation of that
determination, plus some documentation
of where the r siricted waste was
treated, stored, or disposed—whether
treatment, storage, or disposal occurs
on-sit e or offaite. This requirement
applies to characteristic wastes, even
when the hazardous characteristic is
removed prior to disposal, or when the
waste is excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste under 40 CFR
2812—281.8. The Agency also notes that
those wastes exempted from all of part
288 under 40 CFR 288.1 (b) and (e) are
not subject to any recordkeeping
requrements. -
2, Tracldng (La. Notification! -
Certification) Provisions Applicable to
Generators
EPA believes that the existing
tracking system requires some
modification for characteristic waste
that the generator has treated to meet
the treatment standard before it is sent
off-site (and therefore, in most cases
may be land disposed in a subtitle D
facility). The Agency believeE that under
the present ruts, sending the tracking
forms to subtitle D facilities could have
counterproductive effects, and has
determined that the tracking forms
should not accompany shipments from
generators to subtitle D facilities. By
deciding that tracking documents for -
prohibfted characteristic wastee that no
longer exhibit a characteristic should
not go to these facilities, however, the
Agency Is not deciding that notifications
and certifications should not be
prepared for such wastes. EPA believes
that the notifications and certifications
should be sent to the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator or his delegated
representative, or to a state authorized
to implement the land disposal
restrictions. EPA is making some slight
modifications In the notification form
that would be sent to EPA (or to an
authorized State), because the existing
notification refers to the waste’s U)
number and manifest number when
shipped, neither of which are available
for wastes no longer exhibiting a
characteristic. While the revised
notification form would not contau
hazardous tate codes, it must contain
a complete and accurate description of
the waste, including its former
hazardous waste classification, and
must identify the facility receiving the
waste. EPA is not amending the tracking
requirements for those characteristIc
wastes that still exhibit a characteristic
when they are sent off-site.
3. Tracking Provisions Applicable to
Treaters
EPA is adopting the same approach
for treaters of characteristic wastes as it
is for generators. Thus, tracking forms
for shipments of characteristic wastes
that meet a treatment standard, and no
longer exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste, would be sent to EPA
or to an authorized state.
4. Land Disposal Facilities
Under existing rules, subtitle C
disposal facilities receiving prohibited
wastes must keep copies of the
notification and certification prepared
by the generator and/or the treater.
must test wastes (or waste. extracts) at a
frequency specified in their waste
analysis plan (as modified ln today’s
rule), and must dispose of certain types
of wastes minimum technology units.
40 CFR 288.7(c) (1), (2), and (3). These
• requirements do not fit well for the
characteristic wastes prohibited in
today’s rule. The Agency is thus
Indicating that the requirements of
* 288,7(c) do not apply to subtitle D
disposal facilitIes receiving wastes that
no longer-exhibit a characteristic,
5. Changes in Certification to Reflect
Dilution Prohibition
EPA Is amending the certifications of
compliance required of treaters and
generators In * 288.7 to state that the
treatment standard was not achieved by
a form of Impermissible dilution.

-------
Federal Register fVàL 56. No 106/ FrIdly , June 1, 1990/ Rules and Regulations
D. The 9ili,tibR ohibi&s, a itA ,piles
Cenlrollzed
The wdstingrule. on dth &Ioo and
EPA’s interpretive statenienta egardlng
those rules indicate that the dilution
prohibition has a two-fold objective (1)
To ensure that prohibited wastes are
actually freated and (2) to ensure that
prohibited wastes are treated by
methods that are appropriate for that
type of waste. EPA has acimowledged
that prohibited wastes which are
aggregated are not diluted
impermiaslbly if they are treated
legitimately in centrajized treatment
systems. Irrespective of the dilution
inherent in such a system. Thus, if
“dilution” Is a legitimate type of
treatment, or a necessary pretreatment
step In a legitimate treatment system.
such dilution Is permissible. Conversely,
prohibited wastes that are “treated” by
inappropriate methods, or sent to
treatment systems that do not treat the
wastes, are diluted lxnpermlsslbly.
In applying these principles to
characteristic wastes, EPA encountered
two major difficulties: First the
interface with regulatory systems
establlshedpursuant to the Clean Water
Act’ãnd Safe Drinldng Water Act and
second, difficulties In being able to
quantify the proposal In a meaningful
way. Given these problems and
complications. EPA has decided that the
most constructive course Is to provide
additional interpretive guidance on the
existing dilution prohibition contained
in 268.3. and to explain more fully how
those rules would apply In specific
situations.
In all cases, the Agency has
determined that for non-toxic hazardoue
characteristic wastes, It should not
matter how the characteristic property is
removed so long as It Is removed. Thus,
dilution Is an acceptable treatment
method for such wastes. t most cases,
EPA has determined alioiàtl.ó apply a
dilution prohibition to chlvactflrfstlc
wastes that are managed Inireatment
systems regulated under tbi.Clean
Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water
Act. However for aggregation of listed
wastestreams or toxic characteristic
wastestreame not Included above, the
Agency is able to provide limited
additional guidance today on the Issue
of when centralized treatment methods
involving dilution are permissible. As a
general rule, if the wastes are all
legitimately amenable to the same type
of treatment, and this method of
treatment is utilized for the aggregated
wastes, the aggregation step does not
constitute impermissible dilution.
£ 1atmerrtS,tM fti-
Source Leom’tate
On February V, 1988 the Agency
amended the schedule for prohibiting
hazardous wastes from land disposal by
placing multi-source leachate derived
from hazardous wastes In the Third
Third (see 54 FR 8264). The Agency took
this step to study more fully the most
appropriate treatment standards for
such leachate. The Agency’s original
approach to multi-source leachate was
that the leachate camee the waste
codes of all of the listed hazardous
wastes from which It Is derived and,
therefore, is subject to each of the
prohibitions andb eatment standards for
those wastes. In the event a particular
constituent in the leachate Is present In
more than one prohibited wnste, the
stricter treatment standard would apply
(53 FR 31138. August17, 1988).
The Agency today I . promulgating a
fixed set of wastewater treatment
standards and a set of nonwastewater
treatment standard. for all multi-source
leachate and residues derived from the
treatment of multi-source leachate. The
Agency Is promulgating treatment
standards for these wastes under EPA
Hazardous Waste Code No. P039. The
Agency has Identified treatment levels
for the entire BOAT list of hazardous
constituent, In the wastewater and
nonwsstewater treatabifity groups.
The Agency I . also specifying that
leachate derived solely from F02O-F023
and F026-F028 (dioxin) wastes, and no
other listedwaste,, Is considered to be
single-source leachate and must comply
with the treatment standards for those
wastes and continue to be classified
under those waste codes.
The Agency is not promulgating
separate standards for multi-source
leachate that exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste because, by
promulgating standards for all of the
BDAT list constituents, the treatment
standard. will address all of the
constituents and properties that the
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes address. Should multi-source
leachate or residues derived from the-
treatment of multi-source leachate
exhibit a characteristic at the point of
disposai,.however, it would have to be
treated to meet the treatment standards
for that characteristic. A detailed
discussion of the treatment standards
for multi-source lear.hata Is contained In
section lfl.A.S of today’s final rule.
F. Alternate Treatment SEaadar fcr’
Lab
The Agencyls today promulgating
alternate treatment standards for lab
packs that contain certain prohibIted
organonretallic and arg nic wastes
specifle&fn appendix IV and appendix
V to 40 CFR part 288. respectIvely. The
alternate treatment standards are
expressed as a specified tethtiology for
each of the waste categoi4ee-(1)
Incineration followed by treatment to
meet the treatment standards for certain
EP toxic metals for the organometallic
wastes identified In appendix IV; and (2)
Incineration as a specified method for
the organic hazardous wastes Identified
in appendix V. In addition, the Agency
is allowing certain unregulated wastes
to be Included In lab packs utilizing the
alternate treatment standards. The
Agency is not promulgating the
proposed alternate treatment standard
for Inorganic wastes due to concerns
about unverified stabilization of
variable waste streams.
The Agency believes that the
alternate treatment standards provide
some aiIy tinIqfrative relief, while
mininn ing the threat, posed by land
disposal of these small volume. of
hazardous wasteb Section IILA.9 o*
today’s preamble contains adetail d
discussion of the alternate treatméñt
standards for these wastes.
G. Mixed (Haiardous/ Radioactive)
Wastes
EPA In granting a two-year national
capacity variance under section
3004(h)(2) for mixed scheduled
hazardous/radioactive wastes subject to
today’s ruJ vrn king . The Agency bases
the. national variance for these wastes
upon a determination that there is
inadequate treatment capacity available
for these wastes. The Agency Is
continuing to evaluate the volumes,
characteristics, and treatment options
for such wastes. A detailed discussion
of EPA’s approach for mixed wastes
subject to today’s rulemaking is
provided In section HLA.8 of today’s
preamble.
The Agency Is also establishing four
separate treatability groups for specific
types of mixed waste that could not be
treated with the technologies
determined to be BDAT for the
corresponding nonradloactive wastes.
The BOAT treatment gthniiard for high-
level radioactive wastes generated
during the repmcuaing of fuel rods is
vitrification. For radioactive Lead solids,
the BDAT treatment standaril I.
macroencapaulatlos. The BOAT
treatment standard for radioactive
elemental mercury Is emslgemntion. For
radioactive hydraulic oil contiimln* ted
with mercury, BOAT Is Incineration.

-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 1O6 F Friday. June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
n 33
H. Notlonwldj Variances From the
ffffectiveDate -. -.
Due to lack of sufficient treatment or
recovery capacity, EPA is promulgating
a two-year national capacity variance
for the surface-disposed and deep well-
injected hazardous wastes listed in
Tables 1 and 2. In addition to the wastes
listed in Tables I and 2. EPA is also
granting a two-year national capacity
extension to: mixed hazardous!
radioactive wastes; naturally occurring
radioactive materials that are mixed
with RCRA hazardous wastes; soil and
debris contaminated with Third Third
wastes for which the treatment standard
is based on incineration, mercury
retorting, vitrification, or wet-air
oxidation: and inorganic debris as
defined in § 268.2(a)(7) (which also
applies to chromium refractory bricks
carrying the EPA Hazardous Waste Nos.
K048-K052). The Agency Is also granting
a sbc-month capacity variance to
nonwastewaters from the petroleum
reflni Industry, EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. K048-K052. See section 111.8 of
today s preamble for a detailed
discu on of. this six-month capacity
variance.
Determinations of available capacity
are based on a comparison of the
volumes of wastes requiring treatment
to the amount of capacity available for
such treatment. Although EPA does not
require that BDAT technologies be used
to meet the applicable treatment
standards, unless otherwise specified,
EPA assesses available capacity by
evaluating the availability of
technologies identified as BDAT.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF Two-Y NA-
TiONAL CAPACITY VARIANCEs FOR Sup-
FACE-DISPOSED WASTES’
Required
alternative
Waste code!
bea nent
tecfuio logy
pI ysacaI torn
t.Cw Mercuty
—‘ -. - Nonwateewaler.
K1 aw Mercury
P06& Low Me sy
Nonw ewator.
P092 Low Menawy
Nonwastewater
U151 Low Meniuty
Nonwastewater
F039’ Nonwastewater
K048’ Nonwastewator.
1(049 Nonwastewgter.
K050 Nonwastewater.
1(051 Nonwastewater
1(052 Nonwastewater.
0009 HIgh Merosy
Mstewat
1(106 HigiMerasy
Nonwastewater
Re wed
altemutave
Wea ent
Waste code!-
al torn
tedinology
P065
P092
U151
HIgh Mercury
NQffi a3tEi ,at .
HIgh Mercuiy
Nonwastawater.
High Merctny
Nonwastewater.
Secondaiy
0006
Lead Metenafo
Smelling.
Stored before
8
Sm
Thermal Recovery -
P087
Nonwaslewater!
wa .
Vimflcabon......_
0004
1(031
1(084
1(101
KIO2
POlO
POll
Nonwastawater.
Norwastewater.
Nonwestewater.
Nonwastewatar.
Nonwaetewatar.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwesteweter
.
P012
P0
P038
U136
NonwasXeweter
Nonwestewator.
Noowsetowator.
Nonwastowater.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF Two-Y Ap NA-
TIONAl. CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR UN-
DERGROUND INJECTED WASTES
R
alternative

Waste code!
ptP f onn
TABLE 2. SuMMARY oc Two-YE R NA-
TIO?4A1. CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR UN-
DERGROUND I?UECTED WASTES—Con-
tinued
R
a1terna e
beatmem
-y
Waste code!
phyocal torn
Wet-A, O adation
Followed by
Caibon
Adsorption
Followed by
chem

8toto c a l
Treatment
FOllOWed by
che cef
e c ip
F039’ Wastewater
1. Generator Notification Requirements
The generator notification
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 288.7
specify that when the generator has
determined that the waste is restricted
and does not meet the applicable
treatment standards, the generator must.
with each shipment of waste, notify the
treatment facility In wilting of the
appropriate treatment standards. This
notice must Include, among other items,
the applicable treatment standard and
all applicable prohibitions set forth in
* 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d). If the
waste being shipped Is restricted, but
can be land disposed without further
treatment, the generator must submit to
the land disposal facility the same
information, as well as a certification
stating that the waste meets the
applicable treatment standards (40 CFR
268.7(a)(2)).
In today’s final rule, the Agency is
amending § 288.7 to allow referencing of
the treatment standards. The following
information must be Included In the
reference: EPA Hazardous Waste
Number, the subcategory of the waste
code (e.g.. D003, reactive cyanide
subcategory). the treatability group(s) of
the waste(s) (e.g., wastewater or non-
wastewater), and the section where the
treatment standards appear. This
change does not apply to spent solvents
(FQO1—FQQ5), multi-source leachate
(F039), or California list wastes because
these waste categories each contain a
number of individual constituents or
waste groups.
In adthtio the Agency is amending
* 268.7 to allow a one-time notification
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TWO-’YEAR- N*-
11ONAL CAPACITY VARIAricES FOR SUR-
FACE-DISPOSED WASTES ‘—Continued
‘0003 (Cyanides).
‘0003 (Suffides).
‘0003 (E Iosves, water reactives. and other
re - , . .,
than 2.0 must meet the California list prohibitions on
Augusta. 1990.
‘Muib-Soisce Leachata.
‘EPA a granting these wastes a two-yeor national
capacity vanance, except for 1(048-1(052 non-
wastewater& T ea table does not mc 5ide eared
radioactive wastes, certain contaminated sod arid
debra, or inorgamc debra as defined wi 288.2(e)(7)
wiach are receewv g twe.yeer national capacity var-
‘MultI-source Leactiato.
‘For K048-K052 petiuleum-refinlng non-
wastewatera, EPA is granting a aix-month variance.
0003’
0003’
Low Mercury
Nonwaatewator.
Wastewater/
Nonwastewater
Wastawa /
Nonwaslewator.
Wastawatar!
No
Acid Leaching and
chemical
Precipitation.
Combustion of
Sludge/SoSda -
Mercury Retorting.
Acid Loact g arid
chemical
dhemoal O tIon
fuIku,, idby
chemical
Precipitation.
telowedby
c on m
Redection and
dhemeef
Predi pitaSon.
Re ic t ion
fOllowed by
dhemical
Mercury Ratordng
Neubaàzaten — -
Wet-Air Osidation
0007 Waetzwaia/
No nwasW wete
0009 Nonwastewa
0OO2 Wastewster/
1(011 Wastewatar.
1(013 Wa tewater
1(014 Was*ewe !
Nonwastewaler

-------
534
Fad el RegiMes I Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
and certlflcathm fe c SQG shipments
subject ta tolling a eements. A detailed
discu.seion of these cha provided
in section IILI of today’s preamble.
J. Waste Analysis Plans and -T eaLnient/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
The Agency today Is promulgating
modifications to the waste analysis plan
requirements which incorporate
elements of both approaches proposed
on November 22, 1989. Upder the final
approach. treatment and disposal
facilities must conduct periodic detailed
physical and chemical analyses of their
wastestreams to assure that the
appropriate 40 CFR part 288 treatment
standards are being met. Today’s final
rule amends the comment in 40 CFR
284.13(aX2) and 285.13(a)(2) to clarify
that the generator or treater may supply
part of the waste analysis information,
and that waste analysis requirements
are not superseded If the treatment or
disposal facility is supplied information
by the generator or treater. See section
lll.J for a detailed discussion.
K. Testing of Wastes Treated in NJ-Day
Tanks or Coa ainere
The Ageimy Is promulgating testing
requirements for wastes treated to
comply with the BDAT treatment
standard in so-called 90-day tanks (or
containers) as proposed. A regulatory
gap existed with respect to treatment of
prohibited wastes In such tanks or
containers regulated under 282.34
because they were not subject to the
waste analysis plan requirements. Thus.
there was no regulatory vehicle for
determining testing frequency in such
circumstances.
In order to close this regulatory gap.
EPA is requiring that persons treating
prohibited wastes in such tanks and
containers must prepare a plan
justifying the frequency of testing that
they choose to adopt. The Agency Is
also clarifying that these wastes are
subject to the 40 CFR Z6ft ’
recordkeeplng requiremeot& ATdetailed
discussion of these requfremeata is
provided in section IILK oftodey’s
preamble. . -
L Clorificotion of “P”and ‘7]” Solid
Wastes
The Agency Is amending 40 CFR
261.33(c) to clarify the regulations
pertaining to and “IF’ hazardous
wastes. The amendment will add
residues of 28L33(fl materials
remaining in containers and in inner
liners to the residues already Included in
the scope of the commercial chemical
product listings. The existing regulatory
language Is partially in error, and the
Agency is correcting it with today’a
revisions.
In the November , 1989 proposal, the
Agency also proposed amendments to
* 281.33 regardIng soil, water and api11
debris contaminated with * 281.33 (e)
and (I) (P and U wastes) materials.
Specifically, the Agency proposed that
residues of spills of commercial
chemical products will be considered
solid waste If they are not recycled
withIn 90 days of the spill. The Agency
has decided not to promulgate this
revision as the desired effect can be
achieved through interpretation of
existing regulations.
Finally, during the comment period.
several commenters requested
clarification of the exception to the
mixture rule for de minimis losses of “P”
and “U” wastes (* 281.3(a)(iv)(D)) to
underground Injection units. Today’s
notice provides this clarification. A
detailed discussion of these Issues is
provided in section tILL of today’s final
rule.
Storr geProhibitian
SectIon 3004 (j) provIdes that storage
of prohibited hazardous waste Is
prohibited” ‘ ‘ ‘ unlasa such storage -
is solely for the purpose oLthe
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposaL” See § 288.50(a)(2), and 51 FR
1709. January14, 1988. ThIs language
applies only to storage of prohibited
wastes in non-land based storage units
(e.g.. tanks and contaln’ rs), as land-
based storage Is a form of disposaL in
the November , 1989, notice, the
Agency proposed an interpretation that
the storage prohibition does not apply
where storage precedes legitimate.
protective treatment, recovery, or
disposal. The Agency Is not pursuing a
definitive reinterpretation in today’s
final nil. as proposed. The Agency
continues to believe, however, that the
8tatutory prohibition was designed to
prevent the use of storage as a means of
avoiding a treatment standard, and will
continue to enforce the storage
prohibition-with that intention In mind.
EPA Is aware of the difficulties posed by
the applicability of the section 3004 (j)
storage prohibition to mixed
(radioactive/hazardous) wastes, as
there Is little disposal or treatment
capacity available. EPA is further
evaluating the legal. policy and factual
issues relevant to these wastes, and
expects to issue policy on these issues
within the next 90 days. A detailed
discussion Ii provided in section fiLM of
today’s preamble.
N. Case-hy-Cime Extension Petitions
In granting a case-by-case extension.
there is a statutory requirement that a
binding contractual commitment to
construct or otherwise provide
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity that meets the
treatment standards be in place. RCRA
section 3004(h)(3). EPA today is
clarifying that this requirement may be
satisfied by EPA proposing to grant a
no-migration petition or a trea lability
variance. See preamble section ffl.N for
a more detailed discussion.
0. ApplIcability of California List
Prohibitions After May 8 I9SV)
With the promulgation of the Third
Third final rule, almost all of the
California list prohibitions will be
superseded by more specific
prohibitions and treatment standards
when they become effective.’ The only
continued applicability of the California
list appears to be (1) forllquld
hazardous wastes that contain over 50
ppm PCBs (2) for HOC-containing -
wastes Identified as hazardous bye
characteristic property that does not
Involve HOCs, as, for example, an
ignitable waste that also contains
greater than 1000 ppm HOCa (but not an
EP toxic waste that exhibits the
characteristic because it contains one of
the six chlorinated organic pesticides
covered by the EP toxicity
characteristic and (3) for liquid
hazardous wastes that exhibit a
characteristic and also contain over 134
mg/l of nickel and/or 130 mg/I of
thallium.
Today’s final rule also addresses
several Issue. that were raised in the
November 22, 1990 proposal. First. EPA
is restating that the California list
prohibitions apply to wastes that
receive national capacity variances in
later rulemaldngn. The Agency believes
these more general prohibitions serve as
a minimum requirement EPA notes,
however, that the California list
prohibitions do not apply to newly listed
or identified wastes (i.e.. wastes
identified or listed after November 6,
1984) as the statute does not compel a
contrary Interpretation. A more detailed
discussion of these Issues appears In
section 1110 of today’s preamble.
P. Ajialygis of Treated Wastes
The Agency today is using the same
approach to waste analysis promulgated
In the First end Second Third final rules
‘Se. 53 I (Aug 4 12.1987) and 5IFR
25773 (July 6, 1N7) see also 40 CFR Zaa.32th) (HOC
prohibWi , u 5 jsuded by uestmeni utandaid and
effecdvedaWf .,a peilkular HOC)

-------
Federal RegWer !VeL 58,No. 108 I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
535
(53 FRSII4 and 54 FR 26694UTb
fohowing discussion and later preamble
discussion are lncludblfor purposes of
information and do not reopen the Issue
for Judicial review.) Where BDAT is a
destruction or removaL technology, a
total waste analysis Is required because
it is most appiopiiate for measuring
such destruction or removal. The
legislative history indicates a strong
preference for treatment that destroys
hazardous constituents (see, e.g.. 130
Cong. Rec, 59179, daily e4 . . July 2 , 1964,
statement of Senator Chafes), and the
only reliable way to verify that
destmctlon has occurred is to measure
the total waste. Similarly, where BDAT
is identified as an Immobilization
technology such as stabilization,
analysis of a TCLP waste extract is
required because It 18 the most
appropriate measure of iminobilizallon.
In cases where both technologies are
identified as BDAT. both types of waste
analysis are required.
In order to determine whether the
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards as generated, the original
generator should perform an analysis of
the waste. The waste extract is
analyzed if the applicable treatment
standards appear in 40 CFR 288.414 and
a total waste analysis Is performed if the
applicable treatment standards appear
in 268.43. The generator may also
make this determination based on
knowledge of the waste, provided there
is a reasonable basis for doing so (for
example, the generator uses so little of a
key constituent that it could not be
found in the waste at levels exceeding a
treatment standard). All supporting data
used to make the determination must be
retained on-site in the generator’s files.
See 40 CFR 268.7(a)(5 ) . The Agency has
discussed this principle in past
rulemakmgs and Is repeating It here for
the reader’s convenience.
Q. Pmthcol Quanlitation Limits (PQLs)
As noted above, where BDAT Is
based on a destructfonframoval
technology, total waste analysis Is
performed to msasurg.c ipliance with
the BDAT levels. Several ccmmenters -
have raised concerns that, In certain
cases, analytical problems may prevent
demonstrating compliance with the
treatment standards. They contend that
the BDAT concentration levels are, In
some cases, below the practical
quantitation limit (PQL)—the lowest
level of quantitatlon that the Agency
believes a competent laboratory can
reliably achieve.
The Agency Is currently developing
guidance materiel on waste analysis
which the Agency believes will resolve
many of these problems. In the Interim.
the Agency believes that where a waste
ha. been treated with a combustion
BUAT process (La. ladneratlon or fuel
substitution emit). and If the person has
made a good faith effort to achieve the
maximum analytical sensitivity, In
certain cases the Agency will consider
the person to have demonstrated
compliance with the treatment standard
for the respective organic constituents In
the waste. For a more complete
discussion of these issues, see section
IIJAA of today’s final rule.
R Best DemonstratedAvailable
Technologies (BDA77
Today’s rule defin s waste treatability
groups by waste code, and Identifies the
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) for each waste code
within the treatability group (see section
IILA.1). Treatment standards are based
on the performance levels achievable by
the BDAT identified for each waste
code. Any technology not otherwise
prohibited (ag.. lmpermiasible dilution)
may be used to meet the concentration-
based treatment standards. Where
treatment standards are expressed as a
technology, the waste must be treated
using the specified technology prior to
land disposaL
S. Refonnatthig of Treatment SAandard
Tables cad Addition of Appendix V I I to
Part 2 EWective Dates for Prohibited
Wastes
The Agency is reformatting all of the
tables of treatment standards in 40 CFR
part 268 subtitleD and Is providing the
subpart D treatment standard tables In
their entirety. including both previously
promulgated standards and the
treatment standards being promulgated
today. The reformatted tables (La. 40
CFR 268.41,268.42, and 268.43) are
arranged an ording to waste code In
alphanumeric order and Include the
CAS comber identifying each regulated
constituent, whether the standard Is
based on analyses of grab or composite
samples, cross-references, and several.
other clarifying features that will make
determining applicable treatment
standards easier for the reader. The
treatment standards finalized for the
first time today are Included In the
table8. No substantive changes are
being made to the treatment standards
that were previously promulgated In the
November?, 1989, the July 8, 1967, the
August 17,1969, and the June , 1989, -
finatrules ex4. ept as discussed In other
preamble se tlons of today’s rule. (As
an example, regulated constituents are
being added to the wastes K0s8-1C052 ,
as well as Pe02 and P005, wastes for
which certain treatment standards were
previously promulgated. See preamble
section lfl.AA.a. for a diacusslonpf P002
and F005 and section IILA.4.o. far a
discussion of!C1M8-K052.)
In addition. the Agency Is providing a
complete list of waste codes regulated to
date under the land disposal restrictions
(including the waste codes included in
today’s rulemaking), as appendix VU to
part 288. The appendix is provided for
the reader’s convenience; no substantive
changes have been made to the dates.
except as discussed in the preamble of
today’s rule.
T. Relationship of l -fczardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA to Treatment
Standards Promulgated in Today’s Final
Rule
A number of commenters raised the
issue of whether the treatment
standards being adopted are below
levels at which threats to human health
and the environment are minimized.
nting portions of the recent opinion
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 686 F2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
(HWTC III). In that case, the Court
upheld EPA’s existing technology-based
approach to establishing treatment
standards as a reasonable construction
of the statute, but remanded the case to
the Agency In order for the Agency to
explain properly why it had chosen this
approach. EPA’. explanation was
published In the Federal Register on
February 28, 1990, and was accepted by
the Court. which dismissed all petitions
for review on March iS, 1990 The
standards EPA is adopting In this nile
are also technology-based, which the
Agency believes is warranted at this
time due to the uncertainties associated
with hazardous waste land disposal and
the Agency’s present Inability to
quantify precisely de minimis levels of
hazardous constituents that would
determine when threats to human health
and the environment from disposal of
prohibited wastes axe minimIzed. 55 FR
6642. Further discussion of this point
may be found in section lU .A.1J of
today’s preamble. As discussed In
section LLLD. EPA believes that HINTC
HI is not dispositive on the Issue of
appropriate treatment standards for
characteristic wastes.
IILA. Detailed Dlsaasalon of Today’s
Final Rule
1. Development and Identification of
Treatment Standard.
Today’s n ile p w lgates treatment
standards for the remaining Third Third
scheduled wastes, and for the I but
Third and Second Third wastes which
heretofore were subject to the “soft
hammer” provisions of 40 CFR 268.6.

-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Development and identification of the
treatment standards are presented on a
waste code basis in sectfon ffLA.2.
through ULA.5. of today’a notice. Section
IILA.8. presents the development of
treatment standards for wastes
identified as F039, multi-source leachate.
Section mA7. discusses the
applicability of today’s treatment
standards to contaminated soil and
debris. Section ffl.A.8. presents the
Agency’s approach to regulating
radioactive waste that is mixed with
hazardous wastes.
The following discussion has
appeared in previous preambles and is
being repeated here as an aid to the
reader’s understanding of the land
disposal restrictions program.
Comments were not solicited in the
proposed rule on the following
discussion: however, comments were
received pertaining to various issues
discussed below. These comments, and
the Agency’s responses, are found in the
Response to BDAT-Related Comments
Document, Yolume 1, in the RCRA
Docket.
a. The BOAT Methodology
The first step in the development of
treatment standards is to divide the
wastes to be regulated into groups
based on similar physical and chemical
properties. These waste treatability
groups take into account differences in
the applicability and effectiveness of
treatment for those particular wastes.
The Agency initially decides how
wastes should be grouped by examining
whether the wastes are generated by
similar industries or from similar
processes. This is a valid starting point
because the waste characteristics that
affect treatment performance are
expected to be similar for these wastes
even though the wastes themselves are
somewhat different.
The next step in the development of
treatment standards Is to identify the
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for eaah eatability
group. A treatment techno1o is
considered to be “demonstrated”
primarily based on data fr mfu1l-scale
treatment operations that are currently
being used to treat the waste (or a
similar waste). Once the
“demonstrated” technologies have been
identified, the Agency determines
whether these technologies may be
considered “available”. To be
“available”, the technology itself or the
services of the technology must be able
to be purchased, and the technology
must substantially diminish the toxicity
of the waste or reduce the likelihood of
migration of the wastes hazardous
constituents. EPA prefers to base BOAT
on technologies that further the
statutory goals of waste minimi,-ntlon
and recycling. EPA may select this type
of technology as BDAT over more
conventional treatment If the disparity
in performance of the technologies is not
too pronounced, and the technology
selected mInlmI7es threats to human
health and the environment by
substantially diminishing waste toxicity
and reducing mobility of toxic
constituents.
Treatent data from “demonstrated”
“available” technologies are then
screened with regard to the design and
operation of the equipment, the quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
analyses of the performance and
operating data, and the accuracy and
precision of the analytical tests used to
assess treatment performance. After this
screening, the treatment data are
adjusted for each constituent based on
the analytical recovery of that
constituent from the treatment residuals.
The Agency has chosen to perform this
adjustment in order to account (in part)
for analytical interferences associated
with the chemical makeup of the
treatment residual. Where data for more
than one treatment technology exist, the
individual performance data for each of
the various treatment technologies are
then statistically evaluated. The mean
concentrations of the constituents in the
treatment residuals from each
technology are then compared using an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) test In
order to determine if one technology
performed significantly better than the
other. (A detailed discussion of the
methodology for identification of BDAT
and the ANOVA test Is provided in the
November 7, 1988 final rule (51 FR
40572).) Where data exist for only one
technology, the Agency uses best
engineering judgment to assess whether
that technology represents the best
applicable technology for that particular
waste and whether the data Indicate
that the treatment system was well-
designed and well-operated.
After BDAT is identified, EPA
develops the treatment standard for
certain constituents In the waste.
Treatmenrstandarda are expressed as
maximum constituent-specific
concentrations allowed In the waste (or
in an extract of the treated waste), as a
specific technology (or group of
technologies), or as a combination of
these. Although the statute provides
discretion to establish treatment
standards as either levels or methods of
treatment. EPA normally attempts to set
concentration-based treatment
standards whenever possible, because
they provide the regulated community
with flexibility in choosing treatment
technologies and also allow the
Investigation and development of new
and alternative technologies, In
addition, establishing concentration-
based standards provides a means of
ensuring that treatment technologies are
operated at conditions that will result in
the best demonstrated performance.
b. Use of Technologies Identified As
BOAT
Compliance with a concentration-
based treatment standard requires only
that the treatment level be achieved;
once achieved, the waste may be land
disposed. The waste need not be treated
by the BOAT technology-, in fact, a
concentration-based treatment standard
provides maximum flexibility in one’s
choice of treatment technology because
any treatment. including recycling or
any combination of treatment
technologies, unless prohibited (e.g.,
Impermissible dilution) or unless defined
as land disposal (e.g., land treatment),
can be used to achieve these standards.
Some treatment standards In today’s
rule, however, are expressed as a;
treatment method rather than as a
concentration-based standard. EPA
typically establishes a treatment method
as the standard when it has no means of
calculating valid concentration-based
standards, In such cases, the specified
technology must be used to treat that
particular waste (including any mixture
that contains the waste). After the waste
Is treated using the specified method, It
may be land disposed, unless EPA has
specified otherwise in the rule, or if the
residue exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic and does not meet the
treatment standard for that
characteristic. In situations where
wastes subject to concentration-based
standards are mixed with wastes
subject to treatment standards
expressed as a method, the mixture
must be treated by the specified method
and must also meet the concentration-
based treatment standards for any other
prohibited waste contained in the
matrix (see generally 53 FR 31148—7,
August 17, 1988).
When EPA requires the use of a
technology (or technologies), a generator
or treater may demonstrate that an
alternative treatment method can
achieve the equivalent level of
performance as that of the specified
treatment method (40 CFR 268.42(b)).
This demonstration Is typically both
waste-specific and site-specific and may
be based on (1) The development of a
concentration-based standard that
utilizes a surrogate or indicator
compound that guarantees effective

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 5& No.. 108 I Friday. June 1,1090/ Rules and Regulations
fre tm nt of the bamrdous coastiasuts,
(2) the developmr.nt of a new alytical
method fur quanUfy1n the hazardous
consfltuents and (3) other
demonstrations of equivalence for an
alternative method of treatment based
on a statistical comparison of
technologies, Including a comparison of
specific desigu and operatIng
parameters
c. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Treatment Residues Identified as
Derived-Prom Wastes and to Waste
Mixtures
(1) Dthv From Wastes All residues
from treating the original listed F, K U
or P wastes are likewise usually
considered to be the listed waste by
virtue of the derived-from rule found in
40 CF’R 281.3tc)(2 ). Consequently, all
wastes generated in the course of
treatment are prohibited from land
disposal unless they comply with the
treatment standard or are otherwise
exempted from the prohibition, such as
througfr* no-migration determination or
by a capac&ty variance. Residues from
the tr iM nt of characteristic wastes,
howeve are not automatically
consid ed the characteristic wute
these residues are ounsidered
characteristic if they still display.the
original characteristic, or if they display
another characteristic.
Treatment operations, including those
Identified as BDAT. typically generate
wastewater and nonwastewater
residuals that may require further
treatment EPA has not tested every
possible waste that may result from
every subsequent part of the treatment
train. However, since the treatment
standards promulgated todey are
generally based on treatment of a
relatively concentrated form of the-
waste (I.e., the ‘ orlglnaI” waete , the
Agency believes that residues from
subsequent treahiinnt will bales.
difficult to treat.
The Agency is investigatingde -
miriimb% Levels for cet h.azardous
constituents in listeiLwaj es below
which the waste wlfl ø Iou.ger be a
hazardous waste fôr purpóses of subtitle
C regulation. The Agency has yet to
propose these de minimig levels. The
Agency has Indicated, however, that
these de mini mis levels will cap
treatment standards If they are higl r
than the treatment standards (55 FR
6640; Feb. 28, 1990).
(2) Mixtures of Different Hazardous-
Waste Streams. Today’s treatment
standards apply to mixtures of different
waste streams. Where a waste mlxtm
consists of listed wastes and has more
than one applicable ainceniratfon-
based treatment standard for a
parlicelar the moat stringent
a andardaust be met pric, to land
dispoeel{see4OCFR2O&41(b)). In the
event that such a waste mixture nnnt
be treated to meet the moat stringent
standard, one may petition the Agency
for a variance from the treatment
standard pursuant to 40 CFR 8.44.
d. Wastewater Versus Nouwastewater
Standards
In today’s rule, the treatment
standards (both concentration-based
and specified methods) are generally
presented as applicable to wastawaters
or to nonwastewaters (see 40 QR
268.2). Wastewaters are defined as
those wastes (listed wastes, including
wastes generated as a result of the
mixture and derived-from rules) that
contain less than 1% total organic
carbon (TOC) and lees than 1% total
suspended solids (‘I S1, except for those
wastes identifledas P0 )1. F002. P003,
P004. and F005 solvent-water mixtures.
(See 53 FR 31145 (August 17.1988) which
adopts this definition for most First
Thirdwaetes, and 51FR40579
(November 7, 1086) for the definition of
FOOl. P002. P003, F004. andFOOS solvent-
water mixtures.) Those wastes (listed
wastes, Induding wastes that are
hazardous as a result of the mixture and
derived-from rules) that do net meet
these criteria are dpfIne d as
nonwastewaters and thus contain
greater than oreqnalto 1% TOC. or
greater than or equal to 1% TSS. (Note,
howevez the discussion In IU B. of
further subcategorizatlon of
nonwastewaters for purposes of
national capacity variances based on a
lack of solids Incineration capacity.)
(1) ImpemilssibleSwifthing of
Waste water and Nan waste water
Standards foclJstad Wastes (See also
discussion at ULD. below for Iasues
associated with characteristic wastes.)
It Is not permissible to dilula or partially
treat a prohibited listed waste in order
to switch the applicability of a
nonwastawater standard to a
wastewater standard. c i vice versa (see
52 FR 21012 (June 4, 1987) but sea 52 FR
25767 (July 8, 19&’) noting special
ciroumstances when California list
wastes are involved). The Agency has
established this princtpla because
technologies applicable to
nonwa*tewatars are not generally
applicable to wastewaters, or require
special designs (in the case of
lncanarationl in orderto aimultaneoualy
handle waatewatera. Furthermore,
treatment residues meeting the
definition of nonwaa&ewatere must
comply with all applicable
nonwastowater treatment standards;
likewise, residual wastewaters must
comply with all applicable wastewater
frea*mei standards.
The Agency recognize.. however, that
-certain technologies are specifically
designed to separate wastewatere from
noawastewa tars. Snch a hnn1n es may
ormay not be considered partial
treatment under this principle, as
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Dewatering technologies such as
ifitration and centrifugation are typically
designed to remove suspended solids
(TSS) from aqueous wastes. When these
technologies are applied to a
nonwastewater that contains greater
than 1% TSS but less than 1% 1DC, the
resultant liquid residue will probably
meet the definition of a wastewater (La.,
it will probably contain less than 1%
TSS and less than 1% TOC). The Agency
does not consider this inipermissible
switching of applicable treatment
standards. (Note: For the purposes of
applying &)AT treatment standards, the
Agency does not consider carbon
adsorption a dewatertng technology
even though It may act as a filter for
suspended materiaL)
When the suspended material is
organic and the overall untreated waste
contains greater than 1% TOC. these
dewatering technologies are also not
precluded from use. The resultant
residuals (i.e., the removed solids and
the liquids) must comply with the
applicable wastewate or nonwastawater
treament standards depanding on their
TOC and TSS content II the liquid
residues from these dewatering
technologies meet the definition of
wastewatErs. the Agency does not
consider this to be impeimiesible
switching of applicable standards,
The importance of the TOC level in
determining iniperinissible switching of
applicable wastewater or
noawastawater treatment standard is
apparent in the scenario of treatment of
a waste conlainuig lose then 1% TSS and
slightly more than 1% TOC (such as 2 or
3% TOC), and thereby being a
nonwastewater by definitios. If EPA has
established conrantrauon-based
treatment standards for the
corresponding wastewater form of this
waste, it would bapennisaible to use
carbon adsorption to treat this
nonwastewater, so long as these
concentratIon-based treatment
standards for the wastewaten are
ultimately achieved (La., if the residual
wastewater contains hazardous
constituents at levels above the
concentration-based wastewater
trea t stosdards, additional
treatment with other technclogzes is
neceseary prior to land disposaL)
However. if A has established a

-------
Fedetal Register / VoL 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
wastewater treatment standard
expre8sed as Carbon Adsorption as a
Method of Treatment foi ThTh waste
code, the nonwastewater described
above must comply with the standard
for the nonwa8tewater ro i, despite the
fact that the TOC content is only slightly
greater than 1%. This is not just a
mechanical application of the
requirement that treatment must be
conducted by the specified method, with
the tree lability group determined at the
point of generation. EPA established
Carbon Adsorption as a Method of
Treatment standard for certain
wastewaters based on the assumption
that wastewaters typically contain TOC
levels much less than 1%, so that
removal of’ the organic constituents from
these wastewaters was anticipated to
be effective. If the nonwastewater
previously described Is subjected to
carbon adsorption as a method of
treatment, there would be no means of
assuring optimum removal of the
hazardous-constituents. Thus, in such a
situation, the use of carbon ad8orption
for this nonwastewater, is not permitted
as a means of complying with BDAT.
The Agency considers this an
impermiuible switching of applicable
treatability groups and treatment
standards.
When EPA specifies a treatment
method as the treatment standard.
residues resulting from the required
treatment method are no longer
prohibited from land disposal unless
EPA should otherwise specify. In the
Second Third final rule (see generally 54
FR 26625. 266 0. June 23. 1989), the
Agency presented specific guidelines on
this. (This summary is repeated here for
the reader’s convenience.) Where EPA
has established Incineration as the
treatment standard for nonwastewaters
and/or wastewaters, or where EPA has
established Carbon Adsorption the
treatment standard for wastewaters, the
following statements concerning
residuals from treatmen -haIns
incorporating these technologies are
true: (1) Scrubber waterefrom
incinerators in compliance with the
substantive provisions of 40 CFR part
264 subpart 0 or part 285 subpart 0 are
considered to meet the treatment
standard and can be land disposed; (2)
the scrubber waters from incinerators In
compliance with the sustantive
provisions of 40 CFR part 264 subpart 0
or part 265 subpart 0 are not required to
undergo Carbon Adsorption as a
Method of Treatment when this
specified wastewater treatment method
also has been established; (3)
incinerator ashes and residues from the
9ubsequent treatment of scrubber
waters from incinerators in compliance
with the substantive provisions of 40
CFR part 284 subpart 0 or part 285
subpart 0 are considered to meet the
treatment standard, and can be land
disposed; (4) Incinerator equipment
(such as fire brick) derived from
sections of the incinerator that have
been directly subjected to the high
temperatures of the incinerator that was
operated in compliance with the
substantive provisions of 40 CFR part
204 subpart 0 or part 285 subpart 0, or
are downstream from the high
temperature zones, are considered to
meet the treatment standards for the
wastes that were incinerated and can be
land disposed (this does not include
incinerator equipment such as refractory
bricks that, as manufactured, contain
metals that may be characteristic
wastes by virtue of the EP toxicity test
when discarded); (5) wastewater
effluent and any subsequent
nonwastewater treatment residues from
carbon adsorption units treating
wastewater forms of these wastes (i.e.,
wastes from downstream from the
carbon column) are considered to meet
the specified treatment standard and
can be land disposed; and. (6) where
EPA specifies carbon adsorption as the
treatment method for wastewaters,
spent carbon, as well as any other
nonwastewater residues from the
wastewater treatment preceding carbon
adsorption, are not considered to meet
the treatment standard; such spent
carbon and nonwastewater residues
must be treated by the specified
nonwastewater method prior to land
disposal.
e. Transfer of Treatment Standards
Rather than testing the performance of
BDAT on evey waste, in certain cases,
the Agency transfers treatment
standards from a tested waste to a
similar untested waste. EPA believes
that transferring treatment performance
data for untested wastes is technically
valid, particularly when the untested
wastes are generated from similar
industries or similar processing steps.
EPA also believes that transferring
treatment performance data for tested
constitueitts In one waste to untested
constituents in another similar waste Is -
technically valid. particularly when the
constituents and wastes have similar
chemical and physical properties.
To determine whether wastes
generated by different processes can be
treated to the same performance levels,
EPA reviews data on waste -
characteristics to identify parameters
that are expected to affect treatment
selection. When this analysis suggests
that an untested waste can be treated
with the same technology as a tested
waste, the Agency examines a more
comprehensive list of constituents that
represent the most Important waste
characteristics that will affect treatmen
performance.
The complete methodology for
transferring treatment standards.
however, depends upon the waste itself
and often differs from treatability group
to treatabiity group. For a detailed
discussion of the transfer methodology
for the wastes presented in today’s rule,
refer to the background documents for
each waste or treatability group and the
background documents for the wastes
from which the treatment standards
were transferred.
EPA notes further that in the case of
transferring standards based on
performance of incineration. EPA is
most often transfemng standards that
were based on the ability of the
incinerator to achieve destruction of
organics to detection limits as measured
in the ash and scrubber water. This is
supported by data from approximately
fourteen different test burns for a
variety of different RCRA hazardous
wastes. These wastes contained varying
concentrations of many BDAT list
organics. In developing concentration-
based treatment standards for the U and
P wastes, the Agency considered all of
the detection limits and determined
which were the most representative of U
and P wastes. In order to account for the
anticipated variability in waste
characteristics of untreated U and P
wastes, the Agency typically selected
the highest detection limits for the
constituent that corresponded to the
chemical represented by the U or P
code. Thus, the Agency believes the
resultant treatment standards should be
achievable on a routine basis for the
majority of U and P wastes,
When developing ccncentration-based
,treatment standards for certain F and K
wastes containing organics, the Agency
considered all of the data and
determined which particular waste was
the most representative of that
particular For K waste based on the
availability of waste characterization
data. As a result, the Agency often
transferred treatment standards that
were significantly lower than those
developed for the U and P wa8tes. The
Agency believes that these lower
treatment standards are achievable for
these F and I C wastes based on the
ability to achieve detection limits for
organics in the waste matrix from which
the standard was transferred.

-------
Federal Register I ’ Vol. 55 No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
2Z5
f. Treatment Standards Based on Single
Facility Data. Grab Samplea Versus
Composite Samples, and Waste
Analysis Plans - -
(1) Single Facility Data. As discussed
in the August 17, 1988 final rule for First
Third wastes, the Agency believes that
the use of a small number of data sets
from a single treatment facility can be
representative of the treatment achieved
by the particular treatment system. This
is particularly true when no other
treatment data are available, or when
data exist but there Is no verification
that the treatment process from which
the data were obtained was well-
designed or well-operated. It is not
possible for the Agency to sample every
facility generating the waste or every
treatment system treating the waste. For
the purposes of determining treatment
standards, the Agency has established a
methodology for selecting particular
facilities and treatment systems that It
considers to be well-designed and well-
operated. The Agency also selects-
wasteslhat are representative of thoée
most cult to treat
TheAgency recognizes that there Is ’
varIa lty inherent In every treatment
system as well as variability In the
characteristics of the wastes. The
Agency accounts for these by
multiplying the mean of the constituent-
concentrations by a variability factor.
This factor Is derived through a
quantitative procedure that determines
the statistical 99th percentile for the
treatment standard. hue establishes a
treatment standard that should be
achievable 99 percent of the time by a
well-designed. well-operated system.
The Agency further adjusts the
treatment standard to account for
variabilities due to analytical recovery.
In addition, all analyses of hazardous
constituents are performed In
accordance with an established QA/QO
plan as outhned in the BDAT Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Standards based onincineratlon are
always estabI1shed’ abas e the IImit’of
detection For that paitk ar waste
rather than at the cttbn’llmltThIs’ts
because the Agency s to account’
for the variability 1nh r ñt in the -.
treatment system and Inihe analysis oft-
the recovery data. Therefore, following-
EPA ’s methodology for establishing
treatment standards. the-data are
adjusted through use of the variability’
factor (typically 2.8) and an adjustment’
for recovery of a spiked analyte (or
surrogate). The resulting treatment
standards for the organic constituents’
are above the detection limits. The
standards are thus greater than the
achievable levels (which are at or below
the detection limits) and should be
easily met by a weU-designed. well-
operated Incineration system.
(2) Crab versus Composite Samples.
Where performance data exist based on
both the analysis of composite samples
and the analysis of grab samples, the
Agency establishes the treatment
standards based on the analysis of grab
samples. Grab samples normally reflect
maximum process variability, and thus
would reasonably characterize the range
of treatment system performance.
In cases where only composite data
exist the Agency considers the QA/QC
of the data, the Inherent emciency of the
process design, and the level of
performance achieved. The Agency may
then choose to use this composite data
to develop the treatment standard.
Where these data are used to establish
the treatment standard, the treatment
standard is Identified as based on
analysis of a composite sample.
Enforcement of that standard thus
would also be based on composite
samples.
(3) Waste Analysis Plans. The waste
analysis plan provides the basis for
monitoring a disposal facility’s
compliance with the promulgated
treatment standards. This plan must be
adequate to assure compliance with part
288. The disposal facility Is, however,
ultimately responsible if It disposes of a
waste that does not meet a treatment
standard. Therefore, a disposal facility
might viotate the land disposal’
restrictions while at the same time
comply with the provisions of Its waste
analysis plan. Put another way, a waste
analysis plan may be written to
authorize types of sampling and
monitoring different from those used to
develop the treatment standard(s). Lu.
such an Instance, the disposal facility
must demonstrate that the waste
analysis plan (and the specific deviating
feature) Ia adequate to assure
compliance with part 268 (see 40 CFR
284.13). ThIs might require, for example,
a demonstration of statistical
equivalence between a composite
sampling protocol and one based °‘?‘
grab sampling, or a demonstration of -
why monitoring for a subset of
pollutants would assure compliance of
those not monitored. In any case,
enforcement of the land disposal
restrictions is based on grab samples
(except as described in the previous
section) and analysis of all constituents
regulated by the applicable treatment
standands. not an the’ facllity s waste’
analysis plan. (See preamble section
ULG. for further dlscussiowof WAPS.)
g. Analytical Requirements. the BOAT
List, and ReLationship of PQLs to BDAT
(1) Waste Analysis Requirements, ta
today’s rule. BDAT has been identified
as a destruction, technology for organic
constituents and cyaxudes in many
wastes. The best measure of treatment
performance for these wastes is one that
reflects the extent to which these
organics and cyanides have been
destroyed. This approach Is consistent
with the Congressional preference to
destroy hazardous wastes where
possible. See. e.g., 130 Cong. Rec. S
9178-9179 (July 25, 1984) (statement of
Sen. Chaffee) (wastes with hiSh organic
content should be Incinerated). Ths
approach is also consistent with the
strong Congressional goal of eliminating
uncertainty from the land disposal of
hazardous waste. See, e.g., RCRA
section 3004(d)(1), because It ensures
removal of hazardous constituents from
the land disposal environment The
corresponding treatment standards for
these constituents are based, therefore,
on an analysis of total constituent
concentrations in a representative
sample of the treated waste.
(Notm The land disposal restrictions
for solvent waste codes F001—F005 (51
FR 40572) require analysis of waste
extracts obtained from the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) as a measure of performance. At
the time that the treatment standards for
FOO1-.F005 were promulgated, useful
data were not available on total
constituent concentrations In treated
residuals and, as a result, the TCLP was
considered to be the best available
measure to evaluate performance of the
treatment technology.) -
In cases where treatment standards
for metals in nonwastewaters are based
on stabilization, the use of the TCLP Is
typically required as the measure of the
performance of the treatment
technology. Where treatment standards
for-nonwastewaters are based on
multiple treatment processes due to
mixtures of organics and metals. or
‘where recovery of metals is the basis-of
the treatment standards, analysis of
total constituent concentrations and
analysis of the TCLP extract (or EP
extract depending upon the standard)
must be performed prior to land
disposaL
(2) The BDATL1st. The Agency has
established a list of chemicals made up
primarily from the constituents in 40
CFR part 261 appendix VII and
appendix VIII, that are evaluated for
regulation as BDAT constituents (i.e.. for
purposes of concentration-based
treatment standards) when they are

-------
fs.L .L& AaJ1 rJ VL Na i / Friday. 1. i I and Re latiang
pseae in a R.ted wast Thtf iile
he aelectien c i the p tt lar
constituents to be regulated can be
found I a the for
esth waste or waste tren tebølty 8fUU L
TheAgencybe#v ethntftfsnot
limited to regulating only these
constituent, for which a waste is listed
(40 CFR pert 281 appendIx VI ! ).
Appendix VII sets forth only the
constituents that were the basis for the
listing and Is not an exhaustive list of
hazardous constituents in each waste.
Additional support for taking this
approach is found in RC A section
3001 ( 1 ) . which specifies that HPA must
consider additional hazardous
constituents other than those for which
the waste was listed when evaluating
dthsting petitions. Section JO1(!) thus
acknowledges that appendix VII is only
a partial l i nt oithehazardoss
constituents that can be 1 ent in a
listed waste.
(31 Re1of!or hip of Treehnont
Stan ckrrvis hr proposed
revisions to the September 1 & edition
of Test Me c fr for EvoA toting Solid
Waster (a o lmown as and here4n
referred to as SW-M67, the Agency
defines pructical qisantitatlou Ezstts
(PQLa)as ”t thweslleselci
quanlitetkiu that the Agency beIIe,es a -
competent )aboratoi’y be expected
to reliably aclde PQLs are directly
related to the amount ci inte,f iu ss
that are pt in different waste
matrices. and the PQL. listed in
are not always achievable for
constituents as messwad in mtieated
wastes. Mont treatment processes.
howevez partioulaily destructIve
technologies such as incineration.
destroy not only the hazardous
constm ts of the waste but also other
OIguUICS that typically in for, with the
analysis for ccms*itmaita In aufres
aasP . Thus. PQLa typically ore
significantly lower for frea
residuals such as incinera ash then
for unties ted wastes. S d ... ,ae , -
in PQLa for untreated 4.. ....*eat
wa8 ten are danoastratmL the datu ha
almost every bciuerst $rn*bsm
performed by the
the treatment ,tandaxth,i
Potential asers ciI shouki kaspin
mind that the PQ&s in SW.-M6WCSS
established to provide 5 utLire he
analysis of waste samples by a —
niinanum performauce edt fir
analytical laboratories. The PQI d. ast
necessarily represent the l esA biai M
of analytical p tIEm n s schiewable for
any green waste.
The PQLa in SW-ets wore____ to
be broadly appiled topwys of wastes.
As a result. ma dep t couec
factors were not developed for any
particalar wte on and di
specifically apply to y particular
treatment residuals (I.e., only onerection
fzu nr 5 for matrices idPntifcpd as gro
watez low-level soil, h#kvel acal. and
non-water miscible waste were
specified in Method 8 O of SW-am).
Furthermore, the Agency Is currently
modifying and expanding the matrix
correction factors, as well as modifying
the detection limits from which the PQLs
ore derived.
The PQL8 11S(eCYIZI SW-Bt6forsorne
CLmstitnefltI are less stringent than some
of the freatmerit standards. This
appuTefit anomaly results primarily from
the fact that theI .. In SW—&f0were
not based on the same waste maine,
(i.e., freetment resIdues) that wme
tested hr developing the frealment
standards The huatment standards for
a given waste code wa boned on
analysts of the treatment ref of
the waste (ce in sane a
waste Irma which the Ireistr it
standards are t,ausfmed).
Consequently, the resulting treatm
standards appropriately r ect the level
of analytical performance acblevahle for
that waste. Thus, the PQLs In SW—8
are generally not used directly in
developing the Part 288 treatment
standards.
Today’s prceinTrtt d tratien-
based nunwasiewater standards h2qp 1
on cwntuiitfnn derive from detection
limits froni EPA’s 14 test burns (which
generated the data supporting vistusily
all of the proposed rule’s concentration-
based standards plue a data net
submitted by a comnientar representIng
the hazardous waste treatment industry.
This coiament Is discussed at length In
subsequent paragraphs.
This cuwmenter iubmitted a study
thatwa, endentalen to rirify whether
Industry labs can i liabPy quantify
regulated constlteenfs at the level of
both the existing and
concentration-based standard, . ‘The
study’. .wdary pusp e was to
identWy any regulated constituents for
which the ouuonilratfcn-boeed
treatment standard, may be
Inapyw,ulote. The stady coas d ci
anaIystzi ingulated ccn in
Incinerator ash st lave near the -
In the —tm’i den, the data
and ob v=tL _ . IuwI tø that amy
tre - standards are te. iata .
and ahe mad, three major as tLu
with r ,ect to Pt s. First. the
co’m aaser that based sothe
PQLa culcalated uhe data,
previondy cmw tjabao-
based atm rd, are ucliiavable..
rejcb this asaert because no
apea treatsant data received is
either the atmip or d hig the . mm.enI
period for the appropriate rulemaking
that lnLI1e ated on a weste- iec fic boris
that thee trea nt standards onuld net
beachieved. (NotniTha Agency is not
precladed. howevez , from promulgating
revisions to these standards in a later
rufr kIng after ving suf&ient public
Second. the commenler asserted that
certain of the proposed Third Third
concentration-based standards are not
achievable because they are based on
detection Levels below the PQLa
calculated from his study. ‘A
eusinated the ccmmenter s detection
limit data rather than his PQLa and has
determined that the maj nity of the
CgZflmo!ntPL & jimj
danmwtrnte compliance with the
conconfration-based standards that
e proposed, and all but a very few.
comply with the stauslards being
promulgated in ioday’s rule. Because of
this, and foe reas harnmed below.
the Agency has generally rejectedthe
Use of the Pc .a ç k*i tpd by the;
c nter in promu ting beotti en$
standards.
However. .evessl nonwastewater
standards promalguted In today’s rule
reflect revisicon based on the
cocamenten’ s detection limit and
recovery data. EPA has indicated where
these data were used to revise specific
8tandards In later sections of today’s
preamble. Althcxi EPA revised thee
standards b’ .t1 on data bonn this
stmiy. EPA eraUy found flaws with
the ‘ entes’s Medy (such as.
Incomplete wuste
charactesizaticz probable analytical
fn ’fp’ence . aod i 5 ilete
Ineinesator process donusentation) that
precluded ianarpoeatic. of mash of the
data kite the treatment standards ha
noawastewatere. For . i*rmpL. 1 . BOAT
analytes were detected at levels above
the detection level (I.e., at u eble
quantities) in acicz.J of the caeaten’s
ash s ’pLr . Alsa, dkffa,eot ash samples
appeared to have di rer aanposithms
of these BOAT analytea. apparently
indicatingthst thcae differ
— baa one anoth (See
detail responses ci these data in the
Response toBDAT-Pe C .nts
Backgrod Ikcanent ha Thrd Land
Disposal Beatriotform In the
a s*iative record for today’ . rule.)
Third. the stated that EPA
had 1rq,p. il..trlyca1 ted
n te er’ tr ent stand —ida in
terms cibath evei
and the best p-’I’-- hr

-------
Fedail Reigisté f’Vár5a No. 100 / FrIday, jnne 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
S41
use of PQLs.The comrnenter chose to
use a methodology adapted from the
Clean Water Act regulations to
calculate alternative concentration-
based standards for ash which they
asked EPA to consider. Regardless of
the validity of the commenter’s data,
EPA is not deviating from the
calculation methodology of the Generic
Quality Assurance Project Plan for Land
Disposal Restrictions Program (“BDAT’)
promulgated In conjunction with the
November11, 1986 regulatory
framework. The Agency therefore Is
retaining Its established methodology.
h. Relationship of Detection Limits to
Concentration-Based Standards
Several commenters raised the Issue
that, in certain cases, analytical
problems (i.e, dlthcultles In reliable
quantitatlon at detection limits near the
concentration-based treatment
standards) may prevent demonstrating
compliance with the proposed treatment
staniEards for Third Third wastes. They
also inted out that this same problem
already may exist for some First and
Secwul Third wastes. -
EPA has examined the data submitted’
to the Agency in support of these
comments. (See discussion of thesidata
a they relate to PQIà In the preceding
section of the preamble.) While the
Agency does not believe that the ‘
cununtly available data Irconcluslve 4
EPA acimowledges that there can be
situations where Lack of available
analytical methods’ may prevent
demonstration of compliance with the
treatment standards.
EPA Is dealing with this potential
problem In a number of ways. First, EPA
has examined detection limit data . -
submitted by the commenters and
compared them to the data used to
develop the proposed standards. After a-.
thorough technical evaluatlonjha
Agency incorporated a portion of these.
data into the promulgated standards in
today’s rule. In addition, the Agency has
reevaluated the exl$tIIIgBDAT data
generated by the A iü ’, theiransfer
procedures used f eoine of the wastes.
and recently avallaM iformafioñ and
data on recovery of ’th’e BDA ’torgaiild
constituents. Thus, -EPA cànèurred with
the commentere and concluded that -
many of the other proposed
concentration-based treatment
standards may not be achievable. As a
result. EPA Is promulgating revised
treatment standards for some organics
In nonwastewaters that are higher than
the proposed standards. In doing so, the
majority of the commenters’ concerns
over ability to measure at
concentrations near the standards are
no longer applicable. (Note: The Agency
Is - continuing to study this Issue and. if
warranted. may adjust other standards,
Including some for First and Second
Third wastes, after sufficient public
notice.)
Second. In certain situations where
compliance with a standard cannot be
demonstrated for a particular waste due
to problems with analytical detection
limits and where the treatment
technology employed was considered by
the Agency to be BDAT (see specific
Instances below), the Agency has
decided that reliance upon the
treatability varIanc e petition process
would place an unnecessary burden qn
both the regulated and regulatory
communities. The Agency believes that
where a waste has been treated with a
combustion BDAT process (i.e..
incineration or fuel substitution unit).
andif the person has made a goodfaith
effort to achieve maximum analytical
sensitivity, the Agency will consider the
person to have demonstrated
compliance with the treatment standard
for the respective organic constituents In
the waste, -
In order to demonstrale compliance In
such cases. the person will have had to
make a good faith effort to demonstrate
that the analyte of concern Is not
present In the ‘waste at, or abo\’e, the
treatment otai dard . Tb provide a more
conctete basEs fo making such
demonstrations, EPA intends to deveLop-
and Issue guidance on what constitutes-
a good faith effort to achieve such
analytical sensitivity within the near
future. This guidance Is anticipated to be
available at or near the effective date
for the Third Third treatment standards
(Augusta, 1990).’
In developing the treatment standards
In today’s rule, theAgency selected the
treatment data (I.e., detection limit data)
that best represented what the majority
of wastes could meet. (Notm Most of
these data were from Incinerator units
that were considered well-designed and.
well-operated.) However, the Agency
rejected detection limit data for some.
wastes, because the Agency determined
that these wastes were not necessarily
representative of the treatability of other
wastes. After ree z .minadon of all otthe
available detectlo limit daLe, the
Agency has found that the ma jority of
the detection limltdata for these wastes
will generally not exceed the
promulgated treatment standards by
moçe than one order of m gpftuds. The -
Agency also points out that there Is an
Inherent three-fold difference in -
detection limits that may arlse due to
difference In sample size taken for
analysis.
Thus, until this formal guidance Is
available, the Agency will consider that.
if an analytical sensitivity (La.. detection
limit) within an order of magnitude of
the organic constituent treatment
standard has been achieved, compliance
wIth such treatment standard will be
considered to have been demonstrated
provided the data represents the use of
a combustion process (i.e.. restricted to
incineration or fuel substitution in a unit
In compliance with all applicable
technical operating requirements under
40 CFR part 264 subpart 0 and part 265
subpart 0. Thus, It Is likely that the
combustion unit is being operated
properly). The Agency believes that this
Is consistent with RCRA section
3004(m), In that. as an alternative to
specifying a concentration-based
standard for these wastes, the Agency
could have promulgated a method of
treatment specifying the use of
incineration or fuel substitution.
One commenter requested that
persons with untreated wastes also be
allowed to certify compliance if
analytical problems prevent their-
demonstrating compliance *Ith the
treatment standards. The Agency
emphatically disagrees. This situation
has a substantial potential to mask the
presence of hazardous constituents.
Untreated wastes, and wastes treated
by other than the aforementioned
combustion processes (e.g., -
biotreatnient), typically contain many
materials that Interfere with achieving
low detection limits. Such wastes can.
thus, contain significant levels of
hazardous constituents even when the
treatment process Is operating properly.
Allowing land disposal of such wastes
would be contrary to the objectives of
the land dIsposal-restrIctIons statutory
provisions. In addition, the rules already
allow generators to certify compliance
based on their knowledge of the waste,
rather than by testing (section
268.7(a)(2}). Lf a generator believes, for
example, that as a result of mass
balance Information a waste meets the
treatment standard, It can certify
compliance even if It Is not possible to
analytically demonstratecompllance
with the standard,
EPA4s-thus amending §* 288.7 and.
288.43 to state that where a treatment
standard for organics in
nonwastewaters is based on the
aforementioned combustion
technologies (I.e., Incineration or fuel
substitution In units operated in
accordance with the technical operating
requirements of 40 CFR part 264 subpart
0 and part 265 subpart O} and a waste
has been treated-using that treatment
method, the treatment facility may

-------
VIA .l RIgfoftr /Vd. 5&-Rob / PHJay , Jtwe 1, igqO! RuYes and Ragthtfons
certify cu Jpld or wI the ulc
ccantltuent standard if. gao 1thth
effort has been made to analytlcaDy
demonstrate compilance with this
standard and a detection t t within an
order of magnitude of the organic
constituent standard baa been achieved.
This includes all waste codes in the
First Se td, and Third Thide w e
standards for oaganica are based on
such combustion jacceases or wore
transfened from wastes based on
combustion These atandanie
are specifically indicated in Table W
of § &43.
The A icy pants out that In canes
whore a faChty believes that waste-
specific treatment standards cannot be
met because thar laboratory Is stiI
unable to achieve detection liudt . below
the treatment standards on specific
treatment residuals, amli (1) The fadbty
compiles with all the othor ditkme
mentioned above or (2) a f itiity
utilizes a combustion technology othar
than I erebon or fuel suhatitution an
(3) a facility lw a tpd n Tn ? oth
than combustion thatcànbe
demonstrated to be equiw fe nt the
facility may sebe*it a petition far a
vari e from the treatment standards
for that partIcular waste code (EPA
construes Ml CFR 288.44 as
enampniwng such pet1iiona . ‘The
facility must dprnnngtrate that the
analyses are In with alt
other BOAT QAIQC provinious (as
ntPhi d in the BOAT Generic Qjiality
Assurance Project Plan (EPA! 530-SW—
87—011, March 19 7J. reover , the
petitioner must also demonstrate that
the treatment process Is a well-designed
and well-operated BOAT process.
i. Relation alllarardaas Wante
Tr i1m.nt C V 1 v.EPA
A rmmber of comm tenr ralsed the
Issue of wetherthetreatzueut
standards beIng adopted are below
levels at which threats t h un— health
and the uvfruuu I are L1—hcd .
citing portions of the recta? e fnimr
ffaw*ai Waite G,wrdlv.
EPA, 888 F. 2d35(D.C( )
(HWTC !fl . hr that case. Cmet
upheld EPA s existIng teeheols ’ .ba .ed
approach to establishing trcir uent
standards as a reacoumbl. montr
of the statute, bet ienianded the case to
the Agency In ordertor the Agency to
properly explain wiry ii had theses tbls
approach. EPA’. explanation wan
published hr the Fl I E.on
Februarym 19 sodwasai ykdby
the Cont which dismissed nil pet1I
forreviewenMa r eir15 ,1
The standards EPA Is adopting in this
rule me also molopy “ -
Howevor as ‘ se ” ‘u detail in
sedicu IILft below. A amy behaves
that with z pect to dlapoeth of
prohOatPd thma Istis wastes t me
no lo “ &me ” or
regulations, the Agency must bar
the competing r kk aLmcos of
3004 (g) and 1000(b) (relating to a
regelatory framework for subtitleD
systems) with those of sectIon 3004(m)
(relating to treatm ’nt to fully m nrn 1w
threats) before deh imfning the extent of
the prohibition.
EPA notes fnrthrr that ft behave, that
treatment standards established below
characteristic levels can result In
nonredundant minfmfantfon of threats to
human health and the wwlwmuent and
thus be peonlsslble nuder R A section
3004(m) and the Court’s opinion, indeed .
the Coart ftseff noted that charad tic
levels do not serve as a to farther
trea lment(8 F.2dat303).The
tr fmest standurd for charneteristie
wastes In today’s rule thus are not
on any flarR that the
characteriatfclevel. hr end of itself,
eh a bar to farther treatment.
2 Trcotment S andoi-ds for Certain
Cko.mcteri stk Wastes
‘I1 aedicri of todays p,imhl .
pi I a disornalon of 0001 Ignitable,
D002 Corrosive. end 0000 Reactive
characteristic wastes, as well as th, six
EP Toxic pesticide, (0012 tluoiö 0017).
Treatment standards Las the al i1 EP
toxic metals are fm in section ULA.3.
of this preamble.
a. General beets on Developing
Treatm ul Standards for ( amct .iwii1Ic
Wastes
The,eweTeazwmberofopt lona
proposed for developing fr.-z ’f wflt
standards for the characteristic wastes.
One considered by the Agency
wan to prenrulgete etlco -bu ed
etamLrde ( those characteristic
wastes that were de ed by a levefl
based en i,v nble data. A second
option was to promulgate a treatment
5 ti,nd id e q ,Tv ,rd as a required
method. A third uvlluzi was to simply
estabhah the ch acterlstk !evel as the
boatmen? standard and a &, 1 rth vpilon
was to establish a method of treatment
along with a required perfurziiwice levet.
The Agency pendved extensive
comments diomsaing these op*ian.
paa& iIy the upIi i of
tr uim z.I stamlorsin expressed as the
characteristic . . . A lea, ç .j — - . t .r
frestmed pt irde he
wastes at levels below the cbam l
levels stfii.g t avaliabis
performance data coated th so
approach. The majority of
however, supported limiting the
freah . * standards at chorastoriolk
levels.
The Agency found come of the
technical beu u raised by these
comnwntme persuasive. (Discussion of
the policy Issues a aodated with ecftlng
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes Is fotind In preamble section
IILD.Jfle Agency agrees with
, .mDTttD1 8 that argued that
characteristic wastes may be generated
In many matrices, and thus, can take
any m.mht of different foons,
transferring data from specific listed
wastes to these variable characteristic
wasteS, the commeeters IndicatorL may
not accoLart he seth differences.
to addition, fur i tulu 0001. 0002,
and 0003 testabIlity giwj , there are
currently no available analytical
methods to quantify residual Ignitability,
corrosiveness, end reactivity. Until EPA
can develop analytical methods capable
of determining quantitative
chera erIs& bemds, tad y m
J &dotedy make qualitative te hn f
decisions dependent on the waste
definition. Treaters must complete
treatment unt tpisiitatjve technical
ie,ffr i fpii that th. waste or
wa_ste i st naI no rnirge exhibits the
characteristic barard spei i1oA by the
definition.
Many .m..oritarg aiqiported the
Agencys for sethug trea nt
standards he Ignitr ihIn , Corrouve . and
Reactive (with the xpl1on of Reactive
Cya. .1b..) wastes expressed as a
required method of t Iv nt
Deactlvatkui. The Agency, therefore, Is
promulgating the Ikacthailmi treatment
standarr# a id Is pruvkhrigu sisd
dea thatJue methods tor u,vv the
characteristic lor various Ignitable.
G aIvs , end Weactive testability
groups In eppethlix VI ?O40( R part
20&
No CnmmPntg were received on the
proposed approach forregulatlng the EP
Toxin pesticides (0011-00171. The
Agency is prnmlTl&tfflg con fralion-
based treatn $f vrMik fu
nonwaate%seisT forms of these wastes
audmelheda oftreethie nt for the
wastewaters. The Agency Ia taking thin
action based eadalaliulicatiag that
incineration can barmy
consZth s to nen.detectable levels In
flOflW*.*.wt I an evidenced by
data ___for omtain
discussion of ha & d with
pr -. - — 1 5 -tiug standards for
these characte tIs tes is _____ In
the following of today’ .
-e.

-------
Fed wal Regleter / VoL 55, No. 100 1 Friday, June 1. 1090 / Rules and Regalatioias
b. I it bIn C Wastes
umii oài 20t there us four
criteria r t tlfylng a waste as 0001
Ignitable. Parcplnerisg these a4teria. a
waste lea 1)001 Ignitable IL (1)11 is a
liquid with a flash point lea. than 140 F;
(2) it is an ignitable oosn4weseed gas (3)
it is not a Liquid and Is capable of
causing fire through friction, absorption
of moisture, or spontaneous chemical
ch ee and when uited hems
vigorecely and persistentIy or (4) it Is
an oxidizer. EPA has determined that
these four thteria translate directly into
forw major 0001 aubcat r4es (although
EPA has further eubcat orized the
ignitable liquid sabcategory into three
treatability oupe). If a waste Is
classified as 1)001 because it fits under
more than oor 0001 subcategoiy. the
waste be treated by a tieutment
method or treatment methods that will
remove all characteristics of ignitability
for earth applicable subcategoty.
(1) ilSefale Lrq dds Sribcotego y. The
first D0 sabcategory. the Ignitable
Uquids8ubcategosy, refers to those
DOOl w tes that exhibit tha properties
listed tn* 26L21(aXl). Commenters
specifically questioned whether the
determination of liquid under
§ 261.21(a) 1) was based on the paint
filter test (“free liquid” Method 9095).
the EP test (Method 1310). cm the
releasable liquids test in Method 9096.
While the Agency has defined liquids
both as materials expressed from
wastes in Step 2 of Method 1310 (El’).
and In Methods 9095 and 9006 there is
not a specific definition of liquid with
respect to this characteristic in the
regulations. Therefore, the generaterof a
potentially Ignitable waste may use any
method for determining whether the
waste is dassifledasa liquidfcr which
he can provide an appropriate a ” c
or t c.hnical justification.
One Cnmnw,tpr requested
cIariflr ntion re ganIing the 1)001 liqeid
exclusion for aqueous alcohol wastes
which Is found in 40 ( R 2R1 21{a ) . This
provision states that aial] waste
exhibits the characteristic of ignltabllity
if ..j Is a liquid, othar4 n an aqueous
solution nntnining leTsithan 14 percent
alcohol by volume, and has a flash point
less than 00 C (140 F) f * *“ The
Agency notes thaL in this definition, the
term alcohol refers to any olcnl’n 1 or
combination of Akn1 Qlq (Note; If the
alcohol has been used for solvent
properties and Is one of the alcohols
specifledin EPA }ta ri1nu 8 Waste Ifo.
F003 or P005, thewnata must be coded
with these Hazardous Waste Numbers
(which cover the hazard of ignitability).)
Data indicate that the majority of all
Do wastes generated fall Into the 0001
TgniMhle Ucpiids Subcateggiy and are,
typically desmihed an solvents, paint
thinTtPl 5, cnnt n1npJ d oils, and various
organic hydrocarbons. Some of these
wastes may contain organic constituents
that are potential carcinogens or
otherwise toxic. Typically, the major
organic constituents in these wastes are
volatile. f1n,nm ibIe hydrocarbons or
oxygenated hydrocarbons that provide
the characteristic of ignltRhi]ity to the
waste (I.e., a flash point of less than 140
‘F). (Note: Currently, the length of time
over which combustion La sustained at a
temperature of less than 140 F is not
specified although such a regulatory
change may be appropriate in the future.
This issue assumes relevance when
considering the large volume of solvent-
containing wastewaters that flashes but
does not sustain combustion.)
For purposes of BDAT determination,
most of tire Ignitable liquid wastes are
typically classified as nonwastewaters
because of their high organic content
(usually greater than 1 percent bC ).
Technologies applicable for treatment of
these organic nonwastewatera include
incineration, fuel substitution, and
recovery processes such as distillation
or liquid-liquid extraction. Thermal
destmiDtion tachnnk giee such as
Incineration andreuse as a fuel
completely remove the characteristic of
low flash point by completely destroying
the volatile orgunic compounds (VOCs),
thereby rendering the waste
nonignitable. Recovery processes also
remove the characteristic but recover
the Ignitable material for reuse instead
of destroying the material. Furthermore,
the Agency believes such technologies
are both lpT nns1rated and available
because EPA ha, datashowlog that the
majority (1..., 75%) of 1)001 Ignitable
IJqIIIAQ are already treated by
Incineration, reused as a fuel substitute
because of their high 1 ’U ronterit.or
recovered for reuse through pmoce a ’ s
such an distillation. Based on the fact
that these demonstrated, available
tedtnolngi.a remove the characteristic
of Mityperaaixendy and
completely, as well as destroying a
number of haasrdoas constkueals, EPA
proposed a trea 1 nt si nd rd of
Incineration, Fuel Substitution, or
Recovery as Methods Qf Treatment” for
1)001 nonwa.tewaterg In the Jg tabla
Liquids Subcategory (54 FR 48 0)..
A tiniest propose 1, the Age y.
was u a1 k todetermits whether any
0001 wastes In the Ipitahis Liquids.
Subcategorpr. as initially geaera d,
conformed to ‘A’e re intozy
definition of wastewaters (ha., wastes
containing lees than I percent TOC arid
1 percent ThS). Accordingly. EPA did
not believe that wastewater treatment
techeologlea such as biodegradation
were applicable for treatment of any
waste forms In the 0001 Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory because of the high
organic contents and large BTU values
thought to be inherent in these wastes,
as well as the c ncemn for air emissions
caused by the release of untreated
VOCs during dilution and aeration steps
associated with most wastewater
treatment technologies. Consequently,
EPA proposed that the standard for
nonwastewaters apply to any
wastewaters as well, since the end
result would be the removal of the
Igzutability characteristic and
destruction of the hazardous
constituents. See 54 FR 48420-22.
Concerning the iss ue of was tewa tar
generation, the Agency received many
comments indicating that there are
wastes in the [ 1001 IgnItable Liqwds
Suboategory that consist primarily of
water. The commantcie also emphasized
that most of these low-organic. aqueous
Dual wastes are best treated using
wastewater treatment technologies even
though such aqueous streams may
contain greater than I pezcen&TOC and
may thus be dasaifled as
nonwastewalers. With respect to
wastewater treatment technologies
being appropriate methods of treating
aqueous ignitable wastes, some
commentera said that biological
treatment is appikahie for some of the
DOOl aqimous wastes that contain
water-soluble orgsnics Other
commenters livlinated that wet air
oxidation and carbon adsorption are
also applicable forms of treatment for
1)001 aqueous wastes. Nonetheless, the
Agency is still concerned about possible
air emisa s eooiated with the
aeration and dilution steps that are
often part of wastewater treatment
processes such as biodegradatioc.
However, EPA believes that such
emissions can be controlled by altering
operating parameters (e.g., aeration
rates,. temperatures) and by performing
process steps such as aeration and
dilution steps In controlled
environments such as tanha equipped
with air pollution control devices. The
Agency believes some facilities are
already pmetioing these precaiitinna- For
OD* rnn .mputer mentioned a
biodegridafinn system used to treat
Dual that was anaerobic and kept any
air emle iinne con minød inside the
system.:
After avalria&inn stall the appropriate
waste charectanzatioa data and
frea n* performance data presented
in the comrtianta , the Age y decided
that wastewatez treatment technologies

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 108 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
that are capable of providing legitimate
treatment for such aqueou8 wastes do
exist Next, EPA investigated
Information about technology treatment
capabilities corresponding to the organic
and water contents of wastes. For
example, the Agency has information
indicating that incineration is generally
applied to those wastes having greater
than 10 percent organic content and that
technologies such as air stripping, wet
air oxidation, and solvent extraction can
be applied to streams containing up to
10 percent organic content Using this
information, along with the Agency’s
regulatory definitions of wastewaters
and nonwastewaters, EPA determined
that the 1)001 Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory should be further
subcategorized by division into three
treatability groups as follows: (1) DOOl
Ignitable Liquids High TOC
Nonwastewaters, (2) 1)001 Ignitable
Liquids Low TOC Nonwastewaters, and
(3) DOOl Ignitable Liquids Wastewaters.
The Ignitable Liquids High TOC
Nonwastewater Subcategory is defined
as Ignitable liquid wastes that contain
greater than or equal to 10 percent TOC
as generated. These wastes have large
organic concentrations, high BTU
content, and low water content. It is
common practice to recover reusable
organic materials from these wastes
using processes such as distillation,
steam str1pping and liquid-liquid
extraction. Also, many of these wastes
are excellent candidates for fuel
substitution because of high BTU values.
(Additional discussion on fuel
substitution as a treatment method for
these wastes Is contained in the
discussion of national capacity
variances In section Ill.B.) The Agency
is promulgating “Incineration (INCIN),
Fuel Substitution (FSUBS), or Recovery
(RORCS) a Method of Treatment” for
this treatability group. See 268.42
Table 1 in today’s rule for a detailed
description of the technology standard
referred to by the five letter technology
code in parentheses.
The Agency believes I L appropriate to
require that these wastes be treated by
some type of destruction and recovery
technology given that they often contain
high concentrations of toxic organic
constituents that provide the igriitablllty
characteristic to the waste. The toxins In
these wastes might not be destroyed if
the waste could be land disposed so
long as It Is not Ignitable at the point of
dl8posal. Additionally, the Agency notes
that this Is an instance Illustrating how a
point-of-generation approach (I.e., the
treatment method applies if the waste is
in the treatability group when
generated) ensures that the objectives of
section 3004(m) are satisfied. EPA also
notes that if an Ignitable Liquids High
TOC Nonwaatewater is commingled
with other waste streams, the entire
mixture must be treated by one of the
methods prescribed for Ignitable Liquids
High TOC Nonwastewater Subcategory
268.41(b). This is an Instance of how the
rules seek to ensure that wastes are not
commingled if the treatment method is
not appropriate for each commingled
waste. Put another way, commingling of
Ignitable Liquids High TOC
Nonwastewaters with non-incinerable
wastes is normally a type of
impermissible dilution. See 52 FR 25766
(July 8, 1987).
The Ignitable Liquids Low TOC
Nonwastewater Subcategory is defined
as wastes that contain greater than 1%
but less than 10% TOC as generated.
The Ignitable Liquids Wastewater
Subcategory is defined as wastes that
contain less than 1 percent TOC and
less than 1 percent TSS as generated.
The Agency believes that some of these
wastes can be effectively treated (i.e.,
remove the characteristic of ignitability
by either destroying or recovering the
organic constituents that gave the waste
its ignitable character) using
technologies applicable for treatment of
aqueous wastes. In some cases, these
wastewaters and low TOC
nonwastewaters may need to be mixed
with other wastewaters to achieve an
organic concentration desirable for
proper operation of a treatment system
for aqueous wastes. For instance,
wastewaters destined for biological
treatment are often commingled to
achieve an organic concentration that Is
optimal for the microorganisms. Fuel
substitution Is not considered practical
since wastes in both these categories
generally do not have high BTU contents
because they contain mostly water.
Most of these wastes can be treated
with w stewater technologies; however,
Incinerafiba may also be applicable.
especially for the Low TOC
Nonwastewaters. EPA Is promulgating
“Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Ignitability” for both
the Ignitable Liquids Low TOC
Nonwast?water Subcategory and the
Ignitable Liquids Wastewater
Subcategory. See section 288 appendix
VI of today’s rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or In
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also 268.42 Table I for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established In
order to simplify the tables.)
One commenter requested
clarification on whether phase
separation followed by recovery or use
as a fuel of the organic phase could be
considered a permissible type of
deactivation treatment for Ignitible
wastes. EPA considers processes that
separate an organic phase to be
recovery (or in some cases
pretreatment) and, hence, acceptable
treatment provided the separated
organic phase is reused or further
treated by a technology that will remove
the characteristic of ignitability. The
aqueous phase would not require further
treatment unless it still exhibited the
ignltability characteristic (assuming the
aqueous phase is not hazardous for any
other reason). See also discussion of
permissible switching of applicable
wastewater and nonwastewater
standards 54 FR 48383 (November 22,
1989). (Additionally, this is in keeping
with the general principle established in
these rules that determination of
whether a characteristic waste achieves
BDAT must be reevaluated whenever a
treatment residual Is generated. Put
another way, each new treatability
group Is a new point of generation for a
characteristic waste. See section 111.1).
below.)
EPA is aware that some DOOl
Ignitable Liquids have been shown to
contain organic constituents that are
also constituents in F001—F005 solvents.
The Agency studied the option of
transferring the standards for these
constituents from the corresponding
F001-F005 standards promulgated in the
November 7, 1988, final rule (51 FR
40642). The Agency received comments
for and against this option. However,
the Agency believes that this option
would create an unnecessary burden on
the regulated community since the
majority of 0001 wastes In the Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory should not contain
these constituents and that most wastes
containing F001—F005 constituents are
probably cases of misclassification.
Misclassifying F001—F005 waste as 1)001
is currently one of the largest
enforcement Issues In the RCRA
program. Such misclassification Is, of
course, illegal and a serious infraction. It
avoids the Congressionally mandated
treatment standards for the prohibited
solvent wastes. Indeed, solvents were
the wastes Congress prioritized for
prohibition and treatment. EPA believes,
however, that the problem Is best
handled through enforcement rather
than establishing treatment standards
for the misclassified wastes because It
seems an unreasonable burden to
require generators of authentic 0001
wastes to conduct the significant
amount of testing and certification
required under the land disposal

-------
FRor I Vo& 5go.iO6 / FrIday June 1, 1990./ Rules and Ragulaicue
resfr4JInn2 wham Ii Is likely that the
constituent S wlfl notbe ‘reseat Is most.
true 0001 waates otq, the Agency
Is not promulgating concenlrallon-based
DOOl treatment ’standards based on a
transfer of FOO1-F005 data at this lime,
although It may reevafanft this decision
In the future.
(2) !geitebk Cossp.ess& Cases
Subcategory. The second subcategory.
the Igaitable Compressed Gases
Subca ory. refer, to those t*)Oi
wastes that exhibit the properties listed
In § 121(.fl3). The Agency has limited
Inlormalion 02 the generation and
characterization of 0001 wastes In this
subcategory, but suspects that altho h
these wastes are generated, It Is mthks4y -
that they require placement In any type
of land disposal unit. The Agency
believes that there are no gas cylinders
containing compressed Ignitable gases
placed In surface impoundments and
that It Is physically Impossible to
dispo e of th means of deepwell
Injection. Some cylinders containing
0001 Igeltable gases may be placed in
waste pi h wcv r . such placement of
a container in a storage unit is not land
disposal sder section 3904(k). See 54
FR 4843 addition, these type, of
cylinderrazu uzually retw to
distribution fadlitles to be rthlled. 1
Agency does not intend to vent
ahort-tena storu 5 e of cylinders prior to
refilling.
The Agency proposed several options
as treatment standards for compressed
Ignitable gases. The first option was that
of recovery by direct reuse since.
typically. the cylinders are directly
refilled. The second option was
Incineration by venting the gas Into an
incinerator. The Agency proposed.
treathientstandard of “Recovery or -
Incineration of Vented Ignitable Gases”
for these wastes.
EPA continues to believe that both
incineration and recovery are applicable
technologies for treatment of most
compressed gases. Ko ever, severe!
commenters preeente formatlon -
about the limitations v thupreposed
technologies and provldqd Information ’ -
about additional te Vloglas that the
Agency also believe, lobe applicable
treatment methods for removing the
characteristic of Ignitability for this
subcategory.
dtothefeaslbilityoftha - - , -
recovery option, one commenter staed
that It is viable within the compressed
gas industry, e pt for cases such as
cylinders that have defective valves,
the h a ostthe lde ntityof the
manufacturer , that are lecture bottle
size. yr that are damaged. In any of
these four cases, the contents In the
cylinders must instead be treated. The
comrnpn tar also stated that the moot
prevalent treatment method Is to fëed
the L itab g s Into a furnace as a fuel
source. The Agency did not propose fuel
substitution as a method because EPA’s
knowledge about the use and suitability
of these wastes as fuels was limited.
However, the characterization data
submitted during the comment period
indicate that most of the waste gases
currently treated by fuel substitution are
gases that can be used efficiently and
safely as fuels.
With respect to “tmJnvzitlon of
vented gases” as a treatment method.
EPA believes that there may he cases
when it I , preferable to vent the gee Into
en ap ,priateedeerbent material (e.g..
water, solvents activated carbon) and
then to incinerate the adsorbed gae/
adsorbent material comblnathon to
permanently r ove the charecieristlc.
AdditIonally, a wmmentor said that for-
small vuhune containers of itable
camprcued gases (e.g.. aerosol cans of
18 ci. or ieee). the coatainers can be fed
directly Into the kiln and vuntied within
theldlnttaedbyth. melth%golthesmall
cans. The vested gases are than
Incinerated In the kiln or afterbarner.
One deeathed a me d
of trea t fer pyrophosic gases.
Typical gases in this class include-
tributyl aluminum. nirtIqihine ,
thethylborane, sad klinmnihylin . Von
commenies’da .d that these gaa a ,
becazumoIt ’arrzeac1ive
characteristics, caneot be vented into an
Incinerator without ommlderzbie risk
1’he enter’s method of treatment -
for such gases has been by remetie
cothol penefratlon-and detonation
under a d l of sp4wopnate saubbiog
solution.
Anether method of treatment. -
desalbed by the i ommonten to
deactivate the ignitable characteristic in
some compressed gases Is to chemically
oxidize them In an aqueous medium .
The co s claimed that carbunyl
sulfide aid methyl wercaptans az ’s
effi ee*ly treated by oxidation.
Chamwal oxidation and cb InIGaL
reduction technologies J” o reactions
with reagents La aqueous m ame that
will caddiza or reduce the hazardous
constituents.
The Agency believes th&L -aD.IheSe
techno1 gies can remove the
charactedatia of l itability and Is . . -
promuigatI a tr fmnnl standard of
“Deactivatioa )EACI).to Pantove the,
Characteristic oil t2bilI J ” Ice the.
Ignitable Compressed Ga. Subcaiegory..,
The Agency has esthhflahp4 t .
standard to allow lr ulated
coTnlmunity the fl xThi1 y to.use the
“best” technology for the apaciflc,
gaseous waste. See section 288
Appendix VI ottoday’s rule for a list of
applicable technologIes that used alone
or in comblzmtlon can achieve this
standard. (See also Z 42 Table I for a
technical desaiption of these
technologies. A fiv, letter code
(acronym] for each technology has been
established In order to simplify the
tables.) This treatment standard will
apply to all forms of wastes in the
Ignitable Compressed Gases
Subcategory since the definitions of
wastewater and nonwastewater do not
apply to this group of wastes.
(3) Igrzitobtle Reoctives Subccte.goiy.
The third subcategory, the Ignitable
Reactives Subcategory, refers to those
0001 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in § 281.21 (a)(2). These wastes are
typically generated on a sporadic basis
In low volumes and are characterized as
primarily inorganic solids or wastes
containing reactive materials. Ignitable
reactive materials indude reactive
alkali metals or metallolds (such as
sodium and potassium) and calcium
carbide slap. Most of these are very
reactive with water and will generate
gases that can ignite as the resoft of heat
generated from the reaction with water.
Other reactive ignitable solids In this
subcategory Include metals such as
magnesium and aluminum that, when
finely divided. can vigorously react with
the oxygen In the air when ignited.
There appears to be an overlap
between wastes In this DOOl subcategory
and certain D003 (characteristic of
reactivity) wastes. A close examlnntion
of the definitions In § 281.21(a)(2] for
Ignitable wastes and U 281.23(a) (2). (3).
and (8) for reactIve wastes reveals the
distinction between these two groups.
The key difference Is in the definition of
Ignitable wastes, which staten
* when Ignited, burns vigorously
and per tautly.” This phrase implies
that the hazard Is due primarily to the
Ignition potc’nttal rather than to the
extreme reactivity.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of “Deactivation as a Method
of Treatment” for wastes in the 0001
Ignitable Reactive Subcategory. The
Agency took this approach for these
wastes since the hazardous
characteristic Is based on Imminent
hazard (I a,, Ignition and violent
reaction) rather than on other aiteria
such as levels of hazardous constituents
and since tedinnlngiea exist that can
completely amova this characteristic.
Curr , nt management practices for
some of these wastes, sach as calcium
carbide slag, involve contrcl]ed
deactivation with water. Other DOOl
Ignitable P t flvas, suck as those
containing reactive alkirli metals

-------
s4a ,.Fede a 106 1 . Friday, Jun&1 ,.1990 j..,Rules and Regulations
sodIum or potassium) are sometimes
chemically deactivated u 1ngchenilca1
oxldatlon’or chemical red cl1on
technologies. Several comnienters stated
that incineration Is also an appropriate
treatment method for these wastes.
Additionally, other commenters have
Indicated that recovery technologies are
applicable for some wastes In this
subcategory. EPA also believes that
stabilization is an established
deactivation technique for safe and
equivalent management of reactive
ignitable materials since It accomplishes
results equivalent to those of other
technologies by Isolating and
encapsulating the pyrophoric metal fines
and precluding conditions that could
cause Ignition or reaction of the
material.
The Agency believes that chemical
oxidation, chemical reduction.
incineration, and recovery are all
applicable technologies for waste forms
in the DOOl Ignitable Reactives
Subcate8ory because these technologies
will remove the characteristic of
ignitability. However, the Agency
believes that because of the diversity in
physical aid chemical forms of the
wastes In the I8nltable Reactives
Subcategory It Is not possible to
determine a “bear technology for all
wastes. EPA Is promulgating a treatment
standard of “Deactivation (DEACT) to
Remove the Characteristic of
Ignitability” for the Ignitable Reactives
Subcategory. See section 288 Appendix
VI of today’s rule for a lIst of applicable
technologies that used alone or In
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also * 288.42 Table I for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established In
order to simplify the tables.) This.
treatment standard Is established only
for nonwastewaters since Ignitable
reactive wastes are dea rlbed as being
very reactive with water and hence
cannot exist as waste t
(4) Oxidizers Subco1*i The fourth
subcategory. the DOQI O f41ssrs
Subcategory. refers to th sej)O01
wastes that exhibit the pm iertIee listed
In 281.21(a)(4) and meet the definitions
In 49 CFR 173.151. Several cemmenters
have asked for an elaboration of the
oxidizer definition because the DOT
definition Is not definitive but rather
lists examples of oxidizing compounds.
EPA believes that DOOl wastes In the
Oxidizers Subcategory are primarily
Inorganic and Include such things as
waste peroxides. perchlorates, and
permanganates. The Agency has very
limited Information on the generation
and characterization of 0001 wastes In
this subcategory. Currently, generators
must assess wastes for oxidizing
hazards by considering known oxidizing
constituents contained within the
wastes, and by the definition as outlined
in 49 CFR 173.151 whIch states:
“An oxidlz& for the purpose of this
subchapter Ie a substance such as a chlorate,
permanganate, Inorganic peroxide, or a
nitrate, that yields oxygen readily to
stimulate the combustion of the organic
matter.”
In other words, the presence of any
amount of the above substances does
not Indicate that a material Is an
oxidizer, rather one or more of these
substances must be present in a quantity
sufficient to yield oxygen and stimulate
combustion.
The Agency believes recovery for
reuse to be an applicable treatment for
wastes in this aubcategory since It Is
possible that certain aqueous solutions
of waste oxidizers could be useful In the
treatment of other hazardous wastes.
These wastes must, however, be used as
treatment reagents In tanks and not In
surface Impoundments because of the
potential release of heat and volatile
organics during the oxidation/reduction
reactions (see 40 CFR 284.229 and
285.229).
Several commenters wrote about
different technologies that are
applicable to wastes In the oxidizer
subcategory. One commenter generates
calcium hypochiorite and
trichiorocyanuric acid wastes that fit
Into the oxidizer subcategory. They are
both off.spec or contaminated
swimming pool chlorination chemicals.
The wastes are normally generated as
solids and routinely disposed of through
deactivation by adding the material tar
large quantifies of water (similar to Its
use In swimming pools) Following the
deactivation, the waste Is further treated
In a wastewater treatment facility.
During deactivation and treatment, there
Is no release of chlorine gas. EPA
considers mixing with water followed
by chemical treatment to be applicable
for oxidizer wastes.
Additionally, the commenter pointed
out that both hydrogen peroxide and
nitric acid are oxidizers and that the
standard treatment for’ these chemicals
Is dissolution In water followed by
neutralization. In the case of nitric-acid,
the diluting In water Is needed to -
prevent an adverse reaction. Other
commenters use recovery and
Incineration as treatment methods. The
Agency believes that all these -
technologies are applicable for
treatment of oxidizer wastes since they
will remove the characteristic of
Ignitability.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of “Deactivation” for wastes in
the 0001 Oxidizers Subcategory. The
Agency took this approach for these
wastes since the hazardous
characteristic of these wastes is based
on imminent hazard. (i.e., oxidizers can
react violently with organics or other
materials and result in the rapid
generation of fires) rather than on other
criteria such as levels of hazardous
constituents and since technologies
exist that can completely remove this
characteristic. EPA continues to believe
that this standard is appropriate for
wastes In the DOOl Oxidizer
Subcategory and Is promulgating a
treatment standard of “Deactivation
(DEACTI to Remove the Characteristic
of Ignltabilitij’ for the DOOl Oxidizers
Subcategory. See section 268 appendix
VI of today’s rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or in
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also * 288.42 Table 1 for a technical
description of these technologies.A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established In
order to simplify the tables.) TbI*
standard will allow the regulated
community the flexibility to determine
the “best” treatment based on the
physIcal and chemical characteristics of
the oxidizer wastes.
BDAT TREATh4EMT STANDARDS FOR 0001
- IGNITABLE LIQUIDS 261 .21 (a)(1)
(Nonwastswatersl—(High TOG IgodatIo Lk iids
Si catagor ’—Geatm than equal to 10% total
o cathon]
Incmersdon (tNG*fl fuel s*.ts 5 cn (FSUBS). or
reco iy (ROR6S) us method of D’eelment’
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0001
IGNrTABLE LIQUIDs 261 .21(aXl)
• (Non utewaters3-(Lcw ICC Igriteele Uqiids
S cato -1.ess w 10% to orgwlc c bonJ
Doac ton WEACt e e the cSwscte lc
BOAT T ii i STANDARDS FOR 0001
IGNTTABI.E LIQUIDS 26’I.21(a)(1)
(W& uw 3
DeactP 3n U EACT e the cfl te c

-------
Federal Re ster ‘ Vol 56 No 100/ Frtday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22S47
BOAT TP a,a STANDARDS FOR 0001
NffAR E OM G*ses
201.21(a)(3)
De vath,n ( DEACT * 511 th& c
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0001
IGNrTAELE REACT1VES 261 .2t(a)(2)
(Nc u
Deactivation ( DEACT to m 51. th acteds*ic
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0001
OXIDIZERS 261 .21 (a)(4) -
Wu watsi d Nc ewate.a
Deactivation ( DCACT) , 51. chamatedatic
‘a
• See 4 &42 Tatis I Ii to ys n for a ds.
haled des tion_ ts ’o’ot, s ref to by a
five le6 $ o y Se. so p i 268 .
— y-. _ of a iplcabl. teciwdoales eut
USed l combV*tion con $CtISvS deectIvs-
han of igrvtatthty.,
c. Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
Paraphrasing the criteria for defining
a 0002 Corrosive waste (40 CFR 281.22).
a waste can be a 0002 waste if It Is
aqueous and has a pH less than or equal
to 2; orltlz aqueous and hasapH-
greater than or equal to 12.5; orit Is a
liquid and corrodes steel at a specified
rate and temperature EPA tentatively
determined at proposal that these
criteria translated Into three
subcategories, the Add Subcategory, the
Alkaline Subcategory. and the Other
Corrosives Subcategory (54 FR 48422} .i hi
general. ,commenters supported this
subcategorlzatlon of D002wastes. - - -
Therefore, EPA is adopting this’ .
dasstflcatlon echeme, the final rule.;.
(1) Acid and 4 nIThe- - -.
Subcategories. The AdàS bcategory
and the Alkaline Su cafegery, refer to
those 0002 wastes tha xfdbit the .
properties listed In 40- R 281 .Z2(a)(11
and are distinguishable by the - .
appropriate pH specifications. The Act&
Subcategory is defined as those wastes
with a pH of less than or equal to 2.0.
and the Alknllne Subcategory Is defined
as those wastes with a pH of greater
than or equal to 12.5. Also by definition
In 281.22, D002waatee In these Iwo’
subcategories only include wastes
which are considered to be “aqueous”,
due to the fact that standard pH
measuremen.s can only be perfonned in
the presence of significant amounts of
water (I.e.. pH Is the measurg of the
concentration of hydronlum ions in
water).
0002 wastes in the Acid Subcategory
typically Include concentrated spent
acids, acidic wastewaters, and spent
acid strippers and cleaners. Wastes In
the Alkaline Subcategory typically
Include concentrated spent bases,
alkaline wastewaters, and spent
alkaline strippers and deaners. These
wastes represent a significant portion of
all hazardous wastes generated by
almost every industry. -
EPA proposed a treatment standard of
“Base Neutralization to a pH 8 to 9 and
Insoluable Salts” for the 0002 AcidIc
Subcategory (54 FR 48422). Ukewlae,
EPA proposed a treatment standard of
Acid Neutralization to a pH 8 to 9 and.
Insoluble Salts” for the 0002 AlkalIne
Subcategory (54 FR 48422).
(I.) Comments Concerning the
Proposed pH Requirements. Treatment
of acids and bases Is generally referred’
to as “neutralIzation”. In the proposed
rule, the Agency interpreted this to
meanapHrangeofoto9.Thlsrange-
was selected based on a rounding off of
the pH range found In fresh Water’
aquatic ecosystems through natural
carbonate/bicarbonate buffering - (I.e.,
pH 5.5 to 3.5). While a “true” neutral pit
is equal to 7. by proposing the p 11 8 to 9
range, the Agency was recognining thaI
even in natural systems. pH can
fluctuate significantly. This, the
Agency’s underlying premise was that
treatment of corrosive wastes should
result In a pH range (I.e., pH 6 to 9) that
was referred to as “neutral”.
In addition, the Agency expressed
concern on whether awast,wlth a pH 2
to 6 could have a negative Impact on Lb.
effectiveness ofadayllner In mitigating
the mobility of hn ,,vdous -constitnents
from surface-Impoundments. In fact thu
was one of the major concerns. of -
Congress with respect to the statutory
land disposal restrictions Imposed by
HSWA on all hazardous wastes with pit
less than 2. (See generally 52 FR 25760
through 25792 (July. 8. 1987) where EPA
codified these restrictions far all
corrosive wastes (without specifically
referring solely to 0002 wastes.)).
EPA received many meiatI.
pertaining to the Impact that the pit
range of OLe Bwould have on generators
and treaters of 0002 wastes. -
Commenters documented that enormous
disruptions of eithting wastewater -
treatment systems would occur if the-
standard were prnmntgetedwtth the
proposed pH nntrmttions .For.exampls, ’
every surface lmpoundnientor Injectiozi - ’
well receiving commingled wastes.
(some of which were 0002 corrosive
wastes at the poith of generation. but
once commingled were above pH 2 (or
below pH 12.5) and therefore no longer
considered hazardous by section 281.22)
that were outside of the pH 8 to9 range
would be In vIolation of the standard.
This would effect thousands of such
units (most of which are RCRA subtitle
O units and hence not presently affected -
by RCRA subtitle C).
With regard to the proposed p 11 6 to9
requirement for underground injection
units, several commenters stated that
the proposed pH range would cause
problems in many of the Injection units
and wells, because some metals tend to
precipitate out of solution at these pH
ranges resulting in plugging in either the
injection unit Itself or further inside the
well. Commenters also stated that
specific pH ranges are typically required
In permits for many underground
Injection wells and are typically at
levels less than pH 8 to ensure that the
Injected fluid flows properly through the
injection zone without plugging.
Another commenter remarked that
they treat an acIdic 0002 waste only to a
pH of 4.5 prIor to commingling with
other wastes that require
biodegradation. Ths is done In order to
counter the production of alkallne
ammonia during the biodegradation
process. and thereby aids In maintaining
a “neutrar’ pH In the biodegradation
process.
Other-commentate pointed out that a
p 1t of 10 Is often considered the
optimum pH for removal of most metals
from wastewaters and that requiring a
pit of 6 toO would cause sev5re
disruptions In most metals removal
treatment systems. These treatment
systems generally consist of chemical
precipItation In tanks to remove metals
followed by neutralization of the
effluent In surface Impoundments prior
todischargn.---’
As a reiult of all of the comments on
pH ranges mentioned above and for the
reasons mentioned below, the Agency Is
not promulgating the proposed pH range
of 8 to 9. While the Agency maintains
that in smse cases a pH of &to9 may be
considered desirable, the Agency
believes the Clean Water Act, end-of-
pIpe, NPD limitations will address
these specific situations, where water
quality Issues are of concern
(specifically where discharges of such
neutralized wastewaters are Into fresh
water ecosystems). (Notm The Agency
points out that pH is commonly already
regulated for such discharges.)
The Agency also notes that liquids are
not allowed In subtitle C landfills under
section 3004(c). As mentioned by the

-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. i06 / FrIday , June 1, 1900 / Rules and Regulations
coinmenters (and discussed above).
requiring a pH ra of 6 toO be e
discharge to most surfac
Impoundments will cause severe
disruptions In existing treatment
operations. Additionally, the Agency
believes that its concern regarding the
impact of corrosive wastes on the
Integrity of clay liners is addressed
mostly by the statutory restrictions on a
pH of less than 2. The Agency ourrently
has little data on the Impact that wastes
containing pH of 2 toO may have on clay
liners. Finally, regarding the proposed
pH range, the Agency did cot intend to
Interfere with optimum pH levels
desired for treatment of metals In
nor did It Intend for these standards to
Interfere with other legitimate
wastewater treatment operationa (such
as the biotreatment processes
mentioned by the coinmenter).
(ii.) Comments Concerning the
Proposed Acid and Base Requfreinenis.
EPA additionally proposed that
“neutralization” of wastes In the 0002
Acidic and Alkaline subcategories be
accomplished specifically through the
use of the corresponding neutralizatlim
chemicals (i.e.. acids to neutralize the
AllalIne Subcategory and bases to
neutralize the Acidic Subcategory). As
commenters quickly pointed out. almost
aU chemicals ( indi 1ieg water which -
dissociates Into hydronfum and
hydroxide Ions) have some acid
character and some basic character
depending upon the referenee chemicaL
That is what is historically bean taught
in academia as the “Lewis Acid
Theory”. The Agency sever inh .nd d to
dispute ba c chemical theory, but was
merely stating its preference to
neutralize the corrosive characteristic of
these wastes with i hemIcais that would
result In an overall reduction In total
dissolved solids In effluent (I.e.. the use
of thesechemical, is coupled with the
concept of the proposed requirement to
create Insoluble salts rather than the
concept of neutralizatlapto a specific -
pH). (See also the theclia,knon
insoluble salts In the pre smble
discussion following th .)
With respect to the ass of these
chemicals (I.e., acids and bases) to
achieve the treatment standard, several
commenters stated that it Is act always
neomsazy to me chemicals that are
specifically identified as commercial
acids or bases to achieve treatment cit
0002 wastes. In fact many facilities
generate both acidic and , lknIin*
wastes (often from different processes )
and comns,nly use them to neutralize
each other. This situation also occwa at
commercial hazardous waste treatment
facilities. Ir that the facilities will take
acid wastes from var s generators and
will nezfra1 them with plkdhi 0
wastes from other generators, in
general, commercial acids and bases are
used to complete the neutralization
processes and often are used only for
pH adjustment of the final wastawater
discharges. Many commantera also
pointed out that the mixing of 0002
corrosive wastes with other
wastewaters (even other acidic,
noncorrosive wastes) will contribute to
an overall neutralization due to the
resultant diange is pH. This is because
pH I a merely a measure of the
umcentratlca of hydranlum inns (HI in
water and Is dependent upon the
equilibrium constant fer the dissociation
of water into hydronium and hydroxide
Ions. As more water is present the
eqwlilwinin will be shifted and thereby
Inaease the pH resulting hi
“neutralization.” Because of this, A Is
specifically allowing mixing of 0002
wastes with each otherand with other
wastewaters to ren ve the
characteristic of cornisivity (i.e..
resulting in a pH between 2 and 12.5).
However, EPA’. allowance of muting
wastes to remove corrosivity does not
override other prohibitions on dilution
of wastes for other purposes (i.e.. this
does not override other dilution
prohibitions that may be applicable for
other wastes).
Many . .- - . ‘.. ‘ters declared that
incineration should also be allowed as
treatment for 0002 wastes, especially for
organic adds, mixed D00110002 waste
streams, and other 0002 wastes with
organl o s.Poflutionccmfroldeviceson
Incinerators will remove corrosive gases
from the burning of these 0002 wastes.
A&RliTlP serubber waters are often
employed In these air pnllutinn control
devices in order to neutralize nith44i
ei sIom. Thes. scrsbber waters axe
then further neutralized if ne ’y.
The Agency ees with the canimmiteru
that in ierution In an applicable
t eahn nI method for some 0002 wastes
and Is thus not prechiding Ini ’in radou
as treatment of 0002 wastes.
(Ut) Comments Concerning the
Insoluble Salt Requirement. The Agency
proposed that neutmlizadon of wastes
in the 0002 Add and Alkaline
Subcategnr4i e should be required to’
result In Insoluble salts. The reason was
that the Agem y fair that tiw overall
dissolved solids loading on fresh water
aquatic sys s could be redeced by
establishing such a st nd .rd , even
thot h It would result lean Insoluble
sludge that would require landflulng.
The Agency believed that such a
stnnrht,d would discoorage the
generation of 0002 adds and afl l1ne
wastes and thereby promote
MIfl&w%17 5tjoflISOurv 5 reduction as well
as recycling of acids (eItl directly or
after some form of pretreatment). While
the Agency maintains that the goal
behind the proposed standard is
consistent with national policy on waste
miniml7atlon and the Agency’s overall
concerns on cross-media Impacts of
both hazardous and nonhazardous
constituents on the entire environment,
many conunenters presented technical
complications with the proposed
requirement on insoluble sails that the
Agency has found persuasive.
The Agency receIved numerous
comments concerning this proposed
requirement indicating that
neutralization and formation of
Insoluble salts Is either impractical or
technically Impossible for some of the
most commonly used acids and bases
that become 0002 wastes (such as nitric
acid, hydrochloric acid, sodium
hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, other
acid halides). Because the salts
generated from the neutralization of
these particular acids and bases are
very soluble In water, the propo5ed
requirement to generate Insoluble salts
would result in treatment with exotic
chemicals In order to p (If there
are any methods at all to create
insoluble salts). The Agency concurs
with the commpnters. This is further
supported by the fact that almost all
nitrate and chloride salts of the major
metals are very soluble In water.
Other coininentars stated that
requiring the formation of Insoluble salts
often will c te the use of alkaline and
acidic process wastes that are generated
on-site for neutralization. This woruld In
effect result In double the volume of
insoluble salts that would have to be
disposed and use up valuable virgin
oo ezclal achla end bases that
otherwise would not beneeded. A.
stated in the puecedlug secticci. of this
dlscussloa on rusive waster, the
Agency sever intended to preclude such
on-site neutralization with wastes, and
agrees that this would probably result in
an unnecessary use of virgin materials
for waste treatment.
AkliHnnafly one coninuenter points
out that In many cases neutralization of
0002 wastes that contain urganics, Is
o s a u ery prvtr a1men( step (a
other ti ’eatmerd processes (such as
tematHppth& biological treatment
and/or carbon adsorption) that remove
or destroy the organics In the waste. If a
slu e nest be fonned chiring the
neutralization process, organic
coostih nta that oculd have been
destroyed orremovedwizile In the
wastewatees are Instead being

-------
- ‘ 7s ia1: g i er Vbl 5 Not 1007 Frlda*, June i 199 I Rules ndationa
föthesolldphdedwbIxe
the tfl e — dIs&ø n eated
or where they’in y ielbdl e lreatmàt
with nerat 0â. TheAg ency ahai*
hi comrnenters con ns on treatment
of organics In DOO2 wastes.
As a result theAgencyli
withdrawing the requirement for
neutralization to insoluble salts for
wastes In the D002 Acid and Alkaline
subcategories. In doing so, the Agency’s
concerns of using adds and hazes to
provide neutralizatIon Is a moot point
(lv.) Promulgated Treatment
Standards. For the reasons outlined In
the previous discussions, the Agency Is.
withdrawing the epoaed treatment
standards for l O2’Ac1d and Alkaline
Subcategories. The Agency considered
promulgating a treatment standard as a
specified technology, namely
“Neutralization”. However. the Agency
found that In certaincases,
“Incineration” and “recovery” processes
were also quite applicable to wastes in
these subcategories.
In addition, many DOO2 wastes also
are hazardous for other reasons, and
may require that additional treatment
processes be employed besides
neutralization. Incineration, or recovery.
For exaiflpIö , a facility may have
Lnterpreted.that blodegradaubn would
have beenprecluded from q e. for a
1)002 asta that also confalned
organics. Since biodegradation may .;
have actually been a technically viable
alternative for this- waste, the facility
would have had to submit a petition for
a treatabIllt variance. While the -
Agency probably would have granted It.
the variance process would have
created an unnecessary burden on both
the regulatory and regulated community,
and probably without Incurring any
additional protection of human healtl ’
and the environment -
As a result EPA Is pr omutgatfng ‘
general treatment standard for wastes in
theDOOZ Add andAlln 1 lne
Subcategories that gws the use of any
appropriate freat noIo*jr,
namely: Deactlva (D ACfl’to’
Remove the Charaâ of ‘ -
Corrosivity”. Thls hat the facility
may use any treatment (including ,
neutralization achieved through mbdng’
with other westewatere that results In a
pH above 2 but less than 1L5 and -
thereby removes the characteristic of
corro 1v1ty. See section 268 AppendIx VI
of today’s rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or In
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also 288.42 Tab le-I for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established In
order to simplifr the tables.)
EPA has adbpted this standard, In
part. to avoid the massive disruptions to
wastewater treatment systems that
would have resulted from the proposed
standard (which Impacts far exceeded
any others that would have resulted
under the proposed rule), and because
the final standard does require the
removal of the property of corrosivity.
Corrosivity Is not defined In the same
way EP Toxic wastes are defined.
Corrosivity Is not based on a toxic
constituent where the environmental
concern Is maze-loading In the
environment With respect to the Issue
of toxics present In these corrosive
wastes. EPA notes that 11 a corrOsive
waste also exhibits the toxicity
characteristic, It must be treated to meet
the treatment standard for the toxic
constituent as well (see generally
section ifiAl. of this preamble),
The Agency received many comments
regarding non-liquid wastes that are
corrosive and the applicability of
treatment technologies for aqueous and
liquid corrosive wastes to treat non-
liquid corrosive wastes. The proposal
did not specifically address corrosive
solids because there is not a iipflnltlon
of corrosive solids In 1261.22 at this -
time. Until the Agency amepds * 261.22 .
to Include a definition fork cqrrosive -
solids and prnmulgates a treatment
technology, generators must .prudently
handle waates.wlth-regard to known
bazardli. Although not required under.
currenfz ’e ulatIona, many generators of
corrosive solids prefer to classify these
wastes as 0002 corrosIves and choose
waste management and dIspO8aI
protocols accordingly In an added effort
to protect the environment.
(2) Other DCvX Corrosives. The third
major ,ubcategory Is classified as the
Other Corrosives Subcategory and Is
defined as those 1)002 wastes that
exhibit corroalvity to steel as defined in
I 261.22(B)(2). They often are
nonaqneous corrosive wastes such as
certain org anIc liquids, but can
represetit Inorganic chemicals as well,
Waste, In the Other 0002 CorrosIves
Subcategory m ’s generated on a , -
aporftdlc basis and generally kk low
volumes. The Agency suspects that
thesewastes are ?ftefl Identified as -
corrosive without performing the -
specifledlesting with steel ft.e , the - -
corrosivity ofthe waáte may be-
assumed due to the presence of known
corrosive constituents). This may also
be due, LnpaT!, tothé high costof testing
and to the difficulties i ldentif - -
laboratories that are experienced-In-
steel corrosion testing.
The physical and chemical
characteristics of this group of wastes
vary greatly. The wastes may be
aqueous or they may be primarily
organic. In addition, a large variety of
corrosive chemicals may appear as
constituents In this type of corrosive
waste. Depending on the concentration
of these corrosive chemicals, they may
corrode SAE 1028 steeL Examples of
chemicals that may contribute to
corrosivity include ferric chloride.
benzene sullonyl chloride,
benzotrichloride, acetyl chloride, formic
acid, hydrofluoric acid, some catalysts,
various resins, metal cleaners, and
etchants. Highly concentrated acids that
have no water may also be Included in
this s bcategory, since pH
measurements are not possible on these
wastes,
Wastes in the Other Corrosives
Subcategory are often treated by
deactivating the corrosive constituents
of the waste with an appropriate
chemical reagent Wastes that contain
high concentrations of corrosIve
organics are often indnerated however.
due to the great variety of potential
corrosive organics, the Agenti) does not
believe that it should eatabllö
concentration-based standas based on
incineration for these 1)002 tes.
Removal and recovery of either organic
or Inorganic corrosive constituents may
also be applicable technologies, since
recovery could extract the corrosive
constituents until the waste Itself 1 no
longer corrosive to steeL
EPA proposed a treatment standard of
“Deactivation” for 0002 wastes in the
Other Corrosives Subcategory. The
Agency took this approach for these
wastes since the hazardous
characteristic Is based an Imminent
hazard (La., the corrosivfty to steel may
cause rupture of a tank or container,
thus releasing the content either
suddenly or through leaka).rather than
on other criteria such as levels of
hazardous constituents, and that -
technologies exist that can completely
remove thls characterIstic.
• EPA continues to believe that the
proposed standard l appropriate for
wastes In the D002 Other Cqsroajyes
Subcategory and is promulgating a
treatment standard of ‘ Deactivatiçn.
(DEACT) to Remove the Cha acteristic
of Corroalvity”. See section 268.
Appendix VI of today’s rule for a list of
applicable technologies that used along
or In combination can achieve this
standard. (See also I 288.42 Table I for-
a technical description of these
technologies. A five letter code
(acronym) for each technology has been
established In order to simplify the
tables.) This standard will allow the use
of the “best” treatment based on the

-------
Fa d &.gWaz / VoL 55 lb. 106 I Friday, J me 1,1990 / ile and Regulations
chemical and physical charactedetic, of
the waste. - -
BOAT Tni STANDARDS FOR 0002
Aao SuBCATEGOfrr26t22(a)(1)
Oeec vston (DEAd) b rem e the dwss$efl c
of eorosr fty
BDAT TREATMENr STANDARDS FOR 0002
AUALIIE SUBC TEGORY 261.22(a)(1)
O i EAC7) rem the dw c
of Iro Tty ’
BOAT TREAmsENT STANDARDS FOR 0002
On Ei Co osivEs 261 22(a)(2)
Deec* .u8on DEM T) b ven o the dwscNd.
of
See sectes 288 eso Vt of Vs nie a
list 01 avpid d dvu4o es t used aloes ot
coThsoe coe sc e Su stse See also
§268.42_Table I for a des , 1ico of the todmci .
ogios LnJcal iI % ’ a the fler cods
d. Reactive Characteristic Wastes
According to 40 CFR 261.23, there are
eight criteria for defining a waste as a
0003 ReactIve waste. Paraphrasing
these criteria, a waste can be a D003
waste ifi (1) It Is unstable and readily
undergoes violent changes without
detonatIng or (2) It reacts violently wt
water: or (3) It forms potenti ally ‘
explosive mixtures with water: or (4)
when afixed with waler, It generates
toxl gases; or (5) It 18 8 cyanIde or
sulfide bearing waste which under
certain conditions can generate toxic
gases; or (6) It Is capable of detonation
or explosive reaction If It Is subjected to
a strong Initiating source or If heated
under confinement; or (7I Japadily
capable of detonation urt ,lósfve
decomposition or reacft0 liI tanderd
temperature and pressur ) It I. a
forbidden explosive. a
explosive. or a Class B explosive.
EPA tentatively determined at
proposal that these ei tt criteria
translated Into five subcategories for
0003 wastes (54 FR 48424). Commenters
concurred with these classifications.
The first eubcategory Is classified as the
Reactive Cyanides subcategory and
refers to those 1)003 wastes that exhibit
the properties listed In 251.23(a)(5) for
cyanide. The second subcategory Is
classified as the Explosives subcategory
and refers to those 0003 wastes that
exhibit the properties listed in
H L2S(a)f8) through 3(eXa). The
third suhoategory is ‘ 4asstfled as the
Water Reactive subcategory and refers
to those 1)003 wastes that exhibit the
properties listed In H 201.23(a)(2)
through 261.23(a) (4). The fourth
ategory Is deeiefled as the Reactive
Sulfides subcategary and refers to those
0003 wastes that exhibit the properties
listed in * 26L23ta)(5) far sulfide. The
fifth subcategory Is classified as the
Other Reactlves .ubcategory and refers
to those 1)003 wastes that exhibit the
properties listed In * 281.23(a)(1).
Fos ’ all subcategories of D003 wastes
except the Reactive Cyanide., the
Agency believes that development of
concentration-based treatment
standards would be difficult because
there are no known analytical tests that
are specifically designed to measure the
particular reactivity associated with
each 0003 treatabllity subcategniy, nor
Is there a test that distinguishes the
reactive chemical from the deactivated
chemicaL
The Agency solicited comments and
data on thephysical and chemical
characterization of áU five ubcategorle .
of 0003 wastes. The Agency also
requested comment on the applicability
of chemical deactivation. Incineration,
and any other type of chemical or
physical deactivation techno1o ’ to
these wastes.
(1) Reactive Cyenidea. 1)003 wastes In
the Reactive Cyanldes Subcategory are
by definition those cyanide-bearing
wastes that generate toxic gases
(assumed to be hydrogen cyanide) when
exposed to pH condItions between 2 and
12.5, In a sufficient quantity to present a
danger to human health and the
environment (40 R 28t23(a)(5)).
Cntnmenters requested clarification of
which analytical methods should be
used to determine reactive cyanide and
associated toxic gas liberation. EPA’s
approved analytical procedures can be
found In SW-848 Vol 1C, Chapter 7
which defines the characteristic and
regulation of reactive wastes.
Specifically. Section 7.3.3.2 describes the
est Method to Determine Hydrogen
Cyanide Released from Wastm” which
outlines the correct procedure of
hydrogen cyanide gas liberation from
ieactlve wastes. Method 9010 is the
analytical method for quantitatively
determining reactive cyanide
concentrations.
The reactive cyanide wastes typically
are generated by the electroplating and
metal finiehing industries, aid Include
mixed cyanide salts, cyanide soletlons,
and cyanide-bearing sledges. Most of
the volume of all 0003 wastes that are
generated can be identified as wastes
belonging to the Reactive Cyanide.
Subcategory. Redative cyanide wastes
are not typically placed directly in most
types of land disposal units without
treatment however. It is possible that
some untreated wastes am placed In
surface lmpowvfnu’nte.
Reactive cyanide wastes (like other
reactive wastes) are already subject to
special requirements prior to disposal In
landfills, surface Impoundments, and
waste pile. under existing regulations.
Also, as a July 8. 1987 (the statutory
deadline for the California Hat
prohibitions). liquid haxardous wastes
having a free cyanide concentration In
excess of 1.000 mg/kg (ppm) were
prohibited from land disposal. No one
ha. suggested, however, that these
existing regulation. and prohibitions are
sufficient to apply to the Reective
Cyanide. Sebcategory. The statute did
not specifically Identify the California
list cyanide. as 0003 wastes, and
hrtheTmore, It did not specify a required
method of treatment, nor did it establish
the 1,000 mg/kg prohibition level a a
“treatment standard”.
The Agency believe, that sImm
cyanide. (e.g. NaCN. KC 4) are z3d e
likely to react to liberate hydrogen
cyanide gas since they are soluble and
have weaker bond energies than
complex cyanide. (e.g., Fe 3 [ Fe(CN)e ).
Ni [ Fe(CN1] . Zn,Fe(CN)e). Consequently.
EPA believes that simple cyanide rather
than complex cyanide Is the cyanide
form most likely to give a waste
con teinlng cyanide the characteristic of
reactivity. Accordingly, the Agency
believed at the time olproposal that
most 1)003 nonwastewaters resembled
wastes containing simple cyanides (I.e.,
FUll, P012 and P030) rather than wastes
C 0 ntaining complex cyanlcL e (La., P006,
P007, P008, P009). Trpntmmnt
technologies applicable for treatment of
0003 reactive cyanide wastes include
electrolytic oxidation. nThiilln 0
chlorination and wet air oxidation.
The Agency proposed to transfer the
treatment performance of simple
cyanide nonwastewaters (I.e., mixture of
Foil end P012) using electrolytic
oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination developed In the Second
Third final nde (54 FR.26604. June 23,
1989), the noawastewatars In the
Reactive Cyanide. Subcategoay (54 FR
48426). In other words, the Agency
believed all D reactive cyanide
nonwastewaters could be treated to a
total cyanide level of hO mg/kg and an
amenable cyanide level of 9.1 mg /kg
representing treatment of wastes
containing simple cyanide. (La., Foil
and P012) instead of a total cyanide
level of 590 mg/kg and an amenable

-------
F.d aI g gIsterjV . 55 No lOS I Friday. June 1, 1990 1 Rnles and Regulations
5S1
cyanide level of 30 aigj’kg
treatmant performance of wastes
containing ccmpleseLç nn d s (Lei.
F006-F009J. For waatewaters in the
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory, EPA
proposed to transfer treatment
performance from treatment of F006—
F009 wastewatera using alkaline
chlorination, since this is the beat
treatment data available to the Agency
for wastewaters containing high
concentrations of cyanides.
With respect to the transfer being
valid, several commenters submitted
data Indicating that 0003 wastes In the
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory more
closely resemble the wastes containing
complexed cyanides rather than the
wastes containing simple cyanidee and
that the proposed treatment levels were
unachievable for some 1)003 wastes
beca use of the presence of iron cyanide
and other cyanide complexes. One
commenter claimed that, In many cases,
iron contamination in some 0003
cyanide wastes Is unavoidable due to
normal process operation and that a
threshold level of only 50 to 100 mg/kg
of Iron 1 required to result In formation
of Iron cyanide complex,
Based on the high Iron contents shown
to be present In some 0003 cyanide
wastes, the Agency believes that some
0003 cyanide wastes may contain
complexed cyanides and thus may not
be treatable to the 110 mg/kg level. One
commenter suggested that the Agency
develop two treatability groups for
nonwastewater forms in the 0003
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory based
on the concentration of complex cyanide
present in the waste one group for
wastes containing mostly simple
cyanides (I.e., less than 110 mg/kg
complex cyanide) and the other group
for wastes containing high
concentrations of comptexed cyanideg
(i.e., greater than 110 inaJkg complex
cyanide). EPA believes that this concept,
while desirable. may r p. be viable
because of the analy torferences
caused by the compli dhzalrices of
untreated wastes. Fu t re, the vast
majority of character data
submitted during the cnmm nt period
seem to indicate that 0003
nonwastewaters more cLosely resemble
the F006-.F009 nonwastewaters Instead
of the Ff1 and Ff2 nonwastawaters.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating a
treatment standard of 590 mgjkg total
cyanide and ) mgJkg amenable
cyanide based on the treatment of
wastes containing complex cyanides
(La., FtIOG-F009 noawastewaters) for
nonwastewaters in the 0003 Reactive
Cyanide Subcategory.
For the wastewatea In the 0003
Reactive Cyanide Subcategory, EPA
proposed a treatment standard of t9
mgJl total cyanide and Ga mg/i
amenable cyanide based on aIk i)in
chlorination, Comments and data were
received from Sterling Chemicals
demonstrating that alkaline chlorination
did not achieve those limits for 0003.
Further examination of categorical
wastewater discharge standards,
pursuant to the Clean Water Act,
supported the inability of alkaline
chlorination to achieve the proposed
amenable cyanide level EPA is
promulgating an amennble cyanide
standard of 0 . 80mg/I based on the
Metal Finishing categorical wastewater
discharge standards. Data submitted by
Sterling Chenucals damonstrated
compliance with this limit. With regard
to total cyanide. the Agency Is reserving
the standard for further analyses to
resolve the substantial variation in total
cyanide levels submitted by coinmenters
and standards established for
categorical wastewater discharges. In
the Interim, the amenable cyanide limit
will Insure that alkaline chlorination of
equivalent BDAT technology Is utilized
to comply with the land disposal
restriction for reactive cyanide 1)003
wastes.
The Agency has chosen a
concentration based treatment level for
wastes in the 1)003 ReactIve Cyanide
Subcategory rather than establish
“Deactivation (DEACI) to Remove the
Characteristic of Reactivity” for the
following reasons: First, unlike the pther
characteristic wastes, the Agency can
Identify an Indicator compound (!.e.,
cyanide) that Is known to be present In
all 1)003 reactive cyanide wastes and
can analyze the indicator compound In
waatewater and nonwastewater
matriceawith EPA-approved SW 846
analytical test methods, (See also
section ULA.6.(a) of today’s preamble
for a further discussion of cyanide
treatment standards ror other wastes
and a clarification of the analytical.
methodolo for compliance with the
promulgated standards.) Second, EPA
believes moat 0003 cyanide wastes are
generated from the same types of
processes that generate the F006-F012
and P030 wastes and thus, are
frequently of the same type, and present
similar risks when land disposed as the
listed wastes, EPA does not believe that
Congress pre ’lnd”d the Agency from
estahli hLcg the same treatment
standards for the 0003 wastes that have
been established for the listed wastes
(assnming, of course, that such
standards are nngi* enj with the
command of section 3004(inl to reduce
toxicity or mobility so that risks to
health and the environment are
mlniminiid) . Finally, the Agency suspects
that some generators are currently
misclassifying F006-F012 and P030
wastes as 0003 reactive cyanide wastes.
While this is primarily an issue for
enforcement, the Agency is concerne ’
that a less stringent standard would
discourage proper identification of the F
and P cyanide wastes,
The Agency realizes that reactive
cyanide wastes treated to meet the
promulgated standard may no longer
exhibit the characteristic of reactivity
(although the determination of reactivity
can sometimes be difficult due to the
non-quantified standard In
201.23(a)(5)). The Agency believes this
appropriate. As discussed In section
IILD., the Agency sees no legal bar in
establishing treatment standards that
are below the characteristic level. Doing
so is appropriate for these wastes
because the reactivity characteristic
does not evaluate the toxic nature of the
wastes, because Congress specifically
intended that cyanides be desthiyed
where possible (see statementzjf
Senator Chafee, 130 Cong. Re 9178-4
(July 25, 1984)7, and because t Agency
believes the similarity of most 1)003
wastes and the F006—F009 wastes
warrants the same tresthient standards
for each In order to satisfy the section
3004fmJ standard.
(2) Reactive Sn/f Ide s Subcategory.
1)003 wastes in the Reactive Sulfldes
Subcategory are by definition those
sulfide-bearing wastes that generate
toxic gases (assumed to be H, 1 S) when
exposed to a pH between 2 and 115. in
a sufficient quantity to present a dailger
to human health and the environment.
Currently the accepted method for
quantitatively determining reactive
sulfides is outlined In SW—848, Vol. IC,
* 7.3.32 and l xi Method903(L
The Agency is in the process of
developing a quantitative threshold for
toxic gas generated from reactive sulfide
wastes. The interim value the Agency is
considering is 500 mg of HaS generated
per kilogram of waste. Although this
number is only an Interim guideline for
the purpose of BOAT determinations,
the Agency proposed to use this number
to Identify the wastes in this
subcategery (even the need for an
objective means of determining the
subcategory’s applicability). The Agency
received several comments stating that
a test method ahosldbe flnali,cd and a
rationale published prior to setting this
threshold as a numencal standard. EPA
agrees with the conimenters that for
wastes in this sobentegory the test
method used in determining how much

-------
F.d aI Register / VoL 55, No. 106 f Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
gas can e released from a waste needs
to be standardized before establiahing a
concenfrati on based x ath ent standard
with the teat methods. Ac rdIngly, the
Agency’s action today h J4 not be
viewed as redefining the characteristic
for sulfide-bearing wastes.
Reactive sulfides may be treated and
chemically converted to relatively Inert
sulfur, to Insoluble metallic sulfide salts,
or to soluble sulfates that can be
removed or recovered. Some data
indicate that these wastes can be
treated by alkaline chlorination.
specialty incineration, or other chemical
deactivation techniques. The Agency
believes that some of these wastes may
also be contaminated with organic
sulfldes known as mercaptans. These
malodorous chemicals are believed to
complicate the treatment of these
reactive sulfide wastes. It Is believed
that these wastes have posed particular
treatment problems for the petroleum
refining industry and the paper and pulp
industry.
The Agency solicited waste
characteri tion and treatment data that
could pot *lally be used to develop
treatmentitandards for these wastes.
One com 1ter sent data demonstrating
that treatment with chlorine dioxide Is a
very effective technology for destroying
organic sulfldes and mercaptans In
petroleum wastes. Another commenter
submitted stabilization data indicating
that this treatment process can treat
D003 reactive sulfide wastes by
removing the characteristic. One
- commenter uses mercaptan-free and
organic-free sulfide wastes to
precipitate metals from wastewater.
Another commentar uses a thermal
process that converts suffides to sulfates
Instead of sulfur oxides.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of “Alkaline Chlorination,
Chemical O,ddation. or Incineration
Followed By Precipitation to Insoluble.
Sulfates” for the Reactive Sulfide
subcategory. (Note: Wbile, lkallne
chlorination Is a form d e cal
oxidation, the Agency dld ic( want to
spec fically preclude4 i jfeny
particular oxidant.) -
Because of the vartet ’oTtieatnient
processes currently used-to treat
reactive sulfide wastes, the Agency Is
promulgating a treatment standard of’
“Deactivation (DEACT) to Remove the
Characteristic of Reactivity” for
nonwastewaters and wastewatere In the
0003 Reactive Sulfidea Subcategory to
allow the treatment facility the
flexibility to use the “best” technology
for the particular waste stream. See
section 288 AppendIx VI of today’s rule
for a list of applicable technologies that
used alone or In combination can
achieve this standard. (See also 288.42
Table 1 for a technical description of
these technologies. A five letter code
(acronym) for each technology has been
established In order to simplify the
tables.) The treatment standard Is
expressed as req aired methods of
treatment rather than as a
concentration-based staitdard because
the Agency has not approved a standard
analytical method for testing either
sulfides or “reactive” sulfides In
hazardous wastes orin treatment
residues (however, as noted above, the
Agency is working to develop a
quantitative threshold for reactive
sulfides). In the future the Agency may
establish numerical standards for
wastes in this subcategory.
(3) Explosives Siibcategory, D003
wastes In the Explosives Subcategory
are by definition those wastes that are
capable of detonation or explosive
reaction under various conditions, or are
forbidden. Class A. or Class B
explosives (according to 48 CFR 173.52,
173.53. and 173.88 respectively).
Commenters expressed concern that
many types of waste may fail Into a
potentially explosive classlflcatlou. and
requested a standardized procedure for
making a reactivity determination to
assist In the clasai.ficatlon of explosive
hazardous wastes. The Agency chose to
rely on the current descriptive definition
primarily because the available tests for
measuring the various classes embraced
by the reactivity definition suffer from
some deficiencies. -
In 1984, under an Interagency
agreement with the Bureau of Mines
(BOM), OSW sponsored research on
two test methods designed to determine
whether a substance had explosive
properties. However. In June 1985 the
Agency Issued Memorandum *7
(OSW DIr. 9445.04(85)) that explained
that the BOM test results were
Inconclusive, and In the Interim, OSW
supported the use of a battery of tests
submittedby the U.S. Army to the
Agency. Information on these Army
tests can be obtained from the Office of
Solid Waste’s Methods SectIon (202-
- 382-4770k -
Wastes classified as 0003 and
belonglnjto the explosives subcategory.’
have typically been Identified as being
generated by the explosives Industry
and by the U.S Department of Defense.
While these wastes are not generated as
frequently as the reactive cyanldes, they
are generated more often than all other
reactive subcategories. Explosives are
already subject to special requirements
prior to disposal In landfills, surface
Impoundments, and waste piles under
existing regulations. These explosive
wastes are not typically placed in most
types of land disposal units; rather,
commenters have Indicated that they
can be treated by technologies such as
chemical oxidation or Incineration. Such
treatments permanently remove the
explosive characteristic of this 0003
waste by thermal or chemical
destruction of explosive constituents.
Incineration is an applicable
technology for some 0003 explosive
wastes. Such units are not typically
found at commercial Incineration
facilities. The Agency Is aware that
incineration units specially designed
and fitted with explosion-proof
equipment are currently used by the
Department of Defense to treat
explosive wastes. One commenter
suggested that the Agency divide the
explosive wastes Into Incinerable and
nonincinerable wastes. EPA. however,
could not make a determination of
explosive wastes that could always be
Incinerated 100% of the time as
generated.
The Agency proposed a general
standard of “Deactivation” for the 0003
Explosives Subcategory. By establishing
this standard, the Agency is all ng
the regulated community to uae*t
treatment technology (e.g.. incii rtition.
chemical deactivation) that best fits the
type of explosive waste. The Agency
took this approach for these wastes
since the hazardous characteristic Is
based on Imminent hazard (I.e..
explosivity) rather than on other criteria
such as levels of hazardous constituents,
and because technologies exist that can
completely remove this characteristic.
Due to the large number of explosive
formulations and the difference in
applicable treatments (see Department
of the Army Technical Manual TM9—
1300-214. Military Explosives), the
Agency centinuas to believe that the
proposed standard is applicable for
wastes In the 0003 Explosive
Subcategory and is promulgating a
treatment standard of “Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
‘of Reactivity” for nonwastewaters and
wastewaters In the 0003 ExplosIve
Subcategory. See sectIon 268 Appendix
VI of todays rule for a list of applicable
technologies that used alone or In
combination can achieve this standard.
(See also 288.42 Table I for a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established In
order to sImplify the tables.) This
standard should provide treaters of
explosive wastes the ability to use the
“best” treatment technology based on
the chemical and physical parameters of
the explosive waste, and any safety
consIderations.

-------
, J derat eg ’4er J VOL, 55 No. .10 I ftlday. June 1 .1090 1 Rules and Regulations
22553
Several commeriters bare indicated
thatmbdng with water or orgonlc
liquids (i.e.. kesene)maybenecessary
In some cases to redu potential for
explosion and thus. ensure safe handling
and/or transportation for subsequent
incineration or chemical treatment of
explosive wastes. EPA is not restricting
the use of this practice for any waste In
the 0003 Explosives Subcategoiy.
(4) Water ileoctive and Other
React! yes &rbcalegorie& 0003 wastes in
the Water Reactive or Other Reactive.
Subcategories can be either organic or
Inorganic. Water Reactive 0003 wastes
as defined In 40 O’R 281.23(a)(2), (3).
and (4) are either very reactive with
water, or can generate toxic or
explosive gases with water. These
reactions are usually very vigorous and
therefore difficult to controL Wastes
considered to belong In 0003 Other
Reactives Subcategory exhibit the
property listed In * 261.23(a)(1 ). Wastes
in both of theee subcategories are
generated on a sporadic baste and
generally in low volumes. These wastes
are not typically placed In land disposal
units nor are they placed In surface
Impoundments due to their violent
reactivity;
The Agency has information
suggesting that same water reactive. are
treated by incinoration. During this
tharmal oxidation process, the reactive
organic coastitnents are destroyed and
the reactive Inorganic constituents form
less hazardous oxides. Other applicable
treatment technologies include
controlled reactions with water.
chemical oxidation and chemical
reduction. All the above-mentioned
technologies can remove the
characteristic of reactivity.
The Agency proposed a general -
standard of “Deactivation” for the D003
Water Reactives and Other Psscthes
Subcategories. The Agency chose this
approach for these wastes since the
hazardous characteristic Is based on
imminent hazard (l.a., potential violent
reactions with wateg er than on
other criteria such a*Iey la of-
hazardous conshluentl ,and that
technologies exist t cafl completely
remove these
Because of the diversity in physical
and chemical forms of the waste In both
subcategories. ft Is not possible to
determine a “beet” technology for all
wastes. The Agency I. promulgating a
treatment standard of “Deactivation
(DEACT) to Remove the Characteristic
of Reactivity” for wastes in the 0003
Water Reactives Subcategory and 0003
Other Reactive. Subcategory to allow
flexibility In the selection of the “best”
technology. See section 268 appendix V I
of today’s rule for a list of applicable
techngilngiea that used alone or In
combination can achieve this standard. -
(See also 268.42 Table 1 far a technical
description of these technologies. A five
letter code (acronym) for each
technology has been established In
order to simplify the tables.) Foe wastes
In the 0003 Water Reactives
Subcategory. the standard Is established
only for nonwastewaters since these
wastes are very reactive with water and
thus cannot exist as wastewaters.
Several commenters have Indicated
that mixing with certain organic liquids
(such as keTosene} may be necessary In
some cases to reduce potential for
violent reaction with water and thus.
ensure safe handling and/or -
transportation for subsequent
Incineration or chemical treatment. EPA
Is not restricting the use of this practice
for any waste In these 0003
Subcategones.
BOAT TREAThIEPIT STANDARDS FOR 0003
REACrIVE CYAP00ES—261.23(a) 5)
n 1
Red e d a i
.
-
--.
.w
=

ye des
-

de a( 4 ,
BDAT T ta STANDARDS FOR 0003
REACTiVE CYAiaDES—261.23(8X5)
R.
-
-,

ee
4 s -LM
aes
BOAT ThEATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0003
REACTiVE Suu laES—281.23(a)(5)
BOAT TRes .rseENr STANDARDS FOR 0003
Water R iees.—26123(a)(2), (3).
AND (4)
Deac& 4 D&C1) Reue., the Qisa , . c
ad Ae vey ’
BDAT TREAUIENT STANDARDS FOR 0003
Om Ft REAcrIvEs—281.23(afll)
Deac 1on EACT) to flnom the Cctonst.c
ad
Se. 40 CFR pel 268 Vt a ad
pScat4e ect ndog ee ew used * Ii coeD-
nedcn c actie.o UI. ltond d. See o 260.42
ec 5no os as
e. Effect of Treatment Stand da on
Disposal Pievisions in 40 C parts 284
and 286 far Ignitable and Remthve
Wastes
Management practices h ië’ been
established for ignitable and reactive
wastes In surface impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment imita, and landfills
(see 40 ( R 264.22g. 264.258, 268.281,
and 264.312, as well as 285.229.285.258,
285.281, and 265.312). The treatment
standards finalized today for ignitable
(0001) and reactive (0003) wastes will
superceda the above-mentioned
provisions and exclusions for
permissable land disposal of these
waste outlined In parts ZO4and 265
therefore, the Agency I amending these
sections to reflect the new regulations In
part 268. FacilitIes handling ignitable
and reactive wastes wilt have to comply
with the promulgated treatment
standards for these wastes In order to
land dispose them.
f. EP Toxic lialogenated Pesticide
Wastes
In the November 22 1988 proposed
rule, the Agency proposed tw basic
options for the treatment standards for
EP Toxic halogenated pestiade wastes
(0012. Dm3, Dm4, 0015, OUtS and 1)017)
and solicited comments on these. In one
option, the Agency proposed
concentration-based standards that
were based on the total composition of
____ D012— Toxic for &i&i
Oeactvedoe EACT to Roe s.o the ct iedc D013—EP Toxic for llndeius
ad DO14— Toxic [ or Methexycblor.
D015— Toxic for Tnxsphene .
- Doi6 ’— ’ Toxic fcrzs-D
D017— ’ Toxic for 2.4.5-TP (SlIvex)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0003
thes-28123(aX8). (7), rsu (8)
Deec on EACT) to Ranoee the Owmtuts8c
ad Rsec 0f

-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
these pesticides in treatment residuals.
As a second option, the Agency
proposed concentration-based treatment
standards that cospon 1 tbMr
respective characteristic concentrations.
As an alternative, the A earys*ated
that technology-based treatment
standards could be established that
would achieve treatment to below these
characteristic levels.
(1) Non waste waters. EPA proposed
concentration-based standards for the
nonwastewater forms of D012, D013,
D014 D015 Dole and 1)017 that were
based on the analysis of total
composition based on data that clearly
Indicated that the pesticide constituents
of concern (or pesticides with , imlh ,r
physical and chemical characteristics)
could be incinerated to detection limits
as measured in ash samples. As noted In
the proposed rule, the Agency believes
that these total constituent
concentration-based treatment
standards bised on Incineration, are
preferable to those In the second option
(I.e.. standards that correspond to their
respective cl racterlat1c
concentrations). The Agency contends
that the totaI constltuent concentration
standards asanre the public that these
chemicals are being destroyed to the
best levels that are achievable. This
comporta with the statutory policy of
reducing the uncertainties Inherent In
hazardous waste land disposal as well
as specific Congressional directives to
destroy hazardous organic constituents,
see, e.g., 130 Cong. Rec. S 9179 (July 25
1984) (statement of Sen. Chaffee). and
results In minimi itlon of threats to
human health and the envlronmenL
The Agency has determined that it Is
prudent to require that these El’ T dc
halogenated pesticide wastes be treated
with the best demonstrated technology
in view of their toxlcity they are
probable carcinogens. Since data clearly.
Indicate that incineration represents :
BDAT. the Agency gave serious -
consideration to establIshl ga
technology-based treatmedard ot
“Incineration as a Methodlef.T atment”
for the nonwastewater (alijofIhese
wastes. However, the Ag *y lieves
that other technologies beeldá
incineration may be able to achieve an
equivalent performance. As such, the
Agency Is promulgating concentration-
based treatment standards for all EP
Toxic halogenated pesticide
nonwastewaters based on total.
composition rather than establishing
“Incineration as a Method of
Treatment”.
Commenters offered very little
opposition to the proposed
nonwastewater standards based on
analysis of total constituent
concentrations, other than questioning
the achievablilty of the standard due to
differences In detection limits.
Commenters submitted a limited amount
of additional detection limit data for
these pesticides In Incinerator ash. The
Agency baa evaluated these additional
detection limit data, along with the data
used to propose the standards, In
promulgating the’ atandardi fot 1)012-
0017 nonwastewalera in today’s rule.
TheAgency believes that these data
Indicate that the promulgated standards
are achievable, and detectable. -
These nonwastawater standards are
based on the analysis of total
constituent concentrations. Some of the
standards on their face appear higher
than the characteristic levels. This is not
the case, however, since the
characteristic levels are based on levels
In a leachate rather than total
constituent analysis. Given the 20 to 1
dilution factor Inherent to the TCLP (and
the EP) protocoL It Is apparent that none
of the final treatment standards in fact
exceed characteristic levels because -
noné öf1hem are 20 times higher than
the characteristic leveL
(2) Wastewaters The Agency
proposed one set of concentration-based
standards for 1)012—0017 wastewaters
based.on4etectios.limita of the -
pesticides as measured in scrubber
waters. Just prior to proposal, the
Agency completed its analysis of
treatment performance data for
wastewaters from various data sources.
(See, generally, the discussion of the
development of treatment standards for
U and Pwastewaters using these data In
section IILA.5.(a)(l) to today’s
preamble.) As a result, the Agency
proposed a)ternatlve concentration-
based treatment standards for various
wastewatere based on these wastewater
treatment data. While the Agency did
not specifically propose these as
alternatives standards for wastewater -
forms of-D012-D017, the Agency
bellevesthat these standards could have
been promulgated. if It were not for -.
cIrcumstances discussed below.
Based on the aforementioned
wastewater treatment data, the Agency
baa Identified specific treatment
technologies that are considered to be
demonstrated on.D012-0017 pesticide
constituents (or pesticides with similar
physical and chemical characteristics)
and can achieve destruction of the
pesticide constituents to below their
respective characteristic levels. By -
adopting treatment methods for these
wastewaters rather than concentration-
based standards, the dilution prohibition
attaches at the point of generation when.
these wastes are managed In Clean
Water Act systems, and destruction of
these constituents is assured. (See
section OLD. of today s preamble.) As a
result, concentrations below the
characteristic levels will be achieved
through the use of these treatment
technologies rather than through the
potential use of simple dilution. The
Agency Is therefore promulgating
technology-based treatment standards
for the 0012—0017 wastewaters.
The Agency has identified
incineration, wet air oxidation, chemical
oxidation. carbon adsorption, and/or
biodegradation as BOAT treatment
technologies as BOAT for 1)012-0017
wastes, as discussed in EPA’s Final Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) Background Document for U
and P Wastes and Multi-Source
Leachates (F039), Volume A:
Wastewater Forms of Organic U and P
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates
(F039) For which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards. The technology-based - -
standards are as follows: (1) ,
Incineration and biodegradation
been specified as BDAT for 1)012 -
1)015 wastewaters: (2) incineratfoir- d
carbon adsorption for D013
wastewaters: (3) IncineratIon and wet
air oxidation for 0014 wastewaters: (4)
Incineration, chemical oxidation, and
biological treatment for DOIB
wastewaters; ahd (5) incineration or
chemical oxidation for D017
wastewaters.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
0012, 0013. 0014. 0015. 0016, AND
0017
(No m 1
Waste code -
-
Regu’ated
cons tee
Ua3 un f r
any—
grab aan s,
tet
=n
0012
0013
0014
0015
0016
0011
Enden_.._..___
Un ne -
Med 1o syd oc... _ _ _
Tm heflS
2,4-0
2,4 ,6-TP
0.13
0066
0.18
13
10
7.9
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOP 0012
AND 0015
Vastewatera
k dneraten ( INeIN) or Biodegradation (91000) ma
nw,Ubi,J 04 tiaatmenl

-------
Federal Register I VoL55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. i99 r/ Rules and Regulations
6DM TREAi ,r STANDARDS FOR 0013
fldn& ,5on (W V or C.J ion AdsoipSen (CARM4
e method !eetment
3. Treatment Standards for Metal
Wastes
a. Introduction
Metal wastes are hazardous wastes
containing metals or metallic
compounds such as Inorganic metallic
salts or organometalllcs. Certain F, K U, -
and P wastes were listed specifically for
the presence of metallic compounds.
Additionally, a waste can be Ldentlfled
as a characteristic waste based on the
concentration of one of eight different-
metals as specified In 40 CFR 201.24:
arsenic, barium cadmium, chromium, -
lead, mercury, selenium, or silver (La.,-
DOOt through Doll respectively) at a
concentration equal to or greater than
the levels presented in 40 CFR 261.24
Table I—Maximum C 2 ncenfratlon of
Contaminants for C ir& zisUc of HP.
Toxicity.
Treatment standar J è most U and P
metallic conipounds .mre%ased on a
quantitative analyslsl’or the metal
constituent only, and not for the specific
U or P metallic salt (i.e.. compound). The
Agency received comments supporting
this proposed approach and It agrees
that regulation of only the metal
constituents for these wastes will
address the primary toxic hazard
associated with these metallic
compounds. (Except those few U and P -
wastes where the anionic species also -
poses a toxic hazard. stich as for metal-
cyanide salts.)
(1)-Devdopment of Trea*ment
Standards for MetoJu. In today ’rrule,
the Agency Is promulgating treatment
standards forseveral of thoU and P
wastes expressed as concentrations of
specific metals. In general, performance
data that are available from the
treatment of various F and K wastes
containing these metals have been
transferred to these U and P wastes.
Commenters also provided information
and data to support the characterization
and treatment of certain metal wastes.
These data have been used In some
cases to establish metal U and P
treatment standards. (These comments
and data are discussed In the preamble
section pertaining to the specific metal
waste, and are discussed in detail In the
Response to BDAT-Related Comments
Background Document.)
The Agency proposed a similar
approach for characteristic metal
wastes—I.e., transferring treatment data
fromFandK listed wastes to these D-
coded wastes. Significant comments
were received, however, desaibing
potential problems associated with this
approach that EPA finds persuasive.
Com.menters pointed to the fact that
characteristic wastes may be generated
In many differ?nt matrices and thus take
any number of forms. A transfer of data
from treatment of any one particular
matrix would thus be unlikely to be
routinely achievable unless the
treatment data being transferred
represented a waste more difficult to
treat than any characteristic waste. The
Agency has further determined that the
data generally do not support the -
proposed transfer of concentration-
based treatment standards from the
specified listed wastes to these
relatively.non-spqciflc characteristic
wastes. The Agency found that the data
and Information submitted by the
commentera further supported that
certain matrices from particular
Industries (or particular waste types)
apposite be so unlike the matrix of the
listed waat8 (from which the Agency
originally proposed to transfer treatment
standards) that the treatment standard
could not be achieved. All waste-
specific comments are further addressed
below in the sections pertaIning to each
metal, or in the Response to BDAT-
Related Comments Background
Document . .
While there ar certain treatability
groups that are exceptions, the general
approach for regulating metal wastes is
as follows. The Agency is establishing
treatment standards for areenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and silver at
a level corresponding to their respective-
characteristic levels. For most metals-
the data received by the Agency
indicate- that concentrations below these
characteristic levels can be achieved
through the use of either stabilization
processes or vitriflcation however, the
exact concentration achievable by
stabilization processes is apparently
dependent upon the Industry and
processes from which the waste was
generated. This is most likely due to the
wide variability of other constituents
(both organic and inorganic) present in
the waste which interfere with the
performance of stabilization.
The treatment standard for Dow
selenium wastes is established at a level
slightly greater than the characteristic
level, because the Agency had only a
limited amount of data on these wastes
In fact, the majority of information
suggests that while there are relatively
few generators of DOlO wastes, most of
them are recovering the selenium from
them. Treatment standards for D009
mercury wastes with high
concentrations of mercury are set as
required methods of treatment See also
the discussion in section ffi.D of this
preamble.
(2} Treatment of Organic bris and
Inorganic Solids Debris. Co ents
were received Indicating that many of
the D004 through Dcii characteristic
metal wastes may be generated in
organic matrices. Rather than set up
specific organic treats bility groups
under each characteristic metal waste
code, the Agency Is stating as a matter
of treatment policy that prohibited metal
wastes that are generated as an organo-
metallic or In an organic matrix can be
Incinerated (in accordance with the
technical operating requirements of 40
CFR 264 or 205 Subpart 0) to destroy the
organo-metallic bond or the organic
matrix containing the metal, prior to
subsequent treatment of the ash (if
necessary), In order to comply with a
concentration-based standard or prior to
applicatIon of the technology-based
metal treatment standard. This includes
characteristic metal wastes that are
identified specifically as “debris”. D004
through Doll wastes Identified as debris
that are comprised primarily of organic
materials are referred to as “organic
debris” (e.g., rags, paper, cardboard,
clothes, gloves, paints, paint chips,
wood, grubbing materials, blankets, -
hoses, bags, resins, plastic liners and
PVC piping). (This does not preclude the
washing or extraction of metals from
“organic debris?’ that Is only a
characteristic wastes due to surface
conti mlnatlon (I.e., provided the
residual “organic debris” is no longer a
characteristic waste for metals). In fact,
much of the D004—D01i “organic debris”
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0014
(Waz eweters)
Inonoradon (INON) or wet ax o,ddalion (WETOX) as
methods of esbiwd
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0016
M8St ewab ’ri )
Indnereticn (1NCIN) or themod o ddatIon (CHOXD)
or bs000gredascn (BIOOG) as a method of ea uent
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0017
(Wa tew tars)
Inonerabon (1NCIN) or chemical o,ddatjon (CHOXD)
as a method of froatmen*

-------
Federal R4i l4iu r /-Vol. 55 No.:l0O I Frlday June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
maybe freatableby ua ’hlngo r
ex1ra 1on rather than hidneratlon.
However, Incineration ma be r -
preferred pretreatment when the
“organic debris” are expected to contain
organo-metallics or are otherWise
impregnated with inorganI metal dyes
or pigments (e.g., paints. paint chips,
and/or resins)).
The Agency also received comments
requesting that the Agency clarify the
appropriate treatment for characteristic
metal wastes that are Identified as siege,
glass, concrete, bricks, and other
Inorganic solid debris. They stated that
these materials would probably have to
be crushed or otherwise reduced In size
prior to stabilization In order to comply
with the 0004 through Doll treatment
standards. The Agency agrees that these
as well as other similar wastes form a
different treatability group, and is
identifying this group of 0004 through
Doll wastes as the inorganic solids
debris” treatability group. Wastes in this
treatabillty group are defined In
* 288.2(a)(7)of today’s rule as follows:
“nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable otpassing through a 9.5 mm
standard sieve that require cutting, or
crushing and grinding in mechanical
sizing equipment prior to stabilization,
limited to the following Inorganic or
metal materials: (1) Metal sIege (either
dross or scone); (2) glassi.fled slag: (3)
glass; (4) concrete (excluding
cementitious or pozzolanic stabilized
hazardous wastes); (5) masonry and
refractory bricks; (6) metal cans,
containers, drums, or tanks; (7) metal
nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps, valves,
appliances, or industrial equipment and
(8) scrap metal as defined in 40 CFR
281.l(c)(6). (Note: The 9.5 mm.
requirement on sieve La based on a
similar requirement for pretreatment of
samples that are to be analyzed using
the T 2. This size also appro,thii.ites
the size of small pebbles that are often
incorporated Into some foane ot
concrete.)
While the Agency is estIbllihhig a
separate treatability grouè esa
“inorganic solids
promulgating the same concentration- -
based treatment standards for these
wastes as for other characteristic metal
wastes. Thus, there are no separate -
treatment standards for Inorganic solid
debris 0004 through 0011 wastes
appearing in today’. rule . TheAge:my
has determined. howeur , that there lie
national capacity ahoitagn for treatment-
of this treatability uu 1’h efwe . the
standards for D004 through Doll wastes
do not apply to “Ino1 enic solids debsli ’-
untilMay8 ,1992. -
Several commentere suggested that
treatment standards should not apply at
all to these wastes; that no treatment
technolo is technically applicable to
those wastes; and that these wastes
should be allowed to land disposed as
is. Other commentera poInted out that
crushing processes create dust
emissions or discharges to surface
waters that may result In a significant
increase In releases of toxic constituents
to the environment They pointed out
that stabilization should not be
necessary because of the relatively
Impermeable nature of these Inorganic
solids and that stabilization results in a
significant Increase in volume of waste
to be land disposed.
While the Agency finds these
comments persuasive, it Is somewhat
limited by RCRA section 3004(m) into
developing treatment standards for
these wastes, since absent a treatment
standard, the statutory land disposal
prohibition applies. However, from a
purely common sense standpoint, It may
make little sense to pulverize these
relatively cement-like materials only to
re-cement them again before land
disposaL The Agency believes today s
actions provide the opportunity to
revisit these standard, during the two-
year national capacity variance and to
address these cumerenters concerns In
greater detail. In addition. theAgency
points out that many of these same
Issues will be addressed In a
forthcoming proposed rule for soil and
debris.
(3) Re amfr ation of Proposed of Co.
disposal Prohibitions. EPA requested
comments atpropoeal on whether it
should establish requirements under 40- -
CFR parts 264 and 265 forcertaln
chemlcal species of arsenic, selenium.
and m rIauz-y. The proposed
requirements called for segregating
certain wastes containing these metal,
In monoftus or In s arate cells within
landfills, and for prohibiting the addition-
of alkaline materials to these wastes.
These proposed requirements Were the
result of available data showing that the -
solubilityof certain metal species Is
likely to Increase under aliraftue
leaching conditions as compe red to their
relative tflsàlubllity under acid
conditions (see 54 PR 4$40a 48441)
Several comments were received -
addressing this issue, most of wbith -
stated thatspedftcco .dl.pe sa) . -
requ are not’needei t this thn
becsese cperaton ofi flll.-mu.t--
monitor leashate coIleclica stems for
the m*atIoe atmetslsOther - - -.
commentere poin*e out that so
operators of he, He iseedy segregate’-
these particular meteI .beoringwsstea
part of their waste analysIs plan, and
such requirements should be made on a
site- and waste-specific basis. In
addition. vendors of specialized
stabilization materials submitted data
that show some promise In treating low
concentration of these alkaline-soluble
metal species.
EPA finds these comments persuasive
and Is therefore not promulgating Its
proposed co-disposal prohibitions for
wastes containing arsen1c selenium and
mercury. Additional information Is
necessary to develop a comprehensive
national prohibition standard for these
wastes. EPA also concurs with
commenters that permit writers can
effectively address these co-disposal
prohibition requirements on a case-by-
case basis under the omnibus authority
In RCRA section 3005(c)(3).
b. Arsenic
DOOs—EP toxic for arsenic
Koai—By-product salts generated in the
production of MSMA and cacodylic acid.
K084—Wastewater eatnient siudges
generated during the production of ’
veterinary pharmaceuticals from arsenic
or organo-arsenic compounds.
KlOl—Distlllatfon tar residues from
distillation of aniline-based com da
In th. production of veterinary
pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds.
Ki02—Residue from the use of activated
carbon for decolorization in the
production of veterinary pharmaceuticals
from arsenic or organo-arsenlc
compounds.
P010—Arsenic acid
P011—Arsenic (V) oxide
P012—Arsenic (III) oxide
P038-thth i cre
P -DIsth
U138—Cacodylic acid
These wastes are grouped together
because they all contain arsenic as the
primary hazardous constituent Like
other metals arsenic exhibits a positive
valence stats; however, it shows little
tendency to exist as solitary catlonic
species Lu aqueous matrices. Arsenic
typically exists in aqueous conditions as
oxo-anlons (e.g., arsenic appears
primarily as anionic arsenite (AsOs) or
arsenate (AsO ). This behavior Is
Important, because-selection and
peiformanas evaluation-ut treatment
technologies for-other metals are based
primarily on the cationic behavior of the
metals th.aqueoes conditions (he.,
• wastewaters and leechates); ‘Thus,-
treatmen technologies-for wuetewaterw
and nonwastewalers containing arsenic -
are often different from technologies for-
wastes e hrh . onlyotherw tal -
con 5 1ltu 11 t .-
(1)’ NOr afswoters . To Identify the
er-’ technologies thatare applicable-for

-------
Federal Register /-Vo1 55. Na. 100 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
557.
treating metals in nonwastewaters, the
Agency evaluates treatmeub
technologies that dthç reduce the
leaching of the metalior ie over the
metals for reuse. The Agency Identified
stabilization technologies (e.g., cement,
asphalt, vitrification), and recovery as
potentially applicable technologies for
treatment of arsenic present In
noriwastewater matrices.
(a) Inconclusive Stabilization
Performance Data. EPA has relatively
inconclusive performance data for
stabilization of arsenic in three different
wastes using nine different binders.
Analysis of these data indicates that the.
effectiveness of any particular
stabilization binder appears to be highly
dependent upon the waste types. This
result is what might be expected giving
the chemical nature of arsenic (see
preceding discussion of arsenic
chemistry) and the relative sensitivity of
the effectiveness of stabilization
processes with respect to the presence
of organics and organo-metallics.
Data on a 1(031 waste with an
untreated leachability of 533 mg/i
(based on analysis of an EP extract)
indicate that the leachabdity of arsenic
decreases somewhat for ail binders. The
best results were obtained from asphalt
stabilization, which provided reductions
to 25.3 mg/I (EP). Data on a 0004 waste
identified as an arsenic sulfide waste
show an Increase in teachability when
cement, silicate polymer, clay, and
polyethylene binders are used.
However, data on this waste using an
asphalt binder indicated a reduction in
leachability of arsenic from 41 mg/I to
1.7 mg/I (EP). Data and Information on a
smelter dust that leaches aresenic
indicate that cement binders can
increase the teachability of the arsenic.
while silicate polymers and asphalt
binders decrease the leachbbllity. -
However, these data do not contain
operating information (e.g., binder to
waste ratios) or QA/QC Information.
The Agency has also tested cement ’-
tune/fly ash, and kiln$tüst’stabfflzatfon-
on K031 nonwastew that when ‘
untreated contain mdu*than 130,000
ppm total arsenic and kach 5.930 mg/I
(based on analysls - ! LP extract).
Some of the TCLP data on the K03r
wastes that were “stablllzed’wlth’
cement, appear to indicate an increase -
in arsenic teachability of 10 percent. The
best results were achieved when the
lime/fly ash binder was used, however.
these data show minor reductions of•
arsenic from 5.930 mg/Ito 4 687 mg/I in -
the TCLP extract.
Chemfix submitted performance data
for a proprietary “alkaline stabilization
system”. These limited data show an
acid production byproduct liquid waste
(believed to be a 0004) with 73.000 ppm
total arsenic leaching 2.7 mg/l arsenic in
the treatment residue TCLP leachate. No
binder.to-waste ratios, binder additives
or untreated TCI.P concentrations were
presented, maldng it diflicult to assess
the viability of this treatment process for
all 0004 nonwastewaters, in particular
those arsenic wastes known to contain
organica.
Data were submitted by the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
(HWTC) showing stabilization using
proprietary reagents of a boiler stack
residue desigi ated 0004, generatecf from
the demolition of stacks and site closure
of an electric utility. The reagents are
added to induce cementitlous. siliceous.
and pozzolanic stabilization reactions..
The solid waste was first slurried with
tap water to facilitate reaction with the
reagents. The data show reductions of
arsenic In the TCLP leachate from 409
mg/i to 2.27mg/I. The volume ratio of
waste to binder was 1 to 1;
consequently, the volume for disposal
increased by 100 percent The Agency Is
uncertain that this technology would be
applicable for wastes containing
organics or organic arsenicals.
Another commenter, Solidiwaste, -
submitted stabilization data for 0004
arsenic sulfide wastes using a
proprietary silicate-rich matrix under
neutral or slightly alkaline conditions:
Under these conditions, the arsenic
sulfide may have been converted to an
insoluble complex silicoarsenate
compound. The data show an untreated
waste containIng 35,000 ppm total
arsenic, which after treatment contains
0.68 mg/I arsenlc in the TCLPieachate.-
The commenter did not submif TCLP
data for the untreated waste,
information co’ ñcemIng waste to binder
ratios, or analytical QAI QC data. The
Agency Is also uncertain that this
technology would be applicable for
wastes containing organ.ics or organic
arsenicals. -
(b) Performance Data Indicating
Broader Applicability. The Agency
received data from American NuKEM
demonstrating that incineration and/or
chemical oxidation followed by-
coprecipitation and subsequent
stabill atIon is effective treatment for a
variety of arsenic wastes. The Agency
believes that the arsenic compounds
treated by this procedure are first
oxidized to the arsenate form by either
thermal and/or chemical treatment The
arsenate, which ends up in the scrubber
water (in the case of incineration) or In
the wastewater (in the case of the
chemical oxidation), is then -
coprecipitated with iron salts. (Note:
The coprecipitatlon process is very pH
dependent and even under optimum -
conditions the amount of fernc
hydroxide generated Is two to eight
times the concentration of ferric
arsenate precipitated.) The iron
precipitate containing the arsenate is
then stabilized with dolomi tic lime.
Performance data submitted by
American NuKem for their chemical
oxidation wastewater treatment tram
described above indicate that a 0004
arsenic sulfide waste containing 750,000
ppm total arsenic can be treated to 0.75
mg/I (TCLP). However, these data do
not indicate whether the arsenic sulfide
waste was significantly diluted prior to
treatment. In addition, it is important to
note that the stabilization step with
dolomitic lime required careful control
to avoid making the stabilized mass
significantly alkaline, implying that the
arsenic may have been quite leachable
under alkaline conditions and thus, may
noVbe truly “stabilized”.
Performance data were also submitted
by American NuXEM using Incineration
followed by treatment of scrubber water
indicate that organo-arsenic wastes
designated as a combined P011/0004
waste with concentrations u to 1.200
total arsenic can be effectiv treated.
The treatment facility state t t
essentially all of the arsenic compounds
In the feed volatilize during incineration
and are completely oxidized to arsenic
oxides and ultimately to arsenate ions.
which are removed by flue gas
scrubbing using alkaline solution
scrubbers with large liquid.to-gas ratios.
As mentioned above, the scrubber water
treatment (discussed in a subsequent
discussion on treatment of arsenic
wastewaters) consists of coprecipita Lion
with iron salts and stabilization of the
precipitate. No data on the
characterization or treatment of the
incinerator ash residual were submitted.
Also, the commenter failed to provide
untreated TCLP results or waste-to-
binder ratios.
(c) Vitrification Performance Data. As
an alternative to conventional
stabilization processes such as
ceinentitious stabilization for arsenic
wastes, the Agency identified
vitrification as technology that is
applicable to nonwastewaters
contRlning arsenic (54 FR 48431—33J.
Vithflcation is a technology that uses
heat generated by electrodes or direct
flame to melt a mixture of glass formers
and waste materials Into a molten slag,
which then cools and Incorporates the
metals and other materials into this
glass/slag matrix. This technology can
be applied to wastes containing organic
as well as inorganic forms of arsenic
since it operates at high temperatures

-------
225
Federal Registev / Vol 55, No. 100 / Friday, June 1, 1000 / Rules and Regulations
(1200 ‘C to 1500 Sc) that will destroy the
organica present In the wse . -- -
The Agency soilci ted antfieonived
comments on this stabilization
technique for arsenic wastëiverel
commenters said that vitrification is
neither “demonstrated” nor “available”
to treat arsenic-containing wastes. The
Agency also received comments
supporting the argument that
vitrification can treat arsenic wastes
effectively and that the-units are
available for sale. One commenter even
conducted a study that determined that
vitrification would provide a
significantly better method of disposal
than other stabilization processes for
D004 arsenic sulfide wastes generated
from phosphoric acid purification
contaIning 2 to 3% total arsenic. This
determination was made because the
waste volume for disposal is reduced by
more than 75%, even though fixation and
fluxing agents were added, and the
resultant product leaches arsenic levels
less than 05 mg/I (TCLP). However, the
commenter did not submit TCLP results
on the untreated waste or analytical
QAIQC data
Other dati available to the Agency
indicate thatvttriflcation can
incorporate arsenic in concentrations up
to 23.5% into a glass/slag matrix with a
maximum leachability of arsenic at 1.8
mg/I (EP}. In alL these data consist of 14
separate data points, with arsenic
concentration in the untreated wastes
ranging from 0.3% to 23.5%. Data on the
treated (I.e., glassified) wastes ranged
from 0.007 mgfI to 1.8mg/i (El’). All of
these data clearly indicate that
vitrification can consistently achieve
stabilization of arsenic to leachate
levels below the characteristic level. 5.0
mg/I (based on El’). However, these
data did not have any analytical QA/ -
QC or any Information about volume
increases/reductions on the treatment
residues. — -‘
Several commentera
concern about air einIsae oclated
with the vitrification unI Agenc7 -
believes that these oonc
addressed because these dsvkeswill
typically have to be permitted under 40
CFR part 284 subpart X and wil}
therefore have to meet designated air
permit requirements. In addition, one
commenter said that to avoid arsenic
loss due to vaporization, a specIal
furnace configuration with a recycling
vapor scrubbing system is being
investigated for use with the facllitjs
vitrification unit. Thus. the Agenc
anticipates that this technology
currently under development will result
in an additional safety precaution (with
regards to potential air emissions) for
this technology In the near future.
d) Detenninatlon of BDAT for
Nuuwiastewaters. For the proposed rule.
the Agency determined that vitrification
was the “best” technology for treatment
of nonwastewaters containing arsenic.
EPA made this determination based on
the performance data available at the
time of proposal. Most data that was
then available appeared to Indicate that
conventional stabilization (e.g.. cement)
was not an effective technology for
arsenic wastes since the stabilized
wastes showed little reduction In
arsenic leaching or leached more arsenic
than the unstabillzed wastes. In the
proposed rule, the Agency requested
that facilities submit data demonstrating
treatment of arsenic nonwastewatere.
Several commenters submitted new
data that appear to Indicate that wastes
containing high concentrations of
specific Inorganic forms of arsenic can
be treated by stabilization using cement,
silicates, and/or proprietary binder
mixtures. Generally, these stabilization
data are relatively Inconclusive, due to
the lack of necessary treatment
performance data and to the relatively
limited applicability of these
stabilization processes to wastes
containing organica. or organo
arsenlcala. In addition, while the data
do indicate low levels of leachable
arsenic are obtained. in some cases the
reductions may be ittrlbuted to dilution
with the binrlars caused by undesirable
high binder-to-waste ratios (resulting In
considerable Increases in the amount of
waste to be lauddisposed). While the
Agency believes that these stabilization
technologies have considerable
drawbacks, the data doappear to
Indicate that they may provide adequate
treatment for some specific forms of
1)004 InorganIc arsenic wastes.
However the Agency has not based
BDAT treatment standards for all 1)004
wastes on these stabilization
technologies. The Agmicy is not
precluding their use, but cautions that
their use ahoul be doternitead on a-
case-by-cue basis. At this time, the
Agency cannot dets4nlIne a separate -
freatabilltysnbcategory for 1)004 wastes
for which these technologies oouid be -
used to establish treatment standards.
The technology that appoars to have a-
broader appI bility to wastes, -
containing organies or organo arsenicais
Is the American NuKem process (La., the
process where the sesenicis first
thermally or ch ’ inica1ly oxidized.’ -
coprectpitate& with iro OrRII)mu1mm’
salts, and then stabalfr .ed’lzr an Insoluble-
form such as ferris arsenate).
Unfortnnate1y this fr ft * may aImL
Increase the amount of waste for land
disposal because of the large amounts of
ferric hydr xida that may be.
precipitated with the ferric arsenate.
However, became of the broader
applicability of this technology, the
Agency considered this process to be an
alternative technology to vitrification for
K031. 1(084, KIOl, 1(102, P038, P038, U136
and D004 wastes containing organics
and organo arsenicals.
The Agency still believes that
vitrification represents the “bear
technology because the data support
treatment of arsenic present at
percentage concentrations along with
volume reductions for land dispo8al. The
Agency also believes that incineration
or complex chemical treatment followed
by stabilization may work for some
forms of arsenic In some wastes, but the
increases In volume for disposal make
this technology less desirable than
vitrification.
(eJ Treatment Standards for
Nonwastewaters. The Agency used the
vitrification data from the study thdi
used El’ toxicity testing to evaluate
treatment performance. These EP*
leachate data were used to calcu18 the
treatment standard because one
fourteen data points represents a waste
containing 23.5 percent arsenic whereas
the vitrification data that were based on
TCLP analyses represent a waste
contalningonly 3 percent arsenic. EPA
hence believes that the EP vitrification
data demonstrate treatment of a waste
matrix that Is more dl cult to treat.
EPA calculated the treatment
stanrbird for arsenic nonwastawaters
based on the higha4 leachate data point
of 1.8 mg/I for the matrix containing 23.5
percent arsenic. Analytical recovery
data were transferred from the Agency’s
analysis of 1(102 incInerator ash (which
had the appearance of a slag) were used
to adjust the value for analytical
accuracy, -The adjusted value was
multiplied by a variability factor of 2.8,
end a concentration-based treatment
standard for arsenic of 5.8 mg/l In the
leachate (measured by the EP toxicity
test) was calculated.
The Agency Is transferring the
concentratIon-based treat t standard
of 5.6 mg/ Un the El ’ toxicity leachata
arsenic to-K031, KL)84., POlO, POll. P012,
P038, P038 and U136 nonwaatewatexs,
primarily ibis to .miliiuitie. in total
arsenic concentrationa-anlidpated In
these wastes when . compared to the
23.5% tale! arsenic that was vunifled
(La.. the basis of the-&8 mg/I standard).
For example, waste characterization
date Indicate- total arsenic
ccncsstr thm* of 0.1. to 18% for 1(031
and I0k25% for I1O with theoretical

-------
Fedaral Register I Vol. 55,- No. i( f Friday, June .1, 199G / Rules and Regulations
5sg
arsenic content In the U and P wastes
ranging from approxlm te1y25% total
arsenic in P038 to a maximum of 75% in
Poll. While some of these U and P
wastes may contain percentage levels of
arsenic greater than the amount in the
untreated waste used to develop the
treatment standard (i.e.. 23.5 percent),
the Agency believes that the arsenic
content in these wastes are similar
enough to transfer this standard. In
addition, for such wastes, the Agency
believes that more glass-forming
reagents can be added to the molten
slag/waste mixture during the
vitrification process in order to achieve
the promulgated treatment standard.
Based on EPA’s analysis of additional
vitrification data, the Agency believes
that the performance of the vitrification
technology and analytic variability of
treatment residues will not change
significantly for different arsenic-
containing wastes: thus, this transfer Is
legitimate.
For 1)004 nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating the characteristic level of
5.0 mg /I arsenic as the treatment
standard. The Agency has taken this
approach because available data
indicate that treatment below the
characteristic level Is achievable (albeit
the extent is not readily ascertainable
for the entire group of 1)004 wastes) and
because of the concern for the potential
regulatory disruptions and confusion
that could be created by establishing a
standard slightly higher than the
characteristic leveL In addition, given
the statutory hard hammer, EPA would
not establish a treatment standard at a
higher level unless there clearly was a
problem treating to the hard hammer
level. Although the data are equivocal,
the Agency does not believe that
treatment to the characteristic level Es
unachievable. Furthermore, the Agency
believes that persona will normally try
to ensure that their waste no longer
exhibits a characteristic In order to have
less expensive subtit1 d posàI, and -
also because these te “glea cannot- -
easily be “turned oTit p c1sely the
characteristic level. sO f the
characteristic level will ‘ tore readily be
achieved.
Since the vitrification performance
data that EPA used to develop the
nonwastewater treatment standards for
arsenic were El’ toxicity leachate data,
the Agency has based-the
nonwastewater standards on the arsenic
concentration In the El’ leachate.
However, since the Agency has some
information that appears to indicate that
the TCLP test Is more aggressive than
the El’ test for determimng arsenic
leachability, the Agency is establishing
that If a waste doesnot achieve the
arsenic nonwastewater sfnvwlzi,d based
on analysis of a TCLP extract but
achieves the standard based on analysis
of an El’ extract the waste is considered
to be In compliance with the arsenic
nonwastewater standard. Thus, a
facility can use the TCLP test to
demonstrate compliance for 1)004. and
also 1(031,1(084,1(101,1(102, Polo. Poll,
P012, P036, P038, and U138
nonwastewaters.
(f) Comments Concerning Recovery.
The Agency believes that for some
wastes, recovery of arsenic may be
feasible with high-temperature metal
recovery technologies used by mining
operations. Information available to the
Agency indicates that arsenic trio,dde
recovered as a by-product of copper and’
gold mining operations has been used by
the wood preserving industry as a raw
material In the formulation ofwood
preservatives. Currently smelters
located in the United States ase not
acceptinghazardous wastes to recover
arsenic trioxide: however, the Idea is
being Investigated by a smelter located
In Canada who Is plzanning to market
copper arsenate as a wood preservative
In the Northwest. The plan, still under
consideration, Is to have the smelter
accept back arsenic-bearing residues
from the copper arsenate customers. The
Agency requested comments ai d data
on the applicability of recovery
technologies for wastes containing
arsenic. One commenter claimed that
while recovery options may be
technically viable, the current market
does not make recovery of arsenic
economical. - - -
(2) Wosteweters. The Agency
identified chemical precipitation
technotogies as applicable treatment
technologie, for arsenic-containing
wastewaters, When evaluating
precipitation technologies to determine
BOAT far arsenic wastewaters, the
Agencycmosidsred not only the
efficiency of removal of these metals
from the wastewater, but also the
physical and chemical state of the
arsenic that ends upin the wastewater
treatment residues.
(a) Identification of BOAT.
Wastewater treatment for moat metals
is typically based on precipitation with
anionic specie, such as hydroxide or
sulfide. Soluble arsenic species have
been removed from westewaters by
using lime (calcium hydroxide) as a
precipitant, resulting in arsenic
precipitation as a calcium salt (calcium
arsenate) rather than as a hydroxide as
is typical for most other metals. Sulfide
precipitation using sodium sulfide or
hydrogen sulfide as reagents has also
been reported as being partially
effective fur wastewaters containing
arsenic In the form of arsenates, but
relatively Ineffective for arsenites.
While arsenic sulfide is relatively
insoluble In water under acid
conditions, information Indicates that
the leachabihly (Le., solubility) of the
arsenic sulfide increases under alkaline
conditions. Additionally, coprecipitation
with iron salts generates a relatively
Insoluble ferric arsenate precipitate, but
the nature of the reaction also generates
ferric hydroxide, which causes an
increase in sludge volume for disposal.
The Agency solicited comment on
whether It should specify the
precipitating reagent for all wastewatere
containing arsenic as part of the
treatment standard. Commenters said
that the Agency should not specify
which reagents should be used to
precipitate arsenic from wastewaters
because the chemical matrix of each
wastewater s unique and therefore each
wastewater should be evaluated
individually to determine the
appropriate reagent for remov g
arsenic. Based on the diversit f waste
characterization data for the enic
wastes, the Agency agrees wflhlhe
colnmenters and is not specifying
precipitating reagents.
(b) Standards for Arsenic-Containing
Wastewaters. In the proposed rule, the
Agency based a treatment standard of
0.79 mg/I arsenic for all 0004
wastewaters on performance data
demonstrating the precipitation of
arsenic from wastewatere identified as
0004 from the veterinary
pharmaceutical Industry. The treatment
system consisted of precipitation using
lime followed by manganese sulfate and
ferric sulfate In a three-stage alkaline
process. The untreated wastewater data
were for a waste consisting of a mixture
of organo-arsenicals and inorganic
arsenic compounds in concentrations up
to 1,600 ppm. At the time of the
proposed rule, the Agency believed that
these data represented a 0004
wastewater matrix that would be the
most difficult to treat.
Some commenters have indicated that
they cannot treat to the proposed levels
because some 1)004 wastewatess require
more extensive treatment trains In order
to treat other metals, and also contain
organics, which interfere with the
treatment of the arsenic. One
commenter described a treatment
process that required a reduction step
for hexavalent chromium and an
oxidation step with peroxides or
permanganatee to treat the organo-
arsenicals. Reduction of the chromium is
required to precipitate chromium

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55 , No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
hydroxide at high pH. The addition of
oxidizing agents to destroy the organo.
arsenical compounds will leQrddlZe the
trivalent chromium to hexavalent
chromium, and conseqns ’ntlyjhe
chromium will be leachable from the
waste. This commenter requested that
the Agency reconsider treatment to the
characteristic level because experience
indicates that a level of 5.0 mg/I can be
achieved but not a level of 0.79 mg/L
However, the commenter submitted no’
data to substantiate this claim. Other
commenters also Indicated difficulty
meeting the proposed level of 0.79 mg/I
arseiuc when treating scrubber waters
containing arsenic and wastewaters
containing hexafluoroarsenate
compounds.
Based on the Information in the
comments, the Agency believes that It
may not be possible for all generators of
D004 wastewaters to meet a level of 0.79
mgi! arsenic. In addition, and more
important, EPA has determined not to
Impose treatment standards below
characteristic levels for characteristic
wastewat s (I.e., is choosing to apply
the prohibition at the pomt of disposal)
in order tG ’properly integrate Clean
Water Act (CWA) programs with the
RCRA land ban, and due to general
protectiveness of class I nonhazardous
UIC well disposal for dilute metals.
Hence, EPA is promulgating a treatment
standard of 5.0 mg/I arsenic for 1)004
wastewaters. It should be mentioned
that EPA still believes precipitation to
be BDAT for arsenic wastewaters
because even a difficult to treat waste
(I.e., the hexafluoroarsenate waste)
shows a reduction in total arsenic
concentration.
The constituents for which 1 10 . Poll,
and P012 wastes are listed are all
Inorganic forms of arsenic. The
constituents for which P03& P038 and
U138 wastes are listed are all organic
forms of arsenic. K031 and K084 are
typically generated as pro ss wastes
that contain mixtures of th rgan1c
and inorganic forms of aree - Although
all of these wastes are t iIcally
generated as nonwa8tew itcsii the
Agency expects that wastewater forms
of these wastes may be generated from
incidental spills or from the treatment
process itself and thus require treatment
standards. The Agency is transferring
the D004 performance data and
concentratlcn.based treatment standard
of 0.79 mg/i to K03 1. 1(084, P010, POll,
P012. P036 P038. and U138 wastewaters.
The Agency has chosen to transfer
treatment performance from the
treatment of the 1)004 veterinary
pharmaceutical wastewaters because
these wastewaters should contain
similar organo-arsenical and Inorganic
arsenic compounds that can be removed
by lime followed by manganese sulfate
and ferrtc precipitation.
(3) Revisions to KiOl and K102
Treatment Slandards. In the First Third
Final Rule (53 FR 31170, August 17,
1989). the Agency established two
subcategories of 1(101 and 1(102
nonwa8tewaters based on the
concentration of arsenic In the waste. A
low arsenic subcategory was
established for waste contnining less
than 1 percent arsenic and a high
arsenic subcategory for waste
conthinlng 1 percent or greater. In
today’s rule, the Agency Is changing the
nonwaatewater standards for 1(101 and
1(102 promulgated In the First Third
Final Rule as proposed by eliminating
the low and high level arsenic
subcategories and by replacing the
existing metal standards with a
concentration-based treatment standard
for arsenic of 5.6mg/i (measured In the
EP extract) based on the performance of
vitrification. The organic standards will
remain the same as those established In
the First Third Final Rule.
The Agency Is also promulgating new
wastewater treatment standards for
1(101 and 1(102 In today’s rule.
Standards for 1(101 and 1(102
wastewaters were promulgated in the
First Third rule (53 FR 31170, August 17.
1988) and were applicable to all forms of
1(101 and 1(102 wastewaters (I.e., they
did not distinguish between high arsenic
or low arsenic subcategories). These
promulgated standards were based on
the same 1)004 wastewater treatment
data used In today’s proposal to
establish arsenic standards for other K,
U, and P wastes. In the process of
reevaluating the 1)004 wastewater
treatment data for today’s rule.
however, EPA discovered an error In the
calculation of the promulgated 1(101 and
1(102 wastewater standards for the
metal constituents, The Agency Is
correcting this error by amending the
wastewater standards for the metal
constituents (arsenic, cadmium, lead.
and mercury) in Kim and K102 as
proposed. Therefore, a new treatment
standard of 0.79 mg/I for arsenic, 0.24
mg/I for cadmIum. 0.17 mg/l for lead,
and 0.82 mg/I for mercury Is being
promulgated. Since there was no error In
the calculation of the promulgated
standards for the organic constituents,
they are not being changed. The
promulgated standards for the organica
are being presented for convenience of
the reader.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
0004
(No rseseW atars3
R e 4ged constituent
M m
for any

leechate
(mg/I)
Arsersc -_________
8.0
Re 4ated constituent
Maxenum
a n b
(mg/I)
Arsenic___________________
50
Regulated constituent
M um
for any
r
Ieac?iate’
(mg/fl
ArsenIc_____________________
5.8
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
1(031, K084, P010, P011, P012, P036,
P038, AND U136
(Wasteweters]
Regulated constiteent
Matdn.jm for
any angle
ga e,
c o on
(m g /fl
Arsenic______________________
0.79
atedconsti nt
MedmumM m
510 any

co , ,, ,o . 5on
(mg/I)
f any

leachate
(mg/fl
Nlboenene_________
Arseric__________
14
NA
NA
58
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
0004
(Wastawaters]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K031, K084, P010, P011, P01 .P036,
P038, AND U138
(Ncn tevsJ
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
KiOl
( NOr sl ,,w ,jt s 1

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55 No. 100 / Fri day. June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
KICI
(was a l
Re 4sted con e
Maad im for
I —a


tmgll)
Ortho o o nene_____
0.27
0.79
024
0.17
0.002
Maemc
Cadmkjm-
Lead
Morajry
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K102
( I3
Re se oi
51n0’y
b
OOu ;;
for ony

.
(n’WO
1IO. IboØ onoI_
*J eflc_____
13
MA
MA
ie
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K1 02
eam
Uad fo
any—a

oofl

0 ecp enc
0.02 5
0.79
0.24
0.17
0.082
.IneOc________________
C .______
Lead_________________________
Mornsy
‘Ths T LP fo ci so bs used
oolvçkance for Uicse eaates.
‘This rsm es a catogcdos based on P and
low w enic
C. Barium
0005 Characteristic Ba, m Wastes
P013 Barium Cyanide
The Agency prupii d treatment
standards for all D0OtW stes (wastes
contaIning 100 mg/f berhim as measured
in the EP leachate) as well as for all
barium cyanide wastes listed as P013 (54
FR 48434). The proposed waetewater
treatment standard for 0005 and P013
was 1.15 mg/I. based on a limited
amount of data from the EPA Office of
Water’s Effluent Guidelines program.
The proposed nonwastewater treatment
standard for 0006 and P013 was
expressed as a method of treatment,
“Acid or Water Leaching Followed by
Chemical Precipitation as Sulfate or
Carbonate; or Stabilization”. An
alternative for all chartcterlstic wastes
was also presented, that of establishing
the characteristic level as the treatment
standard.
Because the proposed treatment
standards were based on very limited
data, the Agency solicited comments
and data on waste characterization and
treatment. Several data sets were
received pertaining to 0005
nonwastewaters. These data have been
used in today’s rule to support that 0005
nonwastewaters can be treated to levels
below the characteristic level of 100 mgI
I. In most cases, however, the data were
not adequate to support a specific
treatment standard for 0006 and P013
because they lacked QAIQC
Information, influent/effluent levels, or
did not provide enough data points to be-
representative of these wastes. One
data set was used, however, to establish
today’s final treatment standard for P013
nonwastewatera, as is further discussed
In section (2) below.
Several comments were received on
the proposed approach for regulating
0005. No comments were received
pertaining specifically to P013.
Additional comments other than those
addressed in this preamble were
received on the proposed approach for
regulating barium wastes. All comments
and the Agency’. responses are found In
the Response to BDAT-Related
Comments Document, In the RCRA
Docket.
(1) D(A)5—CharccMrjsfjc Barium
Wastes. Today’s rule promulgates
concentration-based treatment
standards for all D005 wastes expressed
as the characteristic level for barium,
100 maJL The Agency is adopting this
approach because of the data
deficiencies discussed above, and Issues
that were raised in the public comments
that are discussed in the following
paragraphs,
Several commenters requested that
the treatment standard be set at the
characteristic leveL As mentioned
above, the Agency received data for
D005 all of which demonstrates
treatment to below the characteristic
level of 100 mg/I. Because 0005 wastes
are so diverse (in fact, an organobarlum
wastistream was Identified by two
coinmenters when the Agency primarily
characterined this waste as an Inorganic
waste stream) and the data received
during the comment period so
Inconclusive as to estabibihinga
concentration-based treatment standard
for all 0006 wastes, the Agency I.
promulgating the characteristic level as
the treatment standard. The Agency is
confident, however, based on the data
received, that treatment to achieve the
100 mg/I level Is possible for both
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of DUOS..
Many cnmmPnters requested that a
concentration-based standard be -
established for DUOS nonwastewaters
rather than the proposed method of
treatment. A. explained above, this is
the approach that is being promulgated
in today’s rule. The Agency prefers to
set a concentration-based treatment
standard rather than specifying a
method of treatment because it allows
the treater of any of the various forms of
DUOS maximum flexibility in the choice
of treatment technology most
appropriate for the waste. Additionally,
some commenters disagreed with the
proposed specification of precipitating
reagents (Le.. precipitation as sulfate or
carbonate). The Agency agrees that
specifying precipitating reagents may
cause unnecessary problems for the
treatment Industry In that treatment of
barium often takes place in a waste
stream containing other metals for
which the specified reagent Is
Inappropriate.
Coznmenters opposed the oposed
DUOS wastewatey treatment standard as
being unattainable, stating muliher that
the 1.15 mg/I standard is overly
restrictive because It Is very close to the
Agency’s drinldng water standard. Only
one data point was received during the
comment period for treatment of D005
wastewaters, not enough data to support
a concentration-based standard for the
diverse forms of Does wastewaters.
Additionally, some commenters
disagreed with EPA’s discussion of
typical precipitation reagents suitable
for 0005 (and P013). The Agency has
data indicating that barium is usually
precipitated as a sulfate salt.
Commenters expressed concern that the
Agency should neither set precipitation
as a re jufred method of treatment for
these wastewaters nor specify required
precipitation reagents. The Agency is
not promulgating a treatment standard
expressed as a required method, and
agrees that specifying precipitating
reagents may cause unnecessary
problems for the treatment industry.
(2) P013—Bm’ium Cyanide. Today’s
rule promulgates barium treatment
standards for P013, barium cyanide
wastes. Treatment standards for
cyanide in P013 were promulgated in the
June 23, 1989 final rule for Second Third
wastes (54 FR 26614).
Data was provided during the
comment period on stabilization of DoeS
nonwastewaters that Is being used as
the basis of a treatment standard for
barium in P013 nonwastewaters. Based
on these data, a treatment standard of

-------
5O2
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday; June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
52 mg/I has been calculated. Use of this
data for P013 Is justified even though 1t
was not used for 0005 nonwestewaters.
As one of the “P” listings,- POilis a
specific waste, while 0005-a
characteristic waste, maftAk dIverse
forms. Generally, the more specific P013
Is expected to be characterized
consistently. The data Is appropriate for
establishing a waste-specific treatment
standard for P013 because the waste’s
properties are not likely to change.
Therefore, the standard should be
achievable for all P013 nonwastewaters.
No data were received during the
comment period to set a treatment
standard for P013 wastewaters.
Commenters objected to the proposed
1.15 mg/I DOGS wastewater standard as
being unattainable, and the Agency Is
considering these comments applicable
to P013 as well. Commenters also
objected to the specification of
precipitation reagents for 0005
wastewaters. The Agency is therefore
disinclined ti establish a method of
treatment (Li., chemical precipitation
with specified reagents) for P013
wastewateri In the absence of any data
on treatnientof P013 wastewaters,
therefore, the Agency Is not
promulgating a barium wastewater
treatment standard. The cyanide in P013
wastewaters Is regulated under the land
disposal restrictions (54 FR 26814):
therefore, P013 wastewaters will not be
subject to the “hard hammer” (Le.,
banned from land disposal on May 8.
1990).
BOAT TREATMDIT STANDARDS Foa 000$
Regu athd constftuent
M

( a’0
v—
- 100
-
Ba wfl

BDAT TREArMEPIT STANDARDS FoR 0005
(Wastewators)
Regu’ated consflteerd
M m
e n ib
B jm
100
BOAT Ta m*aiT STANDARDs Foa P013
Ae teedcoeneje -
M
j
(mg/Q
Betni_
- 52
d. Cadmium
Dooe—characterlatlcs cadmium wastes.-
Today’s rule promulgates wastewatet
and nonwastewater treatment standards
for D006 wastes. Comments and data
were received asserting that it was not
possible to meet the proposed treOtment
standards for 0008 cadmium, which
data EPA finds persuasive. Data are
also insufficient to reliably establish a
standard below the characteristic level
that Is generally achievable. Data were
submitted during the comment period.
however, Indicating that the wastes can
be treated to meet the characteristic
leveL Therefore, the Agency is
promulgating the characteri t1c level of
1.0 mg/I cadmium (as measured by the
TCLPJ as the treatment standard for
DOUG nonwastewaters and wastewaters,
EPA Is also establishing an additional -
treatability group for cadmium batteries
that are chamacterlstic hazardous
wastes. The standard for cadmium
batteries Is thermal recovery.- -
In the proposed rule. EPA proposed
regulation of cadmium In 0008 wastes at
treatment levels below the
characteristic leveL Two commenters
submitted performance data showing
various wastes treated by different
stabilization technologies (e.g., different
chemical reagents) and data supporting
that theproposed standards were
unachievable. The data, however,
showed that 0006 wastes can be treated
to meet freattnent levels at or about the
characteristic level of 1.0 mg/I for
cadmium (as measured by TCLP fOr’ -
nonwastewaters) once the proper
chemical reagents and waste to binder
rat losareused.Basedonthesedata,
EPA Is not finall,Ing the proposed
treatment standards for DOUG and
instead. is promulgating treatment
standards at 1.0 mg/i cadmium for both
wastewater and nonwastewater (as
measured by TCLP) forms of 0006.
Some facilities submitted comments
asserting that their wastes were unique
or simply unable to meet concentration
based treatment standards developed
by the Agency and requested that EPA
promulgate a method of treatment for
their DOUG wastes. These facilities failed
to Identify a method of treatment that
may meet BDAT criteria or to provide
adequate data that may enable EPA to
assess the validity of their claims. As a
result, these facilities’ claims of not even
being able to treat to the characteriBtic
levels must be addressed (If at all) by
requesting a treatability variance, as
provided in 40 CFR 268.4.
EPA proposed that cadmium-
containing batteries be a separate
subcategory of D006 wastes. See 54 FR
48438. listing several examples of
industries, manufacturing processes, or
commercial users that generate
cadmium batteries. The proposed rule
called for batteries containing leachable
cadmium above 1.0 mg/I (as measured
by EP Toxicity) to be treated for
cadmium recovery In thermal recovery
units as a prerequisite for land disposal.
Commenters fully supported the
Agency’s determination that thermal
recovery of cadmium represents BOAT
for DOUG wastes In the cadmium-
containing battery aubcategory. Their
comments pointed out that these wastes
Ore routinely treated In Industrial
furnaces such as smelters for the
recovery of cadmium and other v bIe
metals. -
Commenters asked the Agency To
clarify In Its final rule the status of
residues from cadmium battery
recycling operations. Cadmium is
typically recovered in pyrometaffic
operations or by smelting (typically as a
byproduct In zinc smelting operations).
Batteries can also be broken to extract
recoverable cadmium, which cadmium
is then sent to thermal recovery.
Residues from these various operations.
including air pollution control sludges,
thermal recovery furnace residues, and
residues from battery breaking, are no
longer In the cadmlum-contfi lnlng
battery subcategory. If they continue to
exhibit the characteristic for cadmium,
however, they would still be prohibited
wastes in the 0006 treatabllity group
and would have to be treated to meet
the standard for that treatabillty group
(La., treated so that they no longer
exhibit the characteristic). Residues
most likely to exhibit the characteristic
for cadmium are the residues from
battery breaking and air pollution
control residues from thermal recovery.
Comnzenters also questioned whether
small consumer-type nickel cadmium
rechargeable dry cell batteries were
covered by the prohibition. EPA Is-
making no determination in this rule
whether such batteries are hazardous
wastes. This Is a question of fact based
upon wheth4r such batteries exhibit the
EP characteristic when a representative
sample of the battery is tested. In

-------
Pe aI’ Registë* VoP. 55 ”N . 109 1 Fricfay ,June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
=83
addlftàn . many oftEese bdtterfe even
if hazardous would be houseboId
hazardoua wastes and-thue are excluded
from all subtitleCregufatlon(40CFR
281.4(b)(1) and 288i(b)).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0006
(Nonwastewatm5]
Regulated constitiesfl
M m

(mgrn
Cadmlum._ ..._....... . ._.___ ... . . ....._,
10
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0006
(Wastewaters]
Regulated ccnstftuent
M m
fo , any
s ln é th
(mgIQ
Cadmü t -
1.0
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0006
(C m .Con ig Battertesi
Thermal Recovery o( Metals er Inorgeritca (RTHRM)
as a Method o4 Treatment
e. Chromium
DO07—EP Tox for Chromium
UQ3Z—Chromic acid (HCrO 4 . calcium salt)
EPA Is promulgating a treatment
standard of 0.094 mg/i chromium (total),
as measured In the leachate generated
by use of the TCLP for nonwastewater
forms of 1J032. The wastewater
treatment standard for U032 Is 0.32 mgJl
chromium (total). For nonwastewater
and wastewater forms of 1)007. EPA Is
promulgating a treatment standards of’
5.0 mg/I chromium (total) (as measured
by TQP for nonwasI athrs). A
technical descriptIo lf 32-and 1 )007
can be found in the tZng, documents for
each waste.
Several commenter?tiblected to the
proposal to regulate total chromium-
rather than hexavalent chromium hi
D007 and U032. They believe that EPA
should only regulate hexavalent -
chromium since “EPA has recognized
that only the hexavalent chromium
presents a threat to humans and the
envfronment “ The Agency Is not
persuaded by these arguments,
maintaining that treatment of total
chromium will provide the moat
effective regulation of hexavalent forms.
These comments moreover improperly
characterize the Agncy aposftf6n.
which Is tong-established, and Is not
being reopened for consideration In this
rule. Under Subtitle C, EPA regulates on
a total chromium basis unless It Is
demonstrated that chromium Is
exclusively (or nearly exclusively)
trivalent, the chromium is generated
from a process that uses only trivalent
chromium, and that the waste Is
managed in non-oxidizing environments.
See 281.4(b)(8)(l) (1980). To date, EPA
is unaware of any generator submitting
a demonstration to EPA for processing.
EPA repeats that It I. not reopening this
long-settled issue In this proceeding.
Detailed discussions of the
development of treatment standards for
0007 and U032 can be found in the final
BDAT Background Document for these
wastes In the RCRA docket.
(1) DX ?. EPA proposed concentration-
based treatment standards for 1)007
wastewaters and nonwastewateys
based on a transfer of treatment
standards for 1(062. (K062 wastes are
spent pidde liquors generated by the
Iron and steel industry.) This was
because the chromium standards that
were promulgated for 1(062 wastes were
based on treatment of a mixture of 1(062
and other EP Toxicity wastewatere
(including 1)007 wastes). The treatment
process included hexavalent chromium
reduction (to the trivalent state)
followed by chemical precipitation,
settling, filtering, and dewatering of’
solids. As an alternative, the Agency
also proposed treatment standards for
1)00? wastes based on a transfer of
chromium standards promulgated for
P006 wastes (wastewater treatment
sludges from the treatment of
wastewaters from the electroplating
Industry). Treatment data-for P006
wastes were based on the performance
of conventional cernentitlous or
pozzolanic stabilization.
(I) Wastewaters, Commenters
Indicated that the proposed levels foi
1)007 wast waters based on the transfer
from 1(062 wastes (I.e., 0.32 mg/I) could’
not be achieved for the majority of their
0007 wastes. In support of their position,
they submitted ten specific -sets of data
on the treatment of various 1)007 wastes.
However, these data primarily Induded
treatment Information with an emphasis
on the nonwestewater residues and did
not Includi -very much data on thti
wastewater residuals. Data from one -
comménter supported their claim. buf
Indicated that the characteilstInlbvel for
chromium (i.e., 5.0 mg/I could generally
be achieved. While these wastewater
data were mostly above the proposed
0.32 mg I! standard for chromium, none -
of these data submitted could be used to
support an alternative wastewater
treatment standard that is below the
characteristic leveL Based on these data
and for reasons outlined in section 111.0.
of todays preamble, the Agency Is not
promulgating the proposed treatment
standard of 0.32 mg/I and. Instead, is
establishing the characteristic level (I.e.,
5.0 mg/I) as the treatment standard for
D007 wastewaters.
(Ii) Nonwastewaters. Except for 0007
refractory bricks (see discussion below),
the majority of the comnienters believed
that the 0.094 mg/I TCLP standard based
on a transfer from 1(062 wastes could
not be achieved. However, the
alternative standards proposed for D007
nonwastewaters (I.e., 5.2 mg/i TCLP
based on the transfer from P006 and
capping the standard at the 5.0 mg/i
characteristic level) could be achieved
on a routine basis. In support of their
position, they submitted ten specific sets
of data on the treatment of various 0007
wastes. The Agency examined the
quality and completeness of these data
for the nonwastewater residues.
The Agency determined tha eight of
the ten data sets could not st port the
development treatment stan ds due to
a significant lack of informa on:
Influent concentrations, waste source
descriptions, binder/waste ratios,
treatment operating/design information,
the existence of a pretreatment step
(hexavalent chromium reduction), and/
or quality assurance and quality control
Information. The Agency also
determined that the other two data sets
also have some deficiencies in the
above criteria, but do represent slniilar
treatment trains used to establish the
chromium standards for 1(062 and P006.
The Agency emphasizes that none of
these ten data sets are as complete as
the data for either P006 or 1(062.
In considering the usefulness of the
two data sets that are more complete
than the others, the Agency examined
what treatment standards would have
been If they were derived from these
data. One data set (from Cyanokem)
would have resulted In a standard of
0.88 mg/I and another data set (using
only lOaf the more complete data points
from the HWTC) would have resulted In
a standard of 0.74 mg/I. (Note: Both are
based on TCLP analysis.)
However, the HWTC data contained
an addltfonal-32 Incomplete treatment
data points (no untreated TCLP
analyses), many of which could not
meet the 0.86 mg/I or the 0.74 mg/I
treatment standards. Assuming that
these previously rejected 32 data points
represent valid treatment, the Agency
decided that both the 0.86 w ag/I and the
0.74 mg/i standards calculated on just 20

-------
Federal Register / VoL 55 No. 1Oe/ Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Re ulatlons.
data points were not achievable on a
routine basis. The Agency found that it
was difficult to ascertain i per atmant
facility) the mixingratios of waste
volumes that were received, from each of
the different industries, Wh2I the data
indicated that some wastes contained
very high concentrations of chromium,
the lack of Information on mixing ratios
and feed rates made it difficult to assess
the true effectiveness of treatment (I.e.,
the Agency could not determine the
chromium concentration of the mixed
D007 wastes just prior to treatment)
The Agency points out that the data
from Cyanokem represented primarily
treatment of liquid wastes (some with
very high concentrations of chromium).
Some of the sludges generated from this
process did not require further treatment
(I.e., stabilization). This same situation
occurred with the process used to
establish the promulgated treatment
standards for 1(062 wastes, in that the
wastewater treatment process employed
for treating the combined 1(062/1)007
wastes was effective enough that the
treatment sludges were not
characteristic for chromium and did not
require any further stabilization. (Thus,
the derivation of the 0.094 mg/I
proposed standard for 1)007 wastes.)
While Cyanokem’s data clearly
indicated that the proposed 0.094 rag/I
could not be achieved and thus implying
that their combined 1)007 wastes were
more difficult to treat, their data did. not
represent wastes similar to those
represented by the HWFC data which
was comprised primarily of sludge
stabilization data.
The Agency then decided to examine
what the treatment standard would be
based on all of the data from Cyannkfim
and the HWTC (I.e.. using a1152 data
points, except for one from the }IVi1TC
data that the Agency believes to be an .
outlier). In doing so.it significantly
increased the number of data points and.
also represented a greater variety of
wastes from a greater cr 1on of
Industries. Despite all ofi ma.
Agency took a conserva* à roach
and assumed that prope ective --
treatment had occurred riU ’of the.
data.
The resultant standard using these
combined data was 4.3 mg/i based en
TCLP. While the combined data are
ter hniixi1y “weaW’ due to various.
deficiencies In BDAT lnfcrmatlc the.
combined two data sets do reflect the
treatment of a greater variety oiwastea..
The Agency cointemplated pro iu1gM1flg _
the 4.3 mgJI standard as an alternative
to the 51 .mgjI from F00& however.thIa.
level lean close to the.5.0 meJL.
characteristic level that the Agency does
not believe the s1gniflcAl t regulatory
disruptions and uncertainties inherent in
applying direct part 268 regulation to
subtitleD facilities Is warranted.
The Agency notes that the 5.2 mg/I
F006 standard was also generated by the
commercial treatment industry and that
further combination of the F000 data
with the commentars’ data would
probably result in a standard even
closer to the characteristic level of 54)
mg/I. As It Is. a measurement of 4.3mg/i
by the TCLP teat Is approximately 86%
of the 5.0 mg/I characteristic level and
within the analytical error that may be
expected for such an analysis.
As a result of these comments and
data. EPA I . withdrawing both of the
proposed treatment standards for DUO?
wastes (I.e., the transfer from F006 and
from K062). While the Agency
contemplated promulgating the 5.2mg/i
F006 standard, It La even closer to the
characteristic level than the 4.3 mg/I
calculated using the cominenters’ data.
The treatment standard pi ’nmulgiited
today, therefore. Is set at 5.0 mg/I
chromium (total) (as measured by
TCLP). While the majority of
commPnterg supported this approach
from a policy standpoint, the Agency Is
convinced, that the available data
submitted by them clearly Indicate the
validity ottha achlavability of this
standard.
(111)1)007 Refractory Bricks. Some
1)007 nonwastewatera are generated In
the form of refractory bricks containing
percent levels of hexavalent chromium.
The Agency has identified one facility
that La recovering chromium using a high.
temperature thermal recovery process.
The bricks are erushed and recyclad as
feedatock along with other raw
material. In-the manufacture of
refractory brlcksosmetal alloys.ThIs
recovery technology lscurrentl)L used.
for bricks that contain up to 20%
chromium but the facility believes the
technology can treat bricks containing
up to 40% chromium. However, the
facility also Indicated that there are
upper limits on. the amount of
phosphoruapresentlatha bricks that
would lower the quality of the producL
EPA has-determined that this thermal
recovery promsa Isan alternative. .- -
fro bit nt for some forms oLthese D007_
refractory bricks. }lowever the Agency
Is currently uncertain to what extanithis..
thermaL recovery technology La..
demonstrated for all of the various types -
of refractory bricks cwzezitly being ised.,
dlspowl - Thus, the Agency tenet.....
eatahIi 1t1r gblgb tempezet thar,,t*l -
recovery as a treatment standard..for
these. D007 waate...but lsnot.predudadi
from doingee in the futurs..Ai the Ba .
time. farilitiA9 are not precluded from
using this technology for these types of
wastes.
Some commenters submitted data on
the stabilization of these spent
refractory bricks. These data are one of
the seven data sets rejected by the
Agency for reasons outlined In section
m.A.2.(e)(1) above. These data consist
of analysis on two TCLP extracts of
crushed refractory brick that were
subjected to two different stabilization
technologies. One technology utilized
cement as a stabilization reagent and
achieved a treated TCLP level for
chromium of 70 mg/I. The other
technology was a glassification process
that achieved a treated TCI.P level for
chromium of 110 mg/I. While these
performance data are Incomplete, they
appear to Indicate that chromium bricks
could be more difficult to treat than the
other chromium containing wastes
tested by EPA (K062 or F006) or, more
likely, that stabilization of chromium
bricks may need to be preceded bya
hexavalent chromium reduction st p.
Congress In fact contemplated thaR
hexavalent chromium would be riced
to the maximum extent possible l 6re
prohibited wastes are land dlspoéëL
Statement of Senator Chaffee, 130 Cong.
Rec. S 9178 (July 25, 1984). EPA thus
does not view these data as representing
BDAT, nor as minimi,{ng threats to
human health and the environment
See also preceding section
IILA.3.(a)(2) discussing treatment
standards for Inorganic solids debris
(including refractory bricks) and the two
year national capacity variance granted
for these wastes.
(2) I 2 The treatment standards
promulgated today for U092 are
transferred from the treatment of 1(062
wastewaters and nonwastewuters. EPA
believes that 1(062 wastes are more
difficult to treat than 11002 wastes. In
that 11032 wastes should contain lower
concentrations of potentially Interfering
metals than 1(062 wastes and should
primarily contain only one specific
chromium compound (Le., the-calcium
salt of chromic acid). Because of this,
EPA sees no tedmical bar to
transferring data to establish treatment
standards for U 1fl2 wastewateri and

-------
Federal Regfste*’ / - VoIc 55, No. 106 ‘ 1 FrIday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANOAROS FOR 0007
ens
Regulated const fl
:
U
,ww
8 e19 Jab

cPirolT*nn(TOtaI) . . .______
50
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR D007
(Wastewstevsl
Regulated constituent
M
l any

(mgIl)
chroi agn cr0150
5.0
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR U032
(Nonwastewaters)
-
Regulated corisbtuer,t
M
any
slnQle b
TcLP rn
cttronwim ffotafl
0094
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 11032
(Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maxvnurn
for any

1 5t
,—
(mgrn
crsOrTlsJli (Total)
032
f. Lead
0008—EP toxic for lead.
Pilo—Tetruethyl lead.
11144—Leed acetate.
U145—Lead phosphats..,
U148—Lead aubacetat
K089—Emiseion contrtl ’dtsiQsludge from -
secondary lead
K100—.Waste Ieacb fto from acid
leaching of
from secondary lead smelting.
(1) DCV8 Wastes. The Agency. as one
alternative, proposed trestment
standards below the characteristic
levels for nonwastewaters and
wastewaters as 0.51 mg/i TCLP and 0.04
mg/I. respectively. The Agency also
proposed an option of capping the
treatment standards for D008 at the
characteristic level. Additional data and
comments were received that Indicated
that the proposed levers of 0.51 mg/I
TCLP and 0.04 mg/I were unachievable
for many 0008 wastes on a routine
basis. After detailed analysis of the
available data, EPA concludes that
treatment to 5.0 mg/l EP best represents
the achievable treatment standard for
the entire spectrum of 0008
nonwastewaters. In addition, EPA Is
establishing the treatment standard for
wastewaters at the cbaracterlstc level
for the reasons stated in section l]LD of
the preamble.
(a) Nonwaatewaters. The Agency
proposed a cut-off concentration of 2.5%
total lead as a means of distinguishing
between those essentially inorganic
nonwastewaters containing recyclable
levels of lead and those which can be
effectively stabilized. Consequently, the
Agency proposed two tr’eatability
groups for lead based on the 2.5% cutoff
as the Low and High Lead Subcategory.
The Agency solicited comments on the
use of the cutoff level and whether the
2.5% total lead gives an accurate
description of lead that can be recycled
from 0008 noawastewaters. Many
commentere requested that the Agency
not promulgate the cutoff leveL In fact,
many commenters suggested that It Is
not economically feasibte to recycle—
lead from wastes with less than 25%
lead. Miny cominenters (inlcudlng those
from secondary lead industry itsel1 afso
stated that lead concentrations are not
the sole measure of recyclabllit3r The
commentera presented data that
indicates that 0008 npnwastewaters
with greater than 2.5% total lead can
often be stabilized. Therefore, the
Agency has decided not to promulgate
the cutoff levels and has decided not to
adopt proposed high and low lead -
treatability groups fbr 0008
nonwastewaters and Instead to
promulgate generically applicable
treatment standards.
In addition, the Agency proposed and
solicited comments on three options for
the development of treatment standards
for 0008 nonwastewatere. The first
option was td develop a numerical’.-
treatment standard for those 1)008
nonwastewatera that can be stabilized.
Consequently, the Agency proposed a
numerical treatment standard of 0.51
mg/i fQr leachable lead based on a
transfer of the performance of
stabilization for F000 wastes. The
second option wa to specify Thermal
Recovöry as a method of treatment as -
the treatment standard for 0008
nonWastewaters where the lead could
be recovered. The third option was to
limit the treatment standard for 0008
nonwastewaters to the characteristic
- level. - -
During the comment period 4 the
Agency received 0008 nonwastewater
data from various sources. Most of the
data came from stabilixing specific 0008
nonwastewaters. Some of the data were
from the foundry industry, secondary
lead smelters, the glass Industry, and
commercial treaters of 0008
nonwastewaters. The majority of the
data received by the Agency did not
have the proper QA/QC, corresponding
Influent and effluent data, and design
and operating parameters, so the
Agency Is hesitant to use the data In
developing treatment standards. The
Agency, nevertheless, evaluated all of
the data to assess the range of waste
variability and what standard could
typically be achieved.
Stabilization data was submitted by
the foundry industries by Wheland
Foundry and the American Foundrymen.
The untreated lead concentration ranged
up to 88mg/I leachable using the EP
toxicity test An analysis of the data
indicates that the performance of the
treatment system could achieve
leachable levels of lead lower than the
characteristic leveL In fact, the highest
leachable concentration of lead Is 1.4
mg/k Although these data shljwed that
the leachable concentration ii lead was
below the characteristic lev l jhe
leachable level for cadmium was higher
than the characteristic level. These data
clearly ohow that the other metals in the
wastes could affect the performance of
stabilization for this waste. Put another
way, this means (assuming proper
treatment performance) that the
performance of the treatment system
could achieve concentration levels
below the characteristic level for lead
but levels higher than the characteristic
level for cadmium.
Data was submitted by two glass
manufactures, Vision Ease and Ciby-
Geigy Corporation, Vision Ease
submitted treatment data for
stabilization of ground glass particles,
wastewater treatment sludges, and
polishing and grinding dust. The type of
binder used was hydrated lime and
sodium monophosphate. The commenter
indicated that these untreated wastes
contained total lead concentrations
greater than 2.5% and leached higher
than the characteristic level: however.
no actual Influent concentrations were
submitted. The commenter also did not
submit QA/QC data. If the Agency
calculated a treatment standard using
the stabilized data, the standard would
be the characteristic level of 5.0mg/i
measured by the EP test.
Clby-Celgy submitted treatment data
for waste produced In the manufacture
of glass enamels. These wastes were
produced from equipment and container
washing during the manufacturing

-------
Federal Register / VoL 56. N 1O& I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
process. These wiuihbig were treated by
a wastewates treatment sy. .tbat
generated a sludge tlm* exhibited the
characteristic of toxicity foriëad The
conimenter submitted two ti,ruf data.
The first set of data was treatment of a
25.6% lead oxide sludge by stabilizing
with clays, flints, and calcium chloride
and then heating the waste toa
maximum temperature of 1850 degrees
Fahrenheit to produce a ceramic
material. This ceramic material leached
lead concentration ranging from 0.2 to
0.4 ppm as measured by the EP test. if
the Agency calculated a treatment
standard for this waste, the treatment
standard would be 0.89 rag/I measured
by the EP test. For this data set, there
was no untreated leachable
concentrations of lead, therefore the
ARency cannot determine whether the
waste was hazardous before treatment
The second data set contained lead
oxideconcentration ranging from 13% to
75%. The waste was mixed with borax
and then heated to a maximum
temperature of 1950 degrees Fahrenheit
This ceramic material leached lead at
levels ranging from 02-40 ppm measued
by the EP test. Of the 11 data points that
were collected by the commenter, 4 of
the 11 would fail the EP test. The
Agency did not use these data to
calculate a treatment standard.
however, because each used different
binder ratios. These two data seta from
glass manufacturers clearly show the
diversity of the waste and a difference
in treatable levels. In some cases
stabilization can reduce leachalnilty of
lead at. or somewhat below, the
characteristic leveL
The Agency received data from the
Secondary Lead Smelters Association
(SLSA) on the treatment of slag by
stabilization. The wastes contained total
concentrations of up to 10 percent lead.
The types of binders that were used
were portland cement. polymers, and
silicates. The commenter- bi itted
approximately 110 data p Iom two
different plants. The bln toãaste
ratios ranged from I to 2-1Ot 15 In
the data submission. therd- au no QAI
QC data and no corresponding Influent’
leachable lead concentration. One data
set was based on use of portland cement
as a stabilizing agent with a binder to
waste ratio ranging from I to 5, to 1 to
10. The Agency calculated a treatment
standard of 2.47 mg/I was measured by
the TCLP from these data. The other
data set was based on the use of
polymers and silicates as stabilizIng
agents with binder to waste ratio
ranging from 1 to5, to 4 tolD. There
were approximately 94 data points, and
of these data points, one was above the
characteristic level for Lead. The Agency
used these data to calculate a treatment
standard of 4.82 mg/I as measured by
the TCLP.
The Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council (HWTC) submitted eight data
sets for the treatment of D000
nonwastewaters. There was no QA/QC
and Influent leachable concentration of
lead. The data set with the highest
concentration of total lead was a zinc
ammonium chloride solid from the
manufacture of containers. This waste
had a total lead concentration of 49,000
ppm. This waste was stabilized to a
leachable level of lead ranging from 6.47
to 8.7 ppm as measured by the TCI2.
This stabilized waste represented a
volume Increase ratio ranging from 1.8 to
2.5.
The data Bet with the next highest
total lead concentration was generated
from an incinerator fly ash from the
aerospace industry that contained 610
ppm of total Lead. Based on the data
provided in the comments, this waste
would not be considered
characteristically hazardous due to the
fact that the untreated teachable Level
for lead is 0.0749 ppm. This waste was
treated by stabilizing with a binder to
waste ratio ranging from 0.89 to 2.8. The
treated leachabLe levels ranged from 0.1
to Z’ ppm as measured by the TCLP.
The third highest data set represented
data from three soils contaminated with
lead and petroleum, with concentrations
ranging from 29 to 501 ppm total lead.
This waste contained total lead
concentration of 29 ppm, and had a
corresponding untreated leachable level
of 8.01 ppm as measured by the TCLP,
which is above the characteristic level.
These soils resulted In the best
treatment. with levels ranging from .068
to 0.257 ppm as measured by the TCI.P.
This represented a volume Increase-
ranging from 1.8 to 3.4.
The HWI’ C provided three other data
sets representing waste generated as
water filtrate and sludge born the
manufa ctnre of conduit, as anuuonium
hydroxide sludge from electroplating.
and as eump sludge from the
recondittcni,ng of metal drums. These
wastes had total lead concentrations
ranging from 234 to 480 ppm. There was
no untreated TCLP data cosresponding
to the total lend levels. The stabilized -
wastes ranged hi concentration from .00
to .10 ppm. as measured by the TCLP.
The binder to waste ratio ranged from
1.6 to 8.5.
Of theoedsta. thewastowi*hthe
highest total lead concentration show.
treatment levels barely above the
characteristic level of 6 -ppm. These data
show that a high concentration of lead
(approximately 5%) could barely be
stabilized to the characteristic level
(although the data are so sparse that no
hard conclusions are possible). These
data also show that most of the
untreated wastes dismissed In the
HWTC comments did not exhibit a
characteristic before stabilization. Also,
these data highlight the diversity of D008
nonwastewaters that can be treated.
The HWTC commented on data
submitted to EPA from the Secondary
Lead Smelters Association (SLSA). The
HWTC concluded that the treatment
data support concentrations of lead
below the characteristic level. The
HWTC also stated that these data
support the proposed BDAT treatment
standard of 0.51 mg/I. or at least
achieving levels below the characteristic
level. The l-L’WTC points out that agents
such as fly ash, lime, and sulfide would
provide for a higher degree of
stabilization than just adding portland
cement
The Agency does not agree with the
HWTC that these data support
treatment levels significantly belo ithe
characteristic level. The data provk d
by SLSA clearly show that two treI d
data points of 87 were above the
characteristic leveL The Agency used
the data to calculate a treatment
standard of 4.82 mg/I. very close to the
5.0 mg/I characteristic level. In addition.
the Agency does not agree with HWTC
that other stabilizing agents may
provide a higher degree of stabilization.
At the least. the proposition is not self-
evident. The data provided by SLSA
show treatment by three types of
binders and a significant range of binder
to waste ratios. Using the highest binder
to waste ratio for these wastes, the
treated level Is higher than the
characteristic leveL (In addition, there
are issues of whether stabilization of
slag is appropriate treatment See
discussion of inorganic debris In
preamble section lll.A.1.a.(2).)
The Agency does not believe that the
data It received In response to the
proposed rule represent the entire
spectrum of characteristic Lead
nonwastewatars. Also, these data do not
support the assumption that
characteristic lead noawastewaters can
typically be treated to revels
significantly less-than the EP-
characteristic level. The limited amount
of data does not reflect the full measure
of waste-variabilIty Inherent In a
characteristic waste, particularly
variability of matrices and lead -
- co cenfra8ons. In addition, the
commenters do not address how
treatability of other metals could be
affected by opHm1 d lead treatment,

-------
Federal Re eT / VoL 55 No. 106 I Fñday , June 1, 1990 /- Rules and Regulations
nor has EPA had the time to address this
issue. With the trea nt of the Vision
Ease waste to 5.0mg/tie measured by
the HP and the SLSA data demonstrating
treatment to 4.82 mg/I as measured by
the TCLP, and data points above the
characteristic level submitted by the
waste treatment industry, the Agency is
adopting for nonwastewater forms of
D008 wastes, the treatment standard
equal to 5.1) mg/I as measured by the HP
procedure. The Agency Is adopting this
approach to address the range of
variability Inherent In the 0008 wastes.
Because a facility may generate a
waste containing lead and other metals,
the TCLP (which is required for most
other metals) may be used to measure
compliance with this standard. EPA Is
not basing the standard for0008on the
TCLP, however, because that protocol Is
morn a ress1ve for lead than the HP.
The Agency is not sure that levels of 5.0
mg/I as measured by the TCLP are
typically achievable. The TCLP can be
used to demonstrate compliance.
However If the analysis shows that the
waste leaches below 5.0 mg/I for lead as
measured by the TCLP, then the famlity
has complied with the standard. If the
waste leaches above 5.0 mg/i for lead.
then the facility may analyze the sample
using the EP procedure. (It should be
noted, however, that if a waste exhibits
the amended toxicity characterIstic, ft
must stili be managed in a Subtitle C
facility even If ft is not prohibited from
land disposal).
(b) Wastewaterg. In the November V ,
1989, proposed rule, the Agency
proposed a treatment standard for D008
wastewaters of ftOt mg/I based on a
transfer of the performance of’
precipitation with lime and sulfide,
filtration, and settling forKOO2
wastewaters. In addition, the Agency
solicited comments on the approach d-
specifying a prec3pltant as a method of
treatment for DOOa wastewaters.
Comments were solicited on whethes-
the Agency should e treatment
standards based tápsevided from-
the pnmary and sei 4i r iead
smelters industries aé lii of the
Agency’s effluent lim fetioa-guIde1ines -
program. -
Many commenters questioned the
Agency’s technical capabilities of the
transfer of the perfonnance of the
treatment system for K002 wastes as
compared to D008 wastewaters. In
particular, the commentere pointed out
that the untreated 1 (082 wastewaters
had low concentration of lead compared
to the D008 wastes as actually -
generated. However, commenters
submitted additional data indicating
that although the 0.04 mg/i for lead was
unachievable, precipitation and.
filtration treatment could achieve
concentrations of lead in the effluent
lower than the characteristic leveL
In particular, the Agency received
treatment data for 0008 wastewaters
from three sources. One set of data
submitted to the Agency was from the
Battery Council.. Inc ( DCI). These data
represented a small portion of the data
that was collected In the effhrent
limitations guidelines program for the
battery and nonferrous metals point
source category. BCI’s contention was
that if the Agency decides to develop
treatment standards lower than the
characteristic level for 0008
wastewaters, then the Agency should
base the levels on the effluent guidelines
for the battery and nonferrous metals
categories. The Battery Council
submitted treatment data using the
following treatment technologies: lime
settling, lime settling and filtration, and
carbonate prec1 1tat1on, settlin& and
filtration. This data showed Influent
concentration levels ranging up to 300
ppm. The data showed a substantial
reduction of tead and other metals from
the treatment system. BC! submitted
corresponding quality assurancelquality
control (QA/QC) information for the
data. If the Agency uses the data from
the treatment system. & calculated -
treatment standard would be roughly 0.8
mg/L an order of magnitude lower than
the characteristic level.
In addition, the Agency received 1)008
wastewater data fromTridil -
Environmental Services, a treater of
1)008 and other -dmracteristically
hazardous waatewaters.. HoweveL this
waste was commingled with other waste
before treistinant,thereby blending
down each that the concentration of
lead would beiowerthanwhatwas -
actually reported.. Data was submitted.
on the treatmeatof lead by precipitation
with phosphate, folk ed by settling.
and filtration. The concentration of lead
in the influent before blending down
ranged up to 50,000 ppm. If the Agency
used all of the beatment date In artier to
calculate a treatment standard, the-
performance of the treatment system
Indicates that a calculated treatment
standard Is 0.2 mg/L whichis more than
an order of magnitude lower than the
characteristic leveL The Agency would
hesitate to use the data in developing
treatment standards for 0008
wastewatera due to the tack of QAIQC
data and corresponding influent and -
effluent data. Because of the initial
concentration of lead and’
concentrations of other dissolved metal.
the Agency believes that these wastes
represent the varlabslity associated with
the characteristic wastes.
Also, the Agency received treatment
data from a foundry facility treating
D008 wastewater. The data represents
treated wastewaters by preci ntatIon
with high magnesium lime and filtration.
The Teed concentration In the untreated
wastewater ranged tip to 278 mg/i. If the
Agency used all of the treatment data,
the calculated treatment standard 1,0.4
mg/I, which Is an order of magnitude
lower than the characteristic level. For
this data, the Agency evaluated the QA/
QC data, the design and operating
parameters, and corresponding influent
concentrations.
Based on the evaluation of all of the
wastewaters data received from
comments, as well as-the various Clean
Water Act, effluent limitation guidelines
and pretreatment standards regulating
lead (for example, the Combined Metals
Data Base and regulations for primary
lead, secondary lead and battery
manufactunngJ, the Agency concludes
that well designed and well operated
treatment systems can achievetotal
concentrations of lead lower n the
characteristic leveL As exp1ain d in
Section m.D. however, EPA has’
determined not to require hazardous
wastewaters to be treated to levels less
than the characteristic level in order to
avoid significant and potentially
environmentally counterproductive
disruptions to the NPDFSJpretreatment
and LYIC programs.
in addition, many commenters
suggested that the Agency not specify a
precipitant as a method of treatment for
D008 waatewaters. Many coinmentere
suggest that particular precipitant, may
perform better depending on the
characteristics of the waste. For
example. ThcfI Environmental points
out that phosphate is a superior
precipitant than carbonate or sulfate
because of the low solubility of lead
phosphate. The Agency agrees with the.
commenters and Is not promulgating a
precipitant as a method of treatment. In
fact, the Agency Is promulgating the
treatment standard-at the characteristic
level, thereby treaters and generators of
1)008 wastewaters may select any
precipitant In order to meet the
characteristic level.
(c) Lead Acid Batteries. For lead acid -
batteries, the Agency [ a promulgating a
standard of “Thermal recovery of lead
in secondary lead smelters (RELEADr’.
(See 268.42 Table 1 In today’s rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code In the parentheses.)
The Agency believes that virtually all of

-------
22568
Federal Resister / Vol.55 , No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the treaters of lead acid batteries are
using a recovery plOCe88z, - -
Incidentally, the Agencyliolee that
lead acid batteries themselves, when
stored, are not considered-to be land
disposed because the battery Is
considered to be a container (see 40 CFR
284.314(d)(3)). Battery storage, however.
typically is subject to the subpart J
storage standards (relating to secure
storage, secondary containment In some
instances, and other requirements). See
subpart C of part 266.
Other coinmenters questioned
whether the slag or matte from recovery
processes would need further treatment
and whether these wastes should be
placed in monofills. The residuals from
the recovery process are a new
treatability group (Le. the residues are
not lead acid batteries) and therefore
their status as prohibited or
nonprohibited is determined at the point
the residues are generated. Such
residues would thus only be prohibited
and therefore require further treatment
if they exhibit a characteristic. See
discussion of inorganic debris in section
lll.A.3.a of today’s rule.
(2) P710. U144. U145, and U146
Wastes. The Agency proposed
wastewater treatment standards for
lead for P110, U144, U145, U146 based on
a transfer of the performance of
precipitation with lime and sulfide,
filtration, and settling for 1(062
wastewaters. While these U and P codes
represent pnmarily organo-lead
compounds and one may consider that
the transfer from an inorganic lead to an
organic lead is not feasible, no
comments were received indicating the
lack of achievability. The Agency’s
judgment is that the standard is — -
technically feasible. Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating a standards for
lead in P110, U144. U145. U148
wastewaters of 0.04 mg/l as proposed.
The Agency has determined that some
nonwastewater forms of lead wastes
including P110. U144. U1 $some.
D008 wastes, would nee1 _b#
incinerated prior to stabiI ti p due to
the presence of high conc lt ona of
organics in order to achle’ ’a treatment
standard based on stabilization. This Is
prunarily because the organics typically
interfere with conventional stabilization
processes (particularly at concentrations
exceeding 1% TOC). The Agency has
data on the incineration on organic
wastes containing up to 1,000 mg/kg
lead (such as 1(087 wastes) followed by
stabilization of the ash. These data
indicate that the proposed standard (I.e.
0.51 mg/I leachable lead) can be
achieved for wastes that also contain
significant concentrations of organics.
provided the organics are destroyed by
pretreatment. Lead acetate (1J144) and
lead subacetate (U146) are anticipated
to be less difficult (or at least of similar
difficulty) to treat than tetraethyl lead.
The Agency Is therefore promulgating
the 0.04 mg/I standard for organo-lead
compounds. P110. U144. and U146.
Additionally, the Agency received no
comments on the feasibility of the
transfer of lead in 1(062 wastewaters to
lead phosphate U145. Therefore, the
Agency will promulgate as proposed.
(3) K(h59 . In today’s rule, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
1(069 nonwastewaters in the Calcium
Sulfate Subcategory, and for wastewater
forms of K069. In addition, the Agency Is
revoking the no land disposal based on
recycling as a treatment standard for the
Non Calcium Sulfate Subcategory for
1(069 nonwastewaters and is
promulgating “Thermal Recovery of
Lead in Secondary Lead Smelters
(RLEAD)”. See § 288.42 Table I in
today’s rule for a detailed description of
the technology standard referred to by
the five letter technology code in the
parentheses.
For 1(069 wastewalers, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
cadmium and lead. For cadmium, the
treatment standard is based on the
performance of chemical precipitation
with lime and sulfide and sludge
dewatering for K062 wastes. For lead.
the treatment standard is based on the
performance of chemical precipitation
with magnesium hydroxide followed by
- clarification and sludge dewatering for
DOO8 wastewaters. This treatment data
was submitted as part of the public
comment period. The Agency believes
that these wastewaters better represent
a 1(069 wastewater due to the
concentration of lead (i.e. up to 300
ppm). The Agency believes that the
performance of both technologies can
• achieve the regulated concentration due
to the fact that both precipitating agents
are hydroxides.
BOAT for K069 nonwastewaters in the
Calcium. Sulfate Subcategory is
stabilization. The Agency believes that
there is only one generator of this waste
and that this waste cannot be directly
recycled to recover lead. The waste
characterization data from the one
generator indicated that this waste
contains metal constituents such as
cadmium and lead. The metal
concentrations range up to 3300 ppm.
For the K069 nonwastewaters in the
Calcium Sulfate Subcategory, the
Agency Is transferring the performance
of stabilization of 1(061 to 1(069
nonwastewaters. This Is a technically
feasible transfer because the 1(061 waste
is a more difficult waste to treat. In fact.
the lead concentrations In K061 waste
ranges up to 20,300 ppm thus, the
performance of the treatment system
can be legitimately transferred.
(4) KiCO. In today’s rule, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
wastewaters and nonwastewater forms
of K100 wastes as proposed. For
cadmium and total chromium in K100
wastewaters, treatment standards are
based on a transfer of the performance
of chromium reduction followed by lime
and sulfide precipitation, and
dewatering for 1(062 wastes. For lead in
K100 wastewaters, treatment standard
Is based on the performance of chemical
precipitation with magnesium hydroxide
followed by clarification and sludge
dewatering for D008 wastewaters. The
Agency believes that both technologies
can achieve the concentration of tI
regulated constituents due to the t
that both precipitating agents are,
hydroxides. For 1(100 nonwastewfft rs
treatment standards are based onthe
transfer of the performance of
stabilization for F006 wastes.
Treatment standards for 1(100 wastes
were originally scheduled to be
promulgated as part of the Third Third
rulemaking. However, a treatment
standard of “No Land Disposal Based on
No Generation” for 1(100
nonwastewaters was promulgated on
August 8, 1988 and subsequently revised
on May 2. 1989 (54 FR 18838) to be
applicable only to “Nonwastewater
forms of these wastes generated by the
process described In the listing
description and disposed after August
17. 1988. and not generated in the course
of treating wastewater forms of these
wastes (Based on No Generation). ‘ The
Agency received no comments on the
t eathient standards for K100 wastes;
therefore, the Agency is promulgating as
proposed.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0008
(Nonwastewat s1
Maxamjm
f • any
Regulated constituent
-
szn le grab
sample, EP
(mg/i)
Lead -
50

-------
Federal Regfoter / VoL 55, Mo. 100 / Friday , June 1, 1990/Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0008
ReguLated coiuthjed
M
t any

(mg/ 0
Lead
50
BOAT Tp .ei mi S1-ANo acs FOR 0008
(Lead And Battadesi
Thermal Iecovecy ( RLE.AD) ol Lead i seccrataiy teed
BOAT TREA1MEwr STANDARDS FOR P110,
U144, 11145, AND 11146
ewatera]
ReguLated con toent
M um
8 1=
(mg /I)
Load... -
0040
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P110,
11144,11145, AND 11146
(Ner81as t ewa t ersI
-
Regulated co ieat
M wn
fcrsiy
w e
T
Lead..._____________________
0.51
BOAT TREAm uff STANDARDS FOR K069
(Waswwatw J
Regulated cons i


Maneun tot
aiw o
P ’1 °
con o ei 5on
(mg/J
.
Cadimri’— -
1.8
051
Lead- -
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 1 (069
CALCIUM SULFATE SUBCATEGORY
(Nonwassewatersi
Re co 1
M n
lot

TcLP1 n)
.
Lead ._____________________
014
0.24
BOAT T s*ma r STANDARDS FOR 1(069
NON-CAiCtUM SULFATE SUECATEGORY
(Nonwastewatere. Rewaod From No Land Dapoeal3
Thermal tocoway of lead &i secondoy lead smelters
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR KiCO
(Wastawaters flovf ed Front No Land Ofaposafi
ReguLated consdtoer4
I idnium for
—
gab e,
on
(mg/a
C8dIT8JVTI_ — —
c fv omaiin(r o l)__.__..
Laad
I B
032
0.51
BOAT TR mtaNT S-rANo4aos FOR K100
(Non cwatot Rovbed Fror, No Land Otaposall
R c o r e t eeat
f o r
g!.
TCI.P (mg/I)
Cadmium....
ctvoimure (Toad)—
Lead________________
a e
5.2
0.51
• See 2 .42 Tat* I today’, rule tot a do.
tailed dea of Sie tedriclogy atendwd referred
to by the Bye letter te moLo t code m pereothesee.
g. Mercury
D009—EP toxic for m - .-u -y .
K071—Brine pw’thcatlon muds from the
m sry udI process In chionne
productiui where separately prepurifled
bnnelenotuoed .
KiOG—Wasiewater treatment sludgea from
the mucurj cell procesainchionna
production.
P065—Mercury fulminate.
P092—Phenyfinercury acetate.
U151—Mere iny.
EPA is today promulgating treatment
standards for D009 . K106, P065, P092,
and 11151. EPA has revised the proposed
regulatory approach for oo of these
wastes In response to comment EPA is
also withdrawing the proposed revisions
for KL)71 n.onwastewaters. These wastes
are deaxibed fully in the respectIve
Listing Background Documents..
(1) Review of BOAT/or
Nanwnstewukra , EPA iiieaatffipd .
thermal recovery p.o om. add
leaching. stabthzatian and incineration -
85 BDA for.murcusy WaeteSi
Crwamieeters qomtloned whether-
thermal proomsing Of 1 uz3 ’ should be
the basis ca hae, luswe basis) for the-
treutuuut standard. Use of thprinal -
oroceeai raises is. of eross .rnedia
transfer of mercury, as weLl as the
environmental benefit of thermal
processing over stabilization or land
disposaL Other comments questioned
the amenability of rtury sulfide
wastes to stabilization as well as EPA’s
proposed restrictions on co-disposal of
mercury wastes with alkaline wastes.
The stabilization comments and the co-
disposal issues are addressed in section
IiLA.3.a.
Multimedia issues raised by thermal
processing of mercury materials Involve
the potential transfer of mercury and
sulfur dioxide from the retortlng/
roasting chambers to downstream air
pollution control devices (APCD) and
potentially to environmental media (e.g.,
air to water). Specifically, commenters
felt that EPA had not properly
addressed the Issue of mercury air
emissions from retorting and urged EPA
to quantify mercury emissions prior to
determining whether roasting or
retorting represents BDAT for mercury
and sulfide wastes (i.e., K106).
The Agency acknowledges the
legitimacy of the commenters’ oncems,
which the Agency shares. Th gency
discussed the Issue of air con ts for
merciny retorting at 54 FR 48&l1. In
addition, the Agency provided
calculations in the administrative record
for the proposed rule of the potential
amounts of sulfur dioxide emissions to
the air that could result from the
retorting or roasting of meruury sulfide
wastes such as K106, based on available
performance data from a facility
thermally processing cinnabar ores. EPA
also included the document entitled,
“Review of National Emission
Standards (NESHAP3) for Mercury’
(EPA 450/3-84-OIL 1984) in the
proposed administrative record. In this
1984 document EPA provided
quantitatfve analysis for the potential of
mercury air emissions from several
industrial operations that Include the
thermal processing of cinnabar ores as
well as the retorting of mercury
containing wastes.
The available air emission
inforinetloir shows that both mercury
and sulfur dioxide emissions can be
effectively controlled by well designed
and well operated air pollution control
devices that allow for the recovery of
valuable mercury. Based on available
air emission lnformatIoiy ptrf wance
data from the thermal processing of
cinnabar ores, end performance data
from the retortIng/ToastIng of mer ,ur 3 r
wastes. EPA det 1 wI d that retortlng/
roasting repTe nt BOAT for mermny
wastes. EPA reaffirms this
detes ’minstloe In today’s ruls. In order to
ass that air emissions from m n.u -

-------
22570
are coritrulledadequat Jy, the Agency is
specifying as part of BDAT that the.
retorting unit either (a) be sub fact to the
mercury NESHAp (bJ be subject tea
BACT or LA standardfor mercury
imposed pursuant to a PSD permit or (c)
that it be subject to a state permit that
establishes emission limitations (within
the meaning of section 302 of the Clean
Air Act) for mercury. The Agency
believes that with such air emission
controls retorting is a treatment
technology that minimi,es threats to
human health and the environment and
so satisfies the requirements of section
3004(m). (Pending amendments to the
Clean Air Act may also resuit in
imposition of standards for these units.)
(The Agency’s authority to impose these
conditions on performance of a mercury
retorting device comes directly from Its
authority under section 3004(m) to
establish methods of treatment EPA is
indicating here that part of the
designated method includes operating
pursuant to standards that prevent
cross-media contamination. Such
8tandards are enforceable under RCRA
pursuant to the authority In section
3008(a).) In addition, as discusBed more
fully below, the Agency believes that
this technology is preferable to
stabilization.
Several commenters believe that the
treatment standards of roasting and
retorting are not needed for 1(106 wastes
that are generated as mercury sulfides.
According to the commenters, these
1(106 wastes contain mercury in one of
its less soluble forms. As a result, the
commenters argued that sulfide
stabilIzafton cludjng the sulfide
precipitation treatment that generates
the 1(100—should be considered a mode
of treatment under RCRA section
3004(m). The commenterg also believe
the migratory potential of mercury from
sulfide sludges to the air or water Is less
than what could result from retorting/
roasting.
EPA has evaluated thes ients
carefully but determined t r tment
standards for those mercus 4 e,
amenable to recovery sh aged
on recovery technologie& I1L e Is e
strong preference in the land disposal
restrictions legislation for treatment
standards to be based on recovery
where possible (e.g., S. Rep. No. 284 at
17). This preference is reinforced by the
overall goals of RCRA to encourage
waste mintmi tion and resource
recovery (e.g., RCRA section 1003(a)(8)).
The Agency further concludes that
compliance with the mercury NESHAP,
PSD BACr/LAER controls, or state
permitting requirements will ensure that
air emissions of mercury are controlled
so as to be protective of human health
and the environment Commenters also
raised the potential for fugitive air
emls8ions from mercury waste handling
operations preceding retorting. Since
retorters would normally require RCRA
storage permits, however, permit writers
are able to craft controls to adequately
control fugitive emissions using the
omnibus authority in RCRA section
3005(c)(3). (The Agency intends to issue
guidance to permit writers on this
matter.)
EPA has also considered the argument
that wastes from retorting will contain a
more leachable form of mercury than at
least the mercury sulfide wastes (such
as 1(106) being smelted In the unit.
Although this will be true In some cases,
as demonstrated in the record leachable
mercury in retorting wastes will still be
at low levels, and well below the
characteristic leveL More Important,
there will be less mercury to leach
because most mercury will be recovered
as product The Agency estimates,
based on data from the thermal
processing of cinnabar ores and the
retorting/roasting of a mixture of 1(071
and 1(106 wastes, that mercury retorting
can recover 98-09% of mercury
contained In the feed materiaL The
overall potential of disposed mercury to
be released to the environment will thus
be significantly reduced. Retortlng/
roasting also achieves volumetric waste
minimization compared to stabilization,
because it reduces the overall volume of
waste to be disposed, unlike
stabilization which increases overall
volume. The Agency thus concludes that
retortlnglroaatjng Is the appropriate
method of treatment for recoverable
mercury wastes. As explained below,
however, the Agency has modified its
proposed approach with respect to
which mercury wastes are recoverable,
(2) Revisions to the Cut-Off Level for
Mercury Subcategories. EPA proposed a
cut-off level of 16 mg/kg of total mercury
in a hazardous waste to delineate two
subcategorie, of mercury wastes (54 FR
48441—42), high and low, with high
mercury wastes being required to meet a
standard based on recovery. The 16 mg I
kg cut-off level was calculated from two
sets of retorting/roasting data collected
by EPA. One data set represents the
retorting/roasting of mercury chlorlde/
mercury sulfide wastes (mixture of 1(071
and K106) The other data set represents
the thermal processing of cinnabar ores
which the Agency believe, can simulate
the retorting/roasting of mercury sulfide
sludges (La,, KIQe wastes) because
wastewatep treatment sludges (including
sulfide sludges) are routinely burned In
multiple hearth furnaces, the same (or
similar) type of furnace that processes
cinnabar ores. EPA relied on the 1(071/
1(106 treatment residual data, on the
analytical data of cinnabar ore thermal
recovery, and on the performance data
from the thermal processing of cinnabar
ores for the purpose of calculating the 18
mg/kg cut-off leveL The level reflected
the Agency’s view of mercury levels
remaining after properly conducted
recovery, and assumed that any higher
level Is recoverable. The majority of the
commenters have submitted comments
and data urging EPA to reconsider the
proposed cut off level of 16mg/kg in the
retorting residual use at proposal to
define the two subcategories of mercury
wastes,
The Chlorine institute (CI) and
OxyChem have submitted performance
data based on the retorting/roaatmg of
mercury wastes. The Chlorine Institute’s
performance data consists of bench- and
pilot-scale test studies for the roasting of
1(106 having mercury sulfide species.
OxyChem performance data consist of
full-scale retorting tests of 1(106 and
D009 wastes. None of OxyChem’s ioo
and D009 wastes had mercury sul
spedes.
The Chlorine Institute’s data s iow
that mercury sulfide sludges (1(106
wastes) differ from cinnabar ores with
regard to the concentration of chloride
salts. The Chlorine Institute believes
that the high concentrations of chloride
salts in 1(106 are likely to interfere with
the overall performance of retorting/
roasting operations. As explained in
detail In the BDAT and Response to
Comments Background Documents,
however, EPA believes these chloride
salts can be effectively controlled by a
pretreatment step prior to retorting/
roasting along with the optimized.
operation of the retorting/roasting
process.
The Chlorine Institute also believes
that their roasting data show that higher
concentrations of residual mercury,1n
the order of 160mg/kg mercury, may be
left behind in the residues from
retorting/roasting operations. OxyChem
likewise believes that their performance
data show that lower concentrations of
residual mercury cannot routinely be
achieved and thus should not be
required for mercury wastes below 260
mg/kg
Another co euter ’poiiited out more
fundamentally that EPA should base the
cut-off level for “Mercury
Subcategories” not on treated residuals
from the retortlng/roastmg operations
but rather on mercury concentrations in
the waste before retorting. In other
words, the determination of what is
recoverable should not be determined
Federal Register /,VoL 55, No. 100 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
225fl
solely by levels reflecting mercury
treatment The comnienter also believes
that basing the cut-off level of “High
Mercury Subcategory” m itTeated
mercury concentrations will better
reflect similar BDAT determinations
EPA had made for other recoverable
wastes such as 1(061. EPA s data for
untreated mercury wastes being
retorted/roasted domestically show
minimum concentrations of mercury up
to 255 mg/kg (for a mixture of 1(106 and
1(071 wastes).
Based on these comments, EPA is
revising the proposed cut-off level from
the proposed 16 mg/kg to 260 mg/kg
(rounded to two significant figures).
Although the new cut-off level Is based
on the available data for low mercury
concentrations of untreated mercury
wastes being retorted/roasted. EPA
points out that this new cut-off level of
280 mg/kg shuld not be deemed as a
relaxation of the standard or treatability
group. Instead, the new cut-off level
takes into account consistency In
identifying treatabllity groups and the
variability inherent to mercury sulfide
wastes, as documented by EPA’s
thermal processing data of cinnabar
ores and the fact that available data on
these low levels of recoverable mercury
fully support that well-designed and -
operated thermal recovery processes
allow routine recovery of valuable
mercury.
For the purpose of this rule, mercury
nonwastewatere with mercury
concentrations equal to or above 2SOmg/
kg mercury belong to the High Mercury
Subcategory. Mercury nonwastewater
with mercury concentrations below the
260mg/kg mercury belong to the Low
Mercury Subcategory.
(3) .Standards for All Wastowaters.
EPA Is promulgating a treatment
standard of 0.030 mg/l mercury for 1(106,
P065, and P092. ThIs treatment standard
is based on the precipitation of mercury
from wastewaters identified as 1(071
from the chior-alkali industry using
sulfide as the precipitant.
EPA acknowledgeeibatihere may be
certain wastewaters t1iàt iay require
combinations of other wastewater
treatment technologies which may
include either additional treatment (for
the destruction or removal of organics)
or additional treatment by sulfide
precipitation and filtration for the
purpose of meeting today’s treatment
standards. The use of other wastewater
treatment technologies are not
precluded by this rule. This
determination seems to be supported by
the concurrence of other commenters
either with the proposed standards or
with EPA’s determination of BOAT for
mercury wastewaters.
Some commentera objected to EPA’s
rationale to transfer the K071
performance data to K10 P065. P692.
U151, and 1)009 wastewaters. Among
these commentere, one believes the
proposed treatment standards are based
on performance data that may not take
into account other forms of mercury
constituents which can be less
amenable to sulfide treatment. However,
this commenter submitted no specific
data and thus failed to demonstrate that
combinations of other wastewater
technologies are unable to meet the
standards.
Other commenters concurring with
EPA’s identification of BDAT believe
EPA should base the treatment
standards on the Office of Water (OW)
performance data supporting the
treatment standards for multi-source
leachate. These commenters believe the
OW-performance data represent the
treatment of a more diverse universe of
1(071 wastewater than the one tested by
EPA. These alternative performance
data result En a treatment standard of
0.11 mg/I mercury.
The multi-source leachate treatment
performance data represent the
treatment provided by sulfide chemical
precipitation to different characteristic
wastewatera that may include 1(071
wastewatere. EPA believes that the data
developed from treating the specific
mercury wastes Es preferable to a
transf er of performance data. Moreover,
the commentera advocating the transfer
submitted no data and so failed to
demonstrate unachlevability of the
standards or whether their wastes are
significantly different from the treated
wastewaters supporting the proposed
standards. The Agency Is not convinced
by these comments and thus. Is
promulgating treatment standards for
1(106, P065. P092, and U151 as proposed.
For 1)009 wastewaters, EPA proposed
two regulatory options. One option was
to transfer 1(071’s performance -
treatment data and require a level of
treatment below the 0009 characteristic
leveL The other option was to set a
treatment level at the characteristic
leveL For reasons discussed In preamble
section 1110., EPA Is promulgating
treatment standards at the characteristic
level of 0.20 mg/l mercury for D009
wastewaters as measured by TCIP.
(4) Slnndarris for Kl(h9 and U151
Non waste waters, EPA Is promulgating
treatment standards for these two
wastes as proposed (54 FR 48441). The
threshold for the High and Low Mercury
Subcategories Is revised, however, as
explained in section (2) above.
High Mercury Subcategory 1(106 and
U151 wastes are required to be treated
by retorting/roasting as a prerequisite
for land disposaL Residues from
retorting/roasting operations are not
prohibited from Land disposal unless
they leach mercury above 0.2 mg/I. as
measured by the IC1P (see 268-9 of
the final rule Indicating that normally
any disposal of a waste exhibiting a
characteristic is prohibited). Data
Indicate, however, that residues from
retorting these wastes do not leach
mercury at this leveL Residues
unacceptable for land disposal (i.e.,
above 0.2 mgJl) are required to comply
with the appropriate standards for 1(106
or U151 wastes {i.e., High or Low
Mercury Subcategory) presented below.
It is Impermissible to dilute a High
Mercury Subcategory waste to reduce
the mercury concentration to less than
280mg/kg.
For K100 and U151 nonwastewaters in
the “Low Mercury Subcategory” (i.e.,
less than 260mg/kg) the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard of
0.025 mg/I mercury as measured by the
TCLP leachate. This level is transferred
from acid leaching data for 1(071
nonwastewaters. Residues from this
acid leaching process must be çvaluated
for mercury content to determ e
whether they should undergo asting/
retorting. K106 and U151
nonwastewaters that contain less than
260mg/kg and that also leach less than
0.025mg/i mercury (as measured in the
TCLP extract) are considered to have
met the BDAT and can be land
disposed.
(5) Withdrowai of Proposed Revisions
to K071 Non wastewaters. EPA proposed
that certain 1(071 nonwastewaters be
retorted or roasted (54 FR 48442). The
Chlorine Institute and generators of
1(071 submitted comments to EPA
emphasizing that existing treatment
standards should not be revised. These
commenters pointed out that their 1(071
wastes currently being land disposed
already have low concentrations of
mercury (10 to 120mg/kg mercury.
average) which EPA had deemed to
meet the requirement of 3004(m) of
1- SWA. They believe these low mercury
concentrations are unattractIve for
retorting/roasting operations. In
addition, they believe that retorting/
roasting may have not been
demonstrated for these 1(071 wastes
since the available data to EPA for the
retorting/roasting of 1(071 wastes
describe the treatment of untreated K071
wastes having low mercury
concentrations of up to 255 mg/kg.
Although EPA believes these treated
forms of K071 can be treated by
retorting/roasting. EPA Is not adopting
the proposed revisions to 1(071 wastes
because their recyclability Is

-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106/ Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
questionable. The existing standard for
these wastes thus will stay In place (53
FR 31106, August17. l9B8andJ 268.41
(treatment f
nonwastewateisfl. However; today’s
decision does not preclude the Agency
from revising the KO71 treatment
standards if new data become available.
(6) SIondo.rdsforFt$5ondP
Non wastewoters. EPA Is promulgating
Incineration as the treatment standard
for P065 and P092 nonwastewaters
followed by recovery or treatment of
mercury from the Incineration treatment
residues If those residues are In the high
mercury subcategory. (As noted at
proposal. these organo-mwuury wastes
are not directly amenable for recovery.
but must be pretreated to destroy
carbon-metal bonds (54 FR 48442).)
incineration nonwastewuter residues
from these wastes that are above or
equal to 260 mg/kg are considered to
belong to the High Mercury Subeategory
and thus must be recovered by retorting
or roasting. Indneration wastewater
residues must meet the treatment level
of 0.030 mg/I mercury as a prerequisite
for land d1i osal. Nonwastewoter
residues [ rem retortIng/roastIng
operation. a re not prohibited from land
disposal unless they leach mercury
above 0.2 mg/I. as measured by the
TCLR Retorting/roasting residues
unacceptable for disposal (I.e.. above 0.2
mg/i) are required to comply with the
appropriate standards for the High or
Low Mercury Subcategory. depending
on whether their total mercury
concentration exceeds 260 mg/kg.
Incineration residues below 260 mg/kg
are considered to belong to the Low
Mercury Subcategory which axe not
prohibited from land disposal unless
they leach mercury above 0. 5 mg/I (as
measured In the TCLP extract). See
section (4) above for a discussion of this
mercury leach level
(7) SLondorâfor
Non waste waters. The treatment
standards for D009 non waters In
the High Mercury Subca are
promulgated as “Roasth Qr Retorting
as a Method of TrealmenfIu,3’
incineration followed byr tIng or
Retorting of Incinerator nonwastewater
residues (e.g.. calcinatee, soot, ash, or
wastewater treatment sludges from the
treatment of Incineration scrubber
waters) provided such residues exceed
280 mg/kg total mercury. Residues from
retOrtix%g/roe8ting operations are not
prohibited from land disposal unless
they leach mercury above 0.20mg/I. as
measured by the TUP. Retortlng/
roasting residues unacceptable for
disposal (I.e.. above 0.20 mg/I) are
required to comply with the appropriate
standards for the High or Low Mercury
Subcategory. The applicable standards
for wastes In (be Low Mercury
Subcategory are discussed at the end of
this section. As a result, If the initial
organic content Is too high for the
retorting or roasting. incineration can be
used as a pretreatment step to the
retorting/roasting.
At least one facility submitted data
showing that wastes with
concentrations of semlvolatiie organios
up to 30 percent are currently being
retorted outside the United States, The
facility described Its waste as a mei- iu
spent catalyst contaminated with an
- Intermediate chemical used In the
mnnhafActure of polymers. The facility
sends thIs 0009 waste overseas for the
purpose of direct retorting of mercury.
Based on this information, EPA believes
the proposed standards can be
promulgated as proposed.
Several commenters have Identified a
list of 0009 wastes which they believe
meet EPA’s criteria of contaminated
soils and debris. The commenters
believe this Li.t of 0009 debris are not
amenable to retorting/roasting,
However, they have proposed
alternative treatment standards based
on the use of a chenilcaj
decontnmlnatlon technology. The
chemical decontamInAtIon standards
require the use of three steps (1)
Decontamination of debris wastes based
on polysulfide or hydrochloride
solutions; (2) triple water rinses of the
chemically decont imlnAted wastes; and
(3) (sulfide) chemical precipitation of
mercury from contaminated solutions
and water washes. The chemically
decontAmhu%ted and triple water tinsed
debris would not be prohibited [ rota
land disposaL
EPA has been usable to determine
whether the alternative ehpmii al
decnnthminatlon technology specifically
represents BOAT for these wastes. EPA
currently lacks performance data from
the use of this technology on 0009
debris wastes, If performance data
become available, the Agency may be
puhilishing revisions to today’s
standards as it continues the general
effort to develop separate standards for
soil and del3ris wastes. See also section
IILA.3.(a)(2) for a further discussion of
treatment for Inorganic solids debris.
Another reason that the Agency Is not
adopting theseproceduies as the
treatment standard for mercury debris Is
the possibility that mercury could
ultimately be recovered. One commenter
provided information Indicating that
their facility routinely recovers
chromium from debris such as waste
refractory bricks containing chromium.
The bricks are crushed and recycled as
feedstock along with other raw
materials In the manufacture of
refractory brick. EPA believes that this
recycling technology (following
pretreatment) may be generally
applicable and can be used to treat at
least some D009 debris.
For 0009 wastes In the Low Mercury
Subcategory, EPA Is promulgating a
treatment standard of 0.20 mg/I, as
measured by the TCLP. Achievability of
these standards axe supported by K071
treatment data and other stabilization
data submitted to the Agency. The Final
BOAT Background Document for
Mercury contains a detailed technical
discussion for the development of all the
treatment standards promulgated today.
BOAT ThEATMEKT STANDARDS FOR K108
*iio 1 )151
lA S non eis I i Pie I4 I Merasy 5ca go.
iy La., ge ev than w 260 mg/kg %O*
Poesbig R e& (RMERC)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS F4 (108
moU l5l
( Non* . Pi we rn s from RMERC
and we a the Lom Mwasy Subc egoiy (La., leas
than 260 mg/kg tC J maccity))
nsmm
M
v.w
ang
T LP
Mavciiy
0.20
BDAT TREATMENT STANW iIID6 FOR 1 (106
Ai 10U151
(Noc esatess th we not ms ies tern RMERC
and we ki Pie Low Maccity &tcategocy (La., em
than 260 mgAg - maraa J
Regutaled consmient
,
M mm
f c c any
an b
TCLP (mg/s
Maccity..
0.025
BOAT T nsErrr STANDARDS FOR 1(106
D 1)151
mtewatwe]
Redmnod 5mM
Me om
fcrs
egmb
ns a.
—
ng/
Maccity
0.030

-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 I FrIday, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
5n
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0009
(Al ewatara tiwit it i metciay and or-,
gancs (and era not inomeretor residues) and are
a o ii the High Mercijvy S catego.y (La. eater
than or e iai to 260 mg/kg total merc*sy i
Incineration of wastes with orgaslcs and merc*ay
(IMERC) or roasting/retorting (RMERC)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0009
(Noriwastewalarl that ate k w (Inducing k
dnerator residues and residues from RMERC) and
are in the High Mercury Subcategory (La, eata ,
or equal to 260 mg/kg total mernay)]
Roasting or retorting (RMERC)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0009
(An nonwastewaters in the Low Mercury S&thcatego.
ry (La., less than 260 mg/kg total mercisy)]
Regulated constituent
M mum
for any

TCLP (mg/I)
Mercury
0.20
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0009
(Wastowaters ]
M m
for any
Re dated constituent
Mercury______________________
c o on
(mg/i)
0.20
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
(An nonwastewaters that are not incinerator real.
dues and we not residues from RMERC, regard.
less of Mercury Content]
Incineration of wastes with orgeracs and mercury
BDATTREATMENT StANDARDS FOR P092
(AS ta e not incinerator real.
dues and are not residues Item RMERC, regard.
less of Mercury ContantT ’
Incineration of wastes with arganlcs and merciay
(IMERCJ or roastlng/retorsng (RMERC)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
AND P092
(Nonwastewsters that are cither incineralor residues
or residues from RMERC, and are in the High
Merauly S categoiy (La.. gea than or equal to
260mg/kg total mercury)]
BOAT TREAmteff Sm,ioARos FOR P065
AND P092
(Norvwastewaters that we Incinerator residues (and
—e not residuea from RMERC) that we alse hi the
t.cw Mercury St category (La.. less than 260 mg/
kg total mercury))
Regulated constituent
M m
for any
sing ab
cip rn
Mercury
0.025
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P065
AND P092
(Nonwastewatere that era residues from RMERC
and are in the Low Mercury Subcategory (1 a., lass
than 260 mg/kg total mei’cury)]
Regulated constituent

Mednean
for any
5 i ngIe ab
‘rcLpl rn
Mercuiy_
0.20
BOAT TPEATMENT STANDARDS FOR P085
AND P092
(Wastewatersi
Regulated constituent
Ua nisn
for any
ea iglag
eanw’e,
on
—I)
Mercury
0. O
h. Selenium
DOlO—EP toxic for selenium
P103—Selenourea
P114—Thallium aelenite
U204-Selenlous acid
U205—Selenium dleulflde
For the proposed rule the Agency had
no specific treatment data on RCRA
hazardous wastewaters or
nonwastewaters containing significant
quantities of selenium (54 FR 48433).
However, based on the simileri ties In
chemical behavior of arsenic and
selenium, the Agency extrapolated the
treatment performance data for arsenic-
containing wastewaters and
nonwastewaters to the selenium-
containing wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, respectively.
(1) Standards for Selenium-Containing
Non waste waters. The Agency believes
that for most wastes containing high
concentrations of selenium, recovery of
selenium is feasible using recovery
technologies used by copper smelters
and copper refining operations. The
Agency does not have any performance
data for selenium recovery, but
Information available to the Agency
indicates that recovery of elemental
selenium out of certain types of scrap
material and other types of waste is
currently practiced in the United States.
The Agency requested comments and
data on the applicability of these, and
any other, recovery technologies for
wastes containing selenium; however.
the Agency received no responses to
these issues.
The Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council (HWTC) submitted treatment
performance data for stabilization of
selenium wastes using proprietary
reagents to induce cementitious,
siliceous, and pozzolanic stabilization
reactions. One data set shows a 0010
waste containing selenium
concentrations of 5 ppm total selenium
and 2,97 mg/I in the TCLP extract
reduced to concentrations of 0.282 mg/i
In the TCLP extract. The binder-to-
waste ratio was 1 to 1. Another data set
shows results for treatment of a mineral
processing waste believed to be a DOlO
waste because of the high selenium
concentrations in the TCLP leachate.
The waste contains up to 7( .ppm total
selenium and 3.74 mg/I seieniàm in the
TCLP leachate. The treated residuals
leach between 1.80 and 0.154 mg/ 1
selenium based on TCLP methodology.
This waste also contains high
concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, and
lead. The binder to waste ratios varied
from 1.3 to 2.8.
Data were also submitted by the
HIArL’C for the stabilization of wastes
containing selenium dioxide (U204) an
selenium sulfide (U205). Data for
stabilization of the discarded pure
product show values of 30 and 6.05 mg/I
in the TCLP leachate for U204 and U205,
respectively. The binder-to-waste ratios
were 1.8 for each study. Data for
stabilization of spiked soil samples
containing 1000 ppm of the U204
compounds show values of 45.6 mg/i in
the unstabilized TCLP leachate and 2.88
mg/I in the stabilized TCLP leachate.
Data for stabilization of spiked soti
samples containing 1000 ppm of the
U205 compounds show values of 0.207
mg/l In the unstabilizedTCLP leachate
and 0.154 zng/l in the TCLP leachate.
For the proposed rule, the Agency had
no stabilization data for selenium and
could not investigate the potential
problems in stabilization for high
concentrations of selenium. The Agency
believed, based on selenium’s chemical
similarities to arsenic, that the same
complications would occur (e.g..
increased leaching when using alkaline
binders). Therefore, the Agency
determined that vitrification was the
“best” technology for selenium wastes
Roasting or retorting (RMERC)

-------
574
Federal-Register / Vol. 55 No. 106 I FrIday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
and extrapolated the pei’fo mance data
for vitrification of arsenic td1 1O
nonwastewaters and proposed the same
concentration-based stanjird, 5.8 mg/I
selenium as measured in the leachate
generated by the EP toxicity test (54 FR
48432). In a similar manner, the Agency
proposed to transfer this concentration-
based treatment standard of 5.6 mg/I
selenium to P103, P114, U204, and LJZO5
nonwastewaters. The Agency has
received a comment Indicating that
selenium parallels the melting behavior
of arsenic and that the transfer of
performance data was valid; however,
no performance data for the vitrification
of selenium were submitted during the
comment period.
EPA still believes that vitrification Is
an applicable technology for treatment
of selenium wastes based on the history
of the commercial glass Industry using
the metal as an additive and the melting
behavior of selenium, which Is similar to
that of arsenic. However, unlike arsenic,
no known generators of selenium wastes
are investigeting vitrification as a
treatment technology. The Agency
continues to believe that most wastes
containing high levels of selenium are
being recovered because of the high
market value of selenium
(approximately $10.00/pound).
The Agency has developed
performance standards based on
stabilization as BDAT since the only
treatment data submitted by
commenters, and available to the
Agency. were for the stabilization of
selenium. Because EPA has Information
indicating that wastes containing high
concentrations of selenium are rarely
generated and land disposed, the
Agency does not believe that the pure
product and simulated wastes are
representative of wastes that would
require stabilization treatment but are
more representative of wastes that
should be recovered for the ee1enium
content. Consequently, th cyfs
not using any performan th for
treatment of these wastee bit4s using
the performance data for ‘Db1O waste
containing up to 700 ppm e lenlum since
this waste contains more selenium than
the other wastes and is believed to be
the most difficult to treat waste. Based
on these data. the Agency has used an
analytical recovery of 85 percent to
calculate a corrected average
concentration of 0.80 mg/I. Next.
multiplying the corrected value by a
variability factor of 7.15 (calculated from
the same selenium treatability data)
gives a treatment standard of 5.7 mg/I
selenium in the TCLP leachate. Tha
Agency Is transferring the stabilization
performance from DOlO to P103, P114,
U204, and U205 because ‘A believes
this waste to be most representative of
wastes requiring stabilization and not
recovery.
Because this treatment standard (5.7
mg/I) is above the level of leachable
selenium that defines the waste as 0010
(1.0 mg/I), DOlO wastes that are
generated at a level between 5.7 mg/I
and 1.0 mg/I meet the treatment
standard but are still considered to be
hazardous wastes (assuming the TCLP
value exceeds 1.0 mg/I) and, therefore,
must be land disposed In a subtitle C
facility.
(2) Standards for Selenium -Containing
Wostewatera Based on the lime,
manganese sulfate, and ferric
precipitation wastewater treatment data
used to calculate the proposed
standards for the arsenic wastewaters,
the Agency propo8ed a treatment
standard of 0.79 mg/I selenium for the
selenium in 0010, P103, P114, U204, and -
U206 wastewaters (54 FR 48431), The
Agency also proposed a second option
of limiting the treatment standard for
1)010 wastewaters to the characteristic
level of 1.0 mg/I.
The Agency solicited comments
regarding the transfer of the arsenic
performance data to selenium
wastewatere and specifically solicited
additional treatment data for
wastewaters containing treatable levels
of selenium that would classify the
wastewaters as 1)010 prior to treatment.
Although several commenters support
EPA’s determination that arsenic and
selenium typically exist in aqueous
conditions as oxo-anions and do not
exhibit the catlonic behavior of other
metals, they do not agree that all
selenium and arsenic species can be
removed by the use of the same
treatment technology (I.e.. chemical
precipitation).
One commenter sent treatment data
indicating that precipitation of selenium
using ferric chloride at pH 7.0, calcIum
hydroxide at pH 12.1, aluminum at pH
7.0, ferrous iron at pH 7.0, or sodium
sulfide at pH 6.5 could not achieve the
level of 0.79 mg/I selenium. Another
commenter said that selenium cannot be
removed from wastewaters using lime...
but can be removed by sulfide
- treatment. The commenter stated that
for the treatment to be effective a p14 of
less than 2.0 is required.
The Agency received information
about the treatment performance of
selenium removal using sulfide
treatment. This Information indicates
that selenium can be reduced In
wastewaters to the characteristic level
(i.e. 1.0 mg/I selenium). Additionally,
the precipitate contains elemental
selenium, which can be recovered and
sold for reuse. Based on the new
‘performance data the Agency Is
promulgating a treatment standard of 1.0
mg/I selenium for the selenium in Dow.
P103, P114. U204 , and 1.1205 wastewaters.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 103,
P114, 1)204, and 1)205
(Nonwastewaton]
Maxknian fot
Pdcons 5tuent
leactate
__________ ( mgfl )
SeIei um.....___.. .__..._. 57
BOAT TREATMENr STANDARDS FOR
0010. P103, P114, U204, and 1)205
rwastewaters]
Re ont
Maxsmm for
w —e

r
SeIe,* m____________________
—z
1.0
I. Silver
DOii.—Charactenstlc for Silver
99—Potasslum silver cyanide
P104—Silver cyanide
(1) DOll. In the proposed rule for
nonwastewaters and wastewater forms
of Doll, the Agency proposed treatment
standards and methods of treatment
below the characteristic level (0.072 mg/
I measured by TCLP and 0.29 mg/i).
Conimenters indicated that these levels
were unachievable for many Doll
wastes, such as silver thiosulfate
complex waste generated from the
photoprocessing Industry. This waste is
very stable and Is not always amenable
to recovery or stabilization. The Agency
also proposed an option of capping the
treatment standards for DOll at the
characteristic leveL Based on the
comments received, the Agency has
determined that this second option
better represents the overall
achievability of treatment for 1)011
wastes.
(a) Wastewaters. In the proposed rule,
the Agency proposed a treatment
standard for Doll wastewaters of 0.29
mgJl based on data from the EPA Office
of Water s Effluent Guidelines program.
In addition, the Agency solicited
comments on whether It should specify
the use of chloride as the precipitating
reagent for all wastewaters containing
silver. Coxnmenters opposed specifying

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55 No. 100 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
575
preI ipitntlng reagP-n’-a stating that most
wastewater streams contain more than
one metal and the use of-a sequired
precipitating agent for one metal could
interfere with the pncipitatton of any
other metals In the waste stream. The
Agency agrees with the commenter’s
position and is therefore not specifying
precipitating agents for silver.
The Agency also solicited comments
on the applicable technologies to treat
silver wastewaters to the proposed
concentration based standard. Based on
a review of the comments, the Agency
received Information that indicated that
ion exchange Is an applicable
technology for silver wastewaters, but
will not be able to achieve the proposed
standards. Therefore, because of the
lack of treatment data and because of
the diversity of Doll wastewaters. the
Agency Is promulgating the treatment
standard for Doll wastewaters at the
characteristic level of 5.0 mg/I as
measured by the EP toxicity.
(b) Nonwastewaters. The Agency
proposed three options for treatment
standards for 0011 nonwastewaters.
One option was based on the inherent
economic value of silver and the general
lack of trea nt data for wastes
containing various levels of silver. This
option proposed “Recovery as a Method
of Treatment”. Another option proposed
was to transfer the performance of
stabilization for F00e wastes to silver
non-wastewater (I.e. a rnnnerfcal
treatment standard of 0.072 mg/I as
measured by the TCLP). The third
alternative for the characteristic wastes
was to establish the treatment level at
the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/I as
measured by the toxicity. The
Agency 8oliclted data on the treatment
of Doll nonwastewaters. No data was
received but many comments pointed
out that the proposed treatment
standard Is unachievable. The
commenters claimed that sliver in many
Doll nonwastewaters can not be
recovered because thesowastes contain
silver sulfate compIe i ädditlon.
many commpnters et ZuJ that the
treatment standard of Zmg/I Is not
achievable due to theiflvcLulty of the
Doll wastes. The Agencyagrees with
the commentero that same of the Doll-
wastes can not be recovered or be
treated to the treatment leveL The
commenters did net provide any
treatment data for Don
ncmwaniawaters bet did provide
substanlial tedndcal arguments (based
on the ical natme of wastes
claasthed as Doll nenwastewaters) that
reoovely Is not an applicable technology
for all 0011. aonwaatewaters and that
the per xaanos of stabilization for
Doll nenwastewaten may not achieve
similar treated concentrations of silver.
Therefore, the Agency Is prulgs ’rtiog
the treatment standards for Doll
nonwastewaters at the characteristic -
level of 5.0 mg/I measured by the EP
toxicity.
(2) P099 and Plot. The Agency Is
promulgating the wastewater tr atment
standard for silver as proposed. The
Agency received no comments disputing
the technical feasibility of the transfer of
the Effluent Caidelinee data to P199 and
Plot wastewaters. As a point of
clarification, the Agency I. promulgating
a numerical treatment standard as
opposed to a method of treatment for
silver. Treatment standards for cyazudes
contained in P099 and P104
wastewaters, and cyanide. as well as
silver in P099 and P104 nonwastewaters,
were promulgated in the Second Third
final rule on Jane 23, 1.989 (54 FR 28814).
BDAT Tng mm wr r op nos FOR 0011
,
tearDua icr
0
Regulated cunsttueni
-
—
tn*
save- . ._____
S O
BOAT Tne mt tr STANDAROS FOR Dolt
Maximum for
—.
absa
tu by
TC&.P eq/l
Sliver ..
50
BOAT TREATMEPITSTANOActOS n P099
AlSO P104
Was aterx]
Uaxiraen icr
24 P Int
Req d co
= d

(m /
..._____________________
0.29
See also the pro ulgeted standards
for cyanide. La the Second Thrd Final
Rule.
Thallium
P113—Thallic oxide
P114—.Thafllum (TI selewta
P115—Thallium (I) sulfate
U214—ThallIum (I) acetafe
U215—ThaWwn (I) carbonate
U —Thsihium (1J chlonde
U217—Thalhum L I) nitrate
In today’s rule, the Agency is
promulgating nonwastewater and
wastewater treatment standards for
P113, P115. U214, U215. UZ18 and U217
thallium wastes as proposed. No
comments were received addressing the
proposed approach for regulating these
wastes.
The Agency proposed to establish a
thallium nonwastewater treatment
standard for P114. thallIum selenite,
expressed as recovery or-stabilization
as a required method of treatment A
thallium wastewater treatment standard
was also proposed, 0.14 mg/I. These
thallium treatment standards are not
being promulgated today. The Agency is
promulgating, however, P114 treatment
standards for selenium nonwastewaters
and wastewaters (see preamble section
Ill.A.3.h.). The Agency is taking this
action because It believes that the
treatment of selenium in P114 will also
provide substantial treatment of
thallium.
The Generator Survey indicates that
most thaffiam nonwastewaten re
characterized as inorganic saIts used as
research chemicals, or off-spe cation
or out-dated materials. The Agency
believes that due to the relatively high
economic value of thallium, generators
have an economic Incentive to
investigate recovery options and source
reduction techniques. There may be
cases, however, at very tow
concentrationa and low waste volumes
when recovery may not be a viable
alternative for thallium wastes. No
comments were received on the
proposed nonwastewater standard.
therefore, the Agency promulgating the
nonwastewater treatment standard
expressed as required methoda
“Recovery or Stabilization”. (See
* 288.42 Table i in today’s rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code In the parentheses.)
‘Most thallium wastewaters are
characterized as metallic acidic liquids.
Thaffic hydroxide is very insoluble.
therefore. thnll!n,,i wastes can be
treated by ChPm ca1 oxidation followed
by thereicxi precipitation with
hydroxide reagents, settling and
filtration, in order that most of the
thallic compoumis will precipitate out
into the sludge. The Agency proposed a
treatment standard for thallium
waatewatera based on data from the
EPA Office of Wales’s Fifluent
Guidelines program of 0.14 maiL No
comments were received on this
proposed treatment standard. therefore.
the Agency Is promulgating as proposed.

-------
Federal Register f Vol. 55, No. 106 1 Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P113, P115, U214, U g U218 . AND
U217 - - -
onwa
Thermal re ve y (RThRM) or stsbitmtlon (STASL)
as a method ot 5eaVnent
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P113,
P115, 11214, U215, 11216, AND 11217
Atiastewaters)
Regulated coestituent
Mw m for

r
Thallium . . ...________
0.14
k. Vanadium
P119—Ammonium vanadate
P120—Vanadium pentoxide
At proposal, the Agency had no data
from the treatment of P119 and P120
nonwastewaters upon which to
establish concentration-based treatment
standards. The Agency had data.
however, on the recovery of vanadium
from spent catalysts that typically
contain about 5% vanadium. The Agency
also anticipated that wastes containing
vanadium could also be stabilized. This
recovery and stabilization Information
were the basis of the proposed
nonwastewater treatment standard for
P119 and P120 expressed as required
methods of treatment: thermal recovery
or stabilization. Commenters generally
supported the proposed nonwastewater
treatment standard.
One commenter. however, suggested
that the thermal recovery treatment
standard should be revised to Include
recovery by dissolution, chemical
precipitation, followed by thermal
treatment The Agency a ea that
pretreatment practices b
dissolution, chemicaF i d I tIon,.
cation exchange. or reSt flrption
that are performed in ta P
containers are not precluded-by today’s
final treatment standard. However,
since these recovery processes are not
precluded by any treatment standard (as
long as the recovery is not performed In
land disposal units) and since the
Agency currently lacks Information to
clarify a description of a specific
thermal recovery process for vanadium
wastes in § 268.42 Table 1 (i.e., itTh
uncertain that the thermal recovery
process for vanadium matches the
description for thermal recovery listed
under the five letter technology code
identified as RTHERMJ, the Agency is
promulgating a standard for P119 and
P120 that only specifies stabilization as
a method of treatment
A treatment standard wag proposed
for vanadium wastewaters of 0.042 mg/i
based on data from the EPA Office of
Water’s Effluent Guidelines program.
Commenters asserted that this
wastewater treatment standard and was
unattainable and was probably due to
the effects of dilution. Upon
reexamination of these data, the Agency
tends to agree that this low level was
due to dilution and is, therefore, not
promulgating this treatment standard in
today’s rule. The Agency received data
that were classified as Confidential
Business Information during the
comment period from a proprietary
wastewater treatment technology. Since
these data reflect the actual treatment of
P119 and P120 wastewaters (and the
Agency has no other treatment data for
these wastes) the Agency has decided to
use them to calculate today’s final
wastewater treatment standard of 28
tng/L
The proposed rule included a
statement that P119 and P120
nonwastewaters can be generated as
spent catalysts from chemical
production or as fly ash from the iron
and 8teeljndustry. Commenters pointed
to this statement as a mistake, and
i quested clarification on the definition
of P119 and P120 wastes. The Agency
regrets the confusion that was caused
by this statement and agrees that it was
a mistake. The statement would actually
apply to vanadium-containing
compounds that 4o not meet the
definition of listed P119 and P120 wastes
(I.e., they are not unused commercial
chemical products). Spent catalysts and
Iron and steel industry fly ash are not
- classified as P119 and P120.
Commenters requested that the
Agency establish another treatability
group forPll9 and P120
nonwastewaters because containers or
container liners from the shipment of
amnionluni metavanadate or vanadium
pentoxide as commerical chemical
products may become P119 or P120
hazardous waste. The Agency disagrees
that another treatability group is
needed. In the event that a non-empty
container from the shipment of P119 or
P120 is generated and today’s treatment
standard cannot be met, the generator
may petition the Agency for a variance
from the treatment standard. -
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P119
AND P120
(N
Stabllzatlon (STABL) as a method of ee ent
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
P119 AND P120
(Wastewate is)
Regulated corettuent
24 fbi,
con cete
&3fl O
o Uoe
(mg/b
Vanadium..._.. -
28
4. Treatment Standards for Remaining F
andK Wastes
a. F002 and F005 -
F002—The following spent halogenated
solvents; Tetrachioroethylene, z thylene
chloride. frichioroethylene. 1.1,1.
trichloroethane, chlorobenzene ,2-
trichloro-1,2,2-trlfluoroethane,
dichiorobeuzene, frichioro.
fluoromethane, and 1,1,2-trichlomethane
all spent solvent mixtures/blends
containing,, before use, a total of ten
- percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above halogens ted solvents
or those listed in Fool, F0o4 , or Foo& and
still bottoms from the recovery of theae
spent solvents and spent solvent
mixhireL
FOOS—The following spent non-halogenated
solvents: Totuene, methyl ethyl ketone.
carbon dleulflde. Isobutanol. pyildine,
benzene. 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-
nltropropane all spent solvent mlzturee/
blends Cofltalning, before use, a total of
te percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above non-halogenated
solvents or those solvents listed In FOOl,
F002, or F0o4: and still bottoms from the
recovery of these spent solvents and
spent solvent mixtures.
EPA Is promulgating treatment
‘standards for 1,1,2-trlchloroethane,
benzene, 2.ethoxyethanol, and 2-
nltropropane. EPA has revised its
proposed approach for wastewaters In
response to comments. These four
organic compounds were added as
hazardous constituents to the F002 and
F005 spent solvents in 1988 (see 51 FR
6737. February.25, 1988). Today’s
treatment standards only apply-to these
four new solvents. Treatment standards
for other solvents in F002 and F005
remain as promulgated in the 51 FR
40572, November 7, 1986, Solvents and
Dioxins Rule. A technical description of
these four new spent solvents can be
found in the Listing Document for Ff02
and F005 as amended In 1988, and in 40
CFR 281.31.

-------
Federal R. er. 4 Vio’ 55, No. iofl Fdday June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
577
The Agency received commenta
addressing various Issues related to
these wastes. One commentar pointed
out that there were disorepancies
between the proposed treatment
standards for 1,1,2-trichioroethana In
both wastewater and nonwastewater
forms of F002. The discrepan es
occurred In the concentration-based
standards presented In the preamble,
and the regulation (see 54 FR 48481,
November 22, 1989). A slrnflar
discrepancy occurred in the wastewater
treatment standard for 2-nitropropane In
F005. E ’A thanks the commenter for
pointing out these typographical enors .
The proposed BDAT Background
Document Amendment for FO02 and
FOOS confirms that the concentration.
based standard for 2-oitropropane In
wastewater forms of P005 In the
preamble discussion was In error. 11
concentration-based standards printed
in the regulatory tables for 1,1,2-
trichioroethane wastewater, and
nonwastewaters likewise were In error.
The preamble and the proposed
Background Document Adment
presented the coned treatment
standards. The Curn ct treatment
standards are being finalized In today’s
rule.
(1) Revisions to the Proposed Rule for
Waste waters. Other commenters urged
the Agency to develop treatment -
standards for wastewater forms of P002-
and P005 basea on residues from
wastewater treatment technologies
rather than Incineration scrubber
waters. Commente re felt that EPA has
several performance data from
wastewater treatment technologies
treating wastewatere containing the
same or similar constituents to P002 and
P005 which EPA can use In order to
develop treatment standards.
Cominenters emphasize that these-
performance data better represent the
treatment of organic-containing
wastewaters rather than Inciner ation
scrubber waters alono j .
As stated In the Fin Tcr Land -
Disposal Reoti4ct1oes B oendThM
Wastes (54 FR 26629) reiterated In
the proposed rule for 1 d Third
Wa. ( 54 FR 4239O) when the A ency-
has appw 5 iciate waste er tmah L
data from well-designed and wel1
operated wasinwtitar treatment unite, k
prefers to ma these data rather thsn
scrubber wut
develop westawater freatmerd ’
standards.
Commeiteri to the propesed F ”
Third, Second Third. and lIned Third’
rules almost wanlmsfreupparled -thatt
EPA thertld owulgate wantewa - - -
standarth.based en the perfoemanos of-
specific wadewater treatment rather
than Ineinocator scrubber water
constituent levels. After reviewing all
available data and comments, the
Agency agrees with these comments,
and is promulgating concentration-
based treatment standards for 1,1,2-
trtchlocoethane and benzene based on
wastewater treatment data rather than
scrubber water for all wastes that were
proposed in the Third Third rule. While
the Agency did not specifically identify
the standards based on wastewater
treatment data as alternatives for F and
K wastewa tars, the Agency believes that
this Is a logical outgrowth of the notice
and comment procee8. As such, the
Agency in today modifying the
wastewater treatment standards for
F0O2 and P005.
(2) Treatment Standards for 1,1,2-
Trid,ioroethane (F(k)2) and Benzene
(F 5). The treatment standards
promulgated today for organica in
wastewater forms of P002 and P005 are
based on performance data generated
from one, or a combination of two or
more of the following BUAT
technologies: Biological treatment,
steam stripping, carbon adsorption.
liquid extraction, and others. (See
Section IILA.6.(3) of today’s preamble
for a discussion of these performance
data.) Those treatment standards are
expressed as concentration levels for
1.1.2-trlchloroethane (P002) and benzene
(P005).
The treatment standards promulgated
for organics in nonwastewater forms of
P002 and P005 are based on incineratimr
These treatmPni stanâarcja are
expressed as concentration based
standards for 1,1,2-trichloroethane
(P002) and benzeise (P005).
Each tr tn erit standard Is bused on
the treatment of another waste
con . .iq$ the seine or similar -
constituents to the one of concern. EPA
believes that none of the c, tHuents in
P002 and P005 are likely to Interfere with
the treatment of organics in P002 and
Foes. As a result. EPA Is transferring the
availabLe peTfnrmAn . f ’ data to these two
wastes.
(3) Treatment Standards Expressed as
Methods-of Treatment for 2-
etiwxyethaaoJ a 42-ndrapxu,pins.
Comments were received indicating
draatlc detection limits discrepancies In -
nonwastewater forms that contain 2-
yrupi ua. The proposed treatment
standards relied on idIot ale data from’
the . i.i g of synthetic waaiuwstera
along with- htd]wrutluu performance
data far awasth ,.n , loi,th ,p s.
constituent as difficult to treat as 2-
nitropropane. Based on the available
data, EPA believes that 2-nitropropane
may not be amenable to analytical
quantification and thee, a concentration-
based treatment standard I a not be a
viable regulatory option at this time.
(See section ULA .5.b)
Mother problematic constituent l i z-
ethoxyethanol. As with 2-miropropane,
the proposed treatment standards relied
on in-house treatment studies and
performance data from similar wastes.
For 2-ethoxyethanol. EPA specifically
conducted bench-scale studies for the
biological treatment of synthetic
wastewaters sptked with 2-
ethoxyethanoL Modifications to existing
analytical test methods were needed in
order to enable EPA to analyze these
two organic constituents in wastewaters
and nonwastewaters. EPA has
determined that the available
Information is Insufficient to promulgate
concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of P005 at this
time. As a result. EPA is withdrawing
the proposed concentration based
treatment standards for P005 wastes
that contain 2-mtroproparie and 2-
ethoxyethanoi respectively (i.e., P005
wastes that are listed due to thi
presence of these conetituents ’A Is
instead promulgating required methods
as the treatment standard.
EPA proposed incineration or steam
stripping followed by carbon adsorption
- as methods of treatment for Foes
wastewaters C(Ilthining 2-aitropropane.
This proposal relied on in-house pilot
scale steam stripping studies of 2-
nitropropane as well as a transfer of
steam stripping data for wastewaters
containing nitrobenzene. EPA’s In-house
treatment study indicated that 2-
nitrupropane Is likely to farm an
azeotrope with water. Therefore, any
technology-based treatment standard
that specifies steam stripping for these
wastes mast also specify (or at least
emphasize) operating conditions
capable of treating tius type of
azeotrope (or prevent it8 generation). At
this time, EPA Lacks nffii tit
Information to develop such detailed
standards. EPA Is thus withdrawing
steam stripping as part of an alternative
technology-based treatment standard.
The Agency has determined that
cheml oxidation followed by carbon
adsmptlon as well as wet air oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption represent
BOAT for P005 wastes listed for 2-
nitropropane. This determination is
based on available performance data for
wastewaters contaming organic
constituents that are as difficult to treat
as 2-nitropropane. EPA does not expect
any of the other constituents in P005
wastewaters to interfere with the

-------
Federal Register / VoL 5 Sj No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 /
Rules and Regulations
treatment of Z-nltropropane when
treated by these techno4qgies. s a
result, EPA is promujgatlñg1 ese two
treatment trains along wtih Incineration
as technology-based treatment
standards for F005 wastewaters listed
for 2-nifropropane.
Based on the revisions to the
proposed treatment standards for P005
wastewaters containing 2-nitropropane,
EPA is also withdrawing its proposed
criteria for defining wastewaters In this
category of P005 wastewaters (i.e., less
than 4% TOC and less than 1% TSS.) The
definition of wastewaters and
nonwastewaters Is thus con8latent with
those established for all hazardous
wastes (I.e., as defined In section
268.2(a)(6) of today’s rule but not
including the wastewater definitions
excluded in * 288.2(a)(6) (I) through (Iv).)
EPA is promulgating the proposed
technology-based treatment standards
for F005 wastes listed for 2-
ethoxyethanol as incineration or
biodegradation. EPA believes that these
technologies are BDAT based on a
transfer of Information on the treatment
of n-butyl alcohol using activated
sludge. EPA believes that n-butyl
alcohol Is as difficult to treat as 2-
ethoxyethanol.
For nonwastewater forms of P005
containing these two constituents, EPA
is promulgating a treatment standard of
“Incineration” as a method of treatment
EPA Is specifying further that
incinerators operate In accordance with
the technical requirements of part 264
subpart 0 or part 285 subpart 0.
Residues from incineration are not
precluded from land disposal. However,
nonwastewater forms of F005 resulting
from the required wastewater treatment
processes must comply with the
incineration treatment standards as a
pre-requisite for land disposal.
BOAT TREATMENT STA FOR F002,
LISTED FOR 1.1 ,2 .TRICf L ETHANE
(Nonwaate
Regulated constibjent
M m
I cr NW
gab
sen ple,
at t
on
(mg/kg)
1,1,2-TncNoroethano. .__._.....
7.0
BDAT Tha mi rii STANOARO8 FOR F002,
LiSTED FOR 1,1 ,2-TRICHLOROEflIAI4E
tWa a t , J
Re g u edmn
Medmien icr


(mg/I)
1,1,2-ThctHo roethane
0.030
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR BENZENE
(Nomeastewators]
Regulated consbtuent
M m

(mg/kg)
Benzene .. ...
3.7
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LISTED FOR BENZENE
(Wastawalersi
.
Regulated constituent
M ns
lorany
esm
sasnsle,
at*
—
(mg/fl
Benzene
0070
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005.
Lisreo FOR 2-NrTR0PROPANE OR 2-
EmoxvEni oL
(Nonwastawaters]
In ieraDon (INON) as a method 01 beatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F005,
LJS1En FOR 2-EThOXVETMANOL
(Wastewaters)
Inntwadon (INcIN) or batdegNlalion (81000) as
methods of atinent
BOAT TREAmierr STANDARDS FOR F005,
Lisi n FOR 2-Nn ’RoPROPANE
(Westowaters]
Inorierutlan (INC 1N);_thenacal o,edallon (cHO )
followed by cwbon (CAPBN) or t al
(WETO)Q toflowed by cNtier?
(CARSN) as methods of
b. P006 and P019
In today a final role, the Agency Is
promulgating an amendment to Method
9012, used for analyzing waste8 for
cyanides. In this amendment, the
Agency Is specifying that In order to
determine compliance with the
promulgated treatment standards for
nonwastewaters in cyanides, a facility
must use a 10 gram sample size and a
distillation time of 1 hour and fifteen
minutes,
In the June 23, l98OSecond Third final
rule, the Agency promulgated treatment
standards for amenable and total
cyanide constituents for the
electroplating, heat treating, and
acrylonitrile F and K wastes (54 FR
26610-28815). The Agency transferred
certain of these treatment standards to
the cyanide wastes listed as P waste
codes. The analytical method used to
measure cyanide concentrations in
treatment residues (thereby determining
compliance with the treatment standard)
was SW-846 Method 9012.
Commentere suggested that thji.
Agency not amend the analytic4
method and that the Agency con ct a
study that Investigates improveinthts for
the analytical method for cyanides and
treatment of F006 wastes. The Agency
appreciates the commenters’ concerns
about the analytical method. The
Agency is aware that analytical
problems exist for measuring total and
amenable cyanides in nonwastewaters.
The Agency believes that these
problems exist because there is no
specific sample size and distillation time
specified in Method 9012. Because a
generator or treater may use any sample
size or distillation time, the Agency has
decided to amend the analytical method
9012 by promulgating constraints on
sample size and distillation time of 10
grams and one hour and fifteen minutes,
respectively. In fact, the sample size and
the distillation time used to develop the
treatment standards for F006, F007, P008,
‘and P009 nonwastewaters were 10
grams and one hour and fifteen minutes,
respectively (see RCRA Docket LD1O—
LaOSZ letter dated May 1, 1989).
By promulgating these specifications
on sample size and distillation time, the
Agency believes that compliance with
the BDAT treatment standard will occur
as a result of actual treatment EPA does
not believe that this promulgated
clarification to the analytical method
affects the achievability of the cyanide
standards already promulgated. After
the close of the Second Third
rujnmaldiig , a potential loophole In the
cyanide analytic method was brought to
EPA’s attention. The Agency solicited

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 I FrIday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
information from generators and treaters
as to the sample size and distillation
time used as standard s esatlng
procedures. These facilities indicated
that they were achieving the F006
nonwastewater cyanide standard by
using a sample size of less than 5 grams
and a distillation time of 1 hour (see
administrative record for cyanide
wastes In today’s notice. Also, see 54 FR
48447 noting this Information for public
comment In this rulemaking). Therefore,
the Agency believes that the data In the
Second Third rule documenting
achievability of the cyanide treatment
standard reflects the analytic procedure
being promulgated today.
(1) Wastewater,. Today’s rule
promulgates wastewater treatment
standards for amenable and total
cyanides and metal constituents for F008
wastewaters as proposed.
(Nonwastewater standards for F006
metal constituents were promulgated In
the First Third final nile, and
nonwastewater standa.rds for P006
cyanides were promulgated In the
Second Third final rule.) Wastewater
treatment standards are based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
the amenable and total cyanidea, and
chromium reduction followed by
chemical precipitation using Lime and
sulfides and sludge dewatering for the
metals, Detailed Information on P000
waste characterization and the technical
feasibility of the transfer of the
performance of the treatment systems
can be found In the Final Addendum to
the Be8t Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for F006.
In addition, commenters believe that
the transfer of the treatment for K062
wastewaters to F000 wastewaters Is
inappropriate. The Agency disagrees
with the commenters and believes that
the transfer is technically feasible
because of the high concentration of
metals in 1(062 as compared to F006
wastewatera, making th ewastes more
difficult to treat. Furtk ës 4 , in
determining today’s pj oüiiitjated
standards, the Agenc a eo valuated
performance data that were developed
by EPA’s Office of Water for hydroxide
precipitation, sedimentation, and
filtration for wastes from the metal
finishing industry. However, the Agency
did not use these data to develop
today’s promulgated F006 metal
standards because the metal finishing
waste characterization data Indicated
that the untreated concentrations of
these metals in these wastewaters were
low compared to those in F006
wastewaters. The Agency believes,
therefore, that these treatment data for
the metal finishing wastewater streams
do not represent treatment of P006
wastewatera and may result In
wastewater treatment standards that
would be unachievable for actual P006
wastewaters. Thus, the Agency is not
promulgating P000 wastewater
treatment standards based on these
data,
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
(Wastewaterel
Aegufated constfDient
Madman for
any engle

—
(mq/I)
cyanldes (ToteS)
1.2
8
i.e
32
.040
.44
ar dea (Amenabfe)
Cadmium
Ct omTvum_
Lead
P de ____________
(2) F019. Today’s rule promulgates
treatment standards for amenable and
total cyanides and total chromium in
P019 wastewaters and nonwastewaters.
The treatment standards for the
amenable and total cyarndes In the P019
wastewater and nonwastewaters are
based on the performance of alkaline
chlorination. The treatment standard for
the chromium In the P019 wastewater is
based on chromium reduction followed
by precipitation with lime and sulfide
and sludge dewatering. Treatment
standard for the chromium In the P019
nonwastewater Is based on
stabilization.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
solicited comments on two options. The
first option proposed concentration-
based treatment standards for cyanides
based on the performance data for wet
air oxidation (that is the 390 mg/kg and
20 mg/kg for total and amenable
cyanides, respectively). The second
option proposed was to transfer the
concentration-based treatment
standards for cyanides based on the
performance of alkaline chlorination for
F006—F009 (electroplating wastes) to
P019 wastes (that is the 590mg/kg and
the 30 mg I kg for total and amenable
cyanides. respectively).
Based on a review of the comments,
the majority of the comnmenters
suggested that the Agency promulgate a
standard based on the 590mg/kg limit.
The ‘commenters suggest that the
electroplating wastes axe similar to the
P019 waste because of the Iron
concentration in the untreated wastes.
Therefore, the Agency Is promulgating
cyanide standards based on a transfer
of the performance of the treatment
system for electroplating wastes. The
Agency believes that the transfer is
technically feasible because of the
following reasons. First, the Agency
believes, as stated In the Final Second
Third Rule, that these wastes contain
high concentration of Iron complex
cyanides. The waste characterization
data for P006 through P009 indicate that
the Influent iron concentrations, In some
cases, are similar to the P019 wastes
based on available waste
characterization data. Second, at the
time of the propo8ed rule, the only
relevant treatment data available to the
Agency to establish treatment standards
for these wastes were the performance
of wet air oxidation of F019 wastes and
from the transferred performance of
alkaline chlorination for F006 through
F009 wastes. The Agency was reluctant
to use the wet air oxidation data to
develop treatment standards for FOlY
because of the analytical discrepancies
In the influent concentration of cyanides
of typical F019 wastes, suggesting
strongly that the wastes treated were
unrepresentative. Therefore, the Agency
solicited comments on the use wet air
oxidation or any other technoIo m used
to develop treatment standardtilor F019
wastes. During the comment period, the
Agency received no treatment data and
many comments questioned whether
wet air oxidation is applicable
technology for these wastes or is
demonstrated on a full scale basis.
Therefore, the Agency’s only alternative
in developing cyanide treatment
standards for the waste—given the lack
of any other data and absence of
comment—Is to transfer the
performance of alkaline chlorination of
the electroplating wastes to the P019
wastes,
In addition, the Agency is
promulgating a treatment standard for
amenable cyanides In P019
nonwastewaters based on the
reproducibility of the analytical method
for total cyanides. Details of the
calculation of the amenable cyanide
standards can be found in the
background document The Agency used
a similar procedure for developing
treatment standards for amenable
cyanides In F006-F012 wastes In the
Second Third Final Rule (see 54 FR
20611).
The Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for total chromium In F019
wastewaters based on the performance
of chromium reduction, lime and sulfide
precipitation, and sludge dewatering for
1(062 wastewaters. The Agency believes
that this Is a technically feasible
transfer due to the influent total
chromium concentration of 7000 ppm for

-------
Federal Register I VoL No. log / Friday, Jane 1,1990 / Rules and Regulations
K062 Is similar to the concentration of’
chromium in P0lgw ewaters.
The Agency Is also a’onuilga tag
treatment standards f theudum
In P019 nonwastewateribàed on a
transfer of perforznancrdata from the
stabilization of P006 wastes. The
Agency believes that the transfer of the
performance of stabilization data from
P006 to P019 Is technically feasible due
to the higher concentration of metals
within F006 wastes (I.e. up to 3000 ppm).
BOAT TR Ameff S &wios ron F019
(Wiatowatos)
enu s
-,* .

—
,-I
CyanIdee(tct )
1.2
ass
132
Cywsdss tsmasa e)
c u .-1
BOAT TcEAmIejr STMDAROS FOR F019
‘
.
Re O cen d
m
forw

.
—
mg
:-
ses
ss
cyw ae, —
U
ler


cpi ,n r’o )
6 2
C. F024
F0 4-Process wastes. Inchiding but sot
limited to, distillation residass, heavy
ends, tars, and reactor dean-out wastes.
from the production of certain
chlorinated aliphatic l frocaibons by
free radical cataIyzed ses. These
chionnated aliphette warbons are
those having carbon ngtbs
ranging from one to ssd sdlng five.
with varying a m a mtst po tlmss of
chlorine substitution. (This haling does
not inhale wastewaters, waslewater
freatinent sludges, spent catalysts, and
wastes listed In 261.31 or 281.32.)
Wastes Identified as P024 are
generated primarily by facilities in the
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry, specifically those ngngud In
the production of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons. Detailed technical
descriptions of the production processes
generating these wastes can be found in
the listing baágrmumd document
prepared by EPAfar this waste code.
Today’s rule amends the treatment
standards promulgated o June 23. 196
forP0Z4 (54 FR 269151by revising the
treatment standards to take account of
the presence of chlorinated
dibenzodloxins and furans In some
nonwastewater and wastewater forms
of P024. and still allow for proper
treatment of these wastes. Today’s rule
also promulgates the treatment
standards proposed on November 22,
1989, for metal constituents in
nonwastewater forms of P024. BDAT
treatment standards for nonwastewater
metals are based on stabilization of
P024 incinerator ash using a cement
binder. Other treatment technologies
that can achieve these concentration-
based treatment standards are not
precluded from use by this rule. EPA I .
promulgating treatment standards for
three metal conetituents, chromium,
lead, and nIckel, In nonwastewater
forms of Ftl24 The complete list of
regulated constituents and treatment
standards fOr this waste are presented
In the tables at the end of this section.
Treatment standards for volatile and
aemivolatile organic constituents In P024
nonwastewaters and volatile and
aemivolattle organic and metal
constituents In FOZ4 wastewaters were
promulgated on June 23, 1989 (54 FR
28615) and are not being amended by
this rulemaking unless specifically
stated..
Several commeiters confirmed EPA.
inquiry in the Third Thirds proposed
rule (54 FR 48450) that some treatment
facilities that previously treated P024
are now rpfujthig to do so because the
treatm nt standards for P024 Include
standards far various chlorinate
dibeazo-dioxins and furani.
Commenters agreed that this La the case
and documented the current refusal of
commercial treatment facilities to accept
this waste, whether or not the waste
actually contained any chlorinated
dibenzo-dioxins and/or furans. All of
the conimenters agreed that the
existence of a dioxin standard is the
basis for the refusal to treat. Thi. has
resulted &n a capacity shortage for
treatment of P024 wastes. Coirin iter,
further stated that If the treatment
standards for other organic censlib ta
in P024 were met they believed that the
treatment standards for the thlorinat d
dibenso-dioxins and furans would also
be met. Two commenters suggested
specific coriebbients that may be used
as surrogates for the chlorinated
dibenzo.dloxina’ and furans’ treatment
standards.
The Agency may elect not to regulate
every 8DAT List constituent that Is
present or suspected to be present In a
listed waste. Frequently. EPA elects an
appropriate subset of constituents for
regulation In order to facilitate
compliance and enforcement. 10
selecting constituents for regulation, the
Agency considers, among other factors,
the relative difficulty Involved in
treating each constituent by the
treatment technology Identified as
W)AT. The subset of constituents
selected should ensure that other
constituents of concern are adequately
treated when the treatment standards
for the regulated constituents are met.
Waste characteristica affecting the
performance of the treatment technology
(WCAPs) are used to Identify the
hardest to treat constituents present In a
waste. These constituents may then be
selected for regulation and used as
surrogates for other non-regulated
constituents of concern to ensure that
they are adequately treated. For
incineration technologies, WCAPs
Includes constituents boiling pqlnt for
nonwastewater residual. and a
constituents bond dIssoc1atIon4 Di j
for wastewater residuals. Cons ents
with higher boiling points and s are
considered to be more difficult to treat
than those with lower boiling points and
EDEs for nouwastewater and
wastewater residuals, respectively.
The Agency did not feet the
surrogates suggested for the chlorinated
dibenno-dloxins and furens in P024
wastes by the two commentees were
appropriate because they were not more
difficult to treat than these constituents
(with boiling points ranging from 400 to
500 degrees Celsius and BOE rnnglng
from 960 to 2,490 kcalfmole), and
therefore would not ensure adequate
treatment of the chlorinated dibenzo-
dioxins and furans. Also. the Agency
attempted on Its own to develop
surrogates. but was usable to Identify
an appropriate surrogate that was
present at treatable levels In all of the
wastes containing the chlorinated
dib o-dto,dn and foran constituents.
At best achieving all of the non-dioxin!
furan standards’ serves as a generalized
Indication that treatment for dioxins and
furans was probably also effective.
The concentration-based treatment
standards that w re.pinmu1gafred for the
chlorinated thbenso-dloxins and loran,
in P024 (54FR 28815) may hinder
effective treatment because of the
refusal of treatment facilities to accept
these wastes due to the perceived
stigma of managing wastes containing
chlorinated diloxins and furans. Also, as
noted, the Agency Is unable to select an

-------
Federal Register f Vol. 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
225
approprtaw , rt1cul %!?ogatWhIC
would ensure adequate jrej.tment of
these constituents. Finally, the Agency
believes that incineration technologies
can effectively treat chlorinated
dibenzo.dioxins and furans based on the
results obtained from the Agency-
sponsored incineration treatment test of
F024 wastes containing these
constituents.
Therefore, based on the above
considerations, the Agency is revising
the treatment standards promulgated on
June 23, 1989 to specify incineration as a
method of treatment for F024 wastes
(organic constituents only). If these
wastes are incinerated, the record
indicates that dioxins and furans, as
well as all of the other hazardous
constituents in the waste will be
substantially destroyed. To ensure that
incineration Is fully effective, the
Agency will also retain In the rule the
existing standards for organics
promulgated in the Second Third rule.
Thus, there will be no specific standard
for dloxins end furans In the rule, which
should alleviate the treatment industry’s
reluctance to accept these waste. The
288.7 certification would refer to the
designated method for treating this
waste, and certify that the standards for
organic hazardous constituents (which
do not include dioxins and furans) have
been satisfied. Standards for metals
would remain as numerical limits.
however. These standards are discussed
below. (Ordinarily the Agency would
not alter a regulatory standard due to
Industry recalcitrance. In this case,
however, the clear existence of a
problem, the Agency’s desire to have
industry resume treatment of these
wastes (there was no capacity shortfall
until EPA promulgated the Second Third
treatment standard), and the statutory
prohibitions on disposal and storage
(which foreclose all legitimate waste
management options) have led EPA to
revise the treatment standard.)
Two commenters sfdii&that the
proposed treatment staisdirds for metal
constituents may prechzde .F024 from
being accepted at commercial
incineration facilities. The Agency feels
that the treatment standards calculated
from stabilization testing of F024
Incinerator ash appropriately reflect the
level of performance achievable via
stabilization for chromium, lead, and
nickel In F024. In addition. EPA has not
received treatment performance data
from the regulated community indicating
that the proposed treatment standards
cannot be met. Therefore, the Agency
has no reason to believe that the
treatment standards proposed for
chromium, lead, and nickel in
nonwistewater forms of F024 cannot be
reliably met on a routine basis and is
not revising the proposed treatment
standards in today’s rule.
One commenter expressed concern
that other forms of incineration (I.e.,
liquid and gas phase incineration) are
precluded from use in meeting the
treatment standards for organic
constituents In F024 if rotary kiln
incineratIon Is specified as BDAT.
Liquid injection incineration and
fluidized bed incineration may provide
equivalent levels of treatment to rotary
kiln incineration and, therefore, may be
considered equivalent BDAT
technologies for organic constituents In
liquid and solid forms of F024.
respectively. As is the case for al l
concentratlon.based treatment
standards promulgated In the land
disposal restrictions program, the use of
other treatment technologies that can
achieve the promulgated concentration-
based treatment standards in F024 Is not
precluded by the second third rule (54
FR 26815). Nor Is the incineration
standard specified as an alternative
treatment standard in today’s rule based
on any particular type of incineration.
One commenter stated that the
treatment standards promulgated for the
nine volatile and semivolatile organic
constituents In nonwastewater forms of
F024 (54 FR 28815) were set below
practical quantitatlon limits (PQLs) and
should be revised. The commenter is
incorrect The treatment standards for
these nine organic constituents in
nonwastewater forms of F024 were
based on the detection limits of these
constituents achieved on F024 residuals
analyzed following the Agency-
sponsored incineration treatment test.
The PQLs the commenter refers to were
obtained from analyzing a non-F024
Incinerator ash.
One commenter expressed concern
that the definition of F024 had been
revised to Include watewaters. The
wastewater treatment standards
adopted for F024 are applicable to
wastewater residuals derived from the
treatment or leaching of nonwastewater
forms of F024 as defined in 40 CFR
281.31. ThIs does not include process
wastewatere from the production of
chlorinated allphatic hydrocarbons.
2 .O ’ iloro -1,3-butad lene
028
3-Chforopropene....._.._..__.... .._..
028
1,1-Oidi$oroetha ne.......
0014
1,2-Oich rpett iane. . .........._... ._.
0014
1,2-sc lloropropane...........
0014
a.1,3cNorcpropene........ .... - ...
0014
0014
rans-1.3-cict lioropropene ....
Bfs(2-th he p thala l e. -- -
18
Hexachforoeeiane..............................
1 8
MaxImum for
Re ated conmient

5 Ø
TCLP (mg/I)
Clirornarn (totnl).___........
0073
N Icke l
. 0021
0088
Regulated cons8tuent
Masimum for
any angle
grab p Ie
c om
(mg/kg)
2-OUcro.1,3-bu eno ...... ‘
3-C tUoropropene______________ ..
1.1-D ,ct oroothane — — - ..._...... . -
1.2-O lct i loroe8wie..... ,_ . ....__.. ,._
1,2 .D icl ’doroopane.._....... ..........
028
028
0014
0014
0014
0014
0014
0 038
0038
035
047
cn.1,3-Oictabrcpropene__......
trane .1.3-DicNoropropeno........ ...._.
Be 2-eth ,1hexy I)pI ith ate..,.. .. .. ....
Hexacliloroethane —_______ . _ .
Ovonawii (tofel} ..
NIc keI...... .. ,.______
d F0z 5 Waste
F025—Condensed light ends, spent filters and
filter aids and spent desiccant wastes
from the production of certain
chlorinated alipha tic hydrocarbons by
free radical catalyzed processes. These
chlorinated aliphauc hydrocarbons are
those having carbon chaIn lengths
ranging from one to and including five
with varying amounts and positions of
chlorine substitution.
On December11, 1989, (54 FR 50968)
EPA amended its regulations under
RCRA by listing as hazardous one
generic category of waste generated
during the manufacture of chlorinated
aliphatic hydrocarbons by free radical
catalyzed processes having carbon
BDAT TREArMENT STANDARDS FOR F024
(Nonwastaweters]
lnor ’ieraXn ( INC 1N) ee a , iiathOd and meet the
toi$a. ,g s*andwds
Regrilated consdbient
Ma,amum for
any angle
grab sample,
teed
(mg/kg)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F024
tWasfewatetsi

-------
Fed aI & iztsz I Vol. 55. No. 106 I Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulalions
chain lengths rangjng from one to five
(EPA Hazardou8 Waste N ). The
listing of EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F025 becomes effective onjunen. 1990.
In anticipation of this listing, the Agency
proposed concentration-based treatment
standards for F025 wastes In the
November ZZ 1989 land disposal
restrictions proposal (54 FR 48450) for
third third wastes. The Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) require the Agency to
determine specific treatment standards
which the waste must achieve prior to
land disposal within six months of the
listing of the waste as hazardous.
Therefore, today’s rule promulgates final
treatment standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of F025 waste as
proposed.
F025 wastes are characterized as
condensed light ends, spent filters and
filter aids, and spent desiccant wastes
from the production of certain
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. For -
the purposes of establishing treatment
standards, the wastes have been
grouped Into two subcategories:
condensed light ends and filters/aids
and desiccants. Available
characterization data suggest that
different constituents may be contained
in each of these subcategories. As such.
the Agency Is promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards to reflect these differences in
physical and chemical composition.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for all wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of P025 are
promulgated today based on the transfer
of performance data used in the
development of treatment standards for
specific U and P wastes that are
const]tuents In the various P025
subcategories. (See sections fflA2.e.
and IILA.2.d. for additional Informatlo4
Because no comments w r ived on
the proposed regulation of the
specthc constituents of :
wastewaters or nonwaat iVaters, the
Agency assumes that gene et*e end
treaters of F025 agree with EPA’s
assessment of the treatment of this
waste. Further Information on the
development of treatment standards can
be found In the Background Document
for P025 Wastes In the RCR.A docket
B T T i vn STANOARD8 FOR
5-C ued
Ms Tun te
wy 24-heir
RO Wmn
,
-
1.2.TilJlI, ,ueIJl Sfle
Tr* one lono
HJbk .ub , ,ni —
______—
e. 1(001 and U051
KOO1—Bottom sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewatars from wooi.
preserving processes that ue aeoeote
andf or pentachloropbenoL
1 .1051—Creosote
As noted In the November 22, 1 9
proposal (54 FR 48410), U051 was
differ from other U wastes In tharthe
waste Is not d fIned by one chei l or
constituent, but by a group of cheinicals
defined by the generic term of
“ eosote . Creosote Is a derivative of
coal that contains a wide range of
constituents Including oresols, phenols,
naphthalens, benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, chrysene,
I nfIefll41.2,3 -cd)pyyene and
acenaphthalene. Today’s rule
promulgates final treatment standards
for U051 (oreosote) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters as proposed. The
regulated constituents are naphthalene,
pentachiorophenol. phenanthrene.
pyrene, toluese, xylenes and lead. The
treatment standards for the organic
constituents were established based on
the performance of Incineration of KOQi
waste. Treatment standards for lead
were based on the transfer of
performance standards from the
stabilization of lead In 1(001
nonwastewatera and chemical
precipitation of lead La 1(001
wastewaters. Treatment standards for
1(001 wastewaters and nonwastewatars
were promulgated in the First Third fln l
rule on August 8. 1988. Because no
comments were received on the
proposed regulation for any of the
specific constituents of U051. EPA
assumes that generators and treaters of
this waste agree with EPA’s assessment
of the treahn it of UO&1 wastes.
The Agency is also promulgating, as
proposed, revisions to the
concentration-based treatment
2 j standards for K001 organice due to a
0.057 mathematical error that was made In the
BOAT TREATMENT STANOAROS FOR F025.
flJ En S iy1
wn Is v
=
(mQIkG)
(Spent F teaIA _ O * te &i I
ornL ..•.•
6.2
6.2
,-..
12 -OtchIcro um
1,1 -( cNoue 5i 4ene
6.2
Meth 4ene d cnde
31
62
6.2
as
33
Cuton teead*ilde . .____
1 ,1.2.TflcI oe e ne
Tdd cseeai 4em
W i ic hIcndo
BOAT TREAnI r ST tiotFtos FOR F025
0.064
0 . 064
027
0.0 55
0.06 5
0 I
Re 4 des ei1
-
iy 24-heir
-
lmgIr
O e i m
0. om
0.21
0.025
0 .089
C57
0.064
0.054
027
1,2.Dd ovosthai*
1i.O IchJcvoethy4& e
Metvy ne di& .vIde
Cub
l,l .2-TflcNoroeUueu
TrW8croe 4ene
Vki 4 d1. . 1J.
BOAT T e m* STANOAR0S FOR F025
(Spent F5tS A end De te &AAte 3
Pe e s e s *
Mmhii.an *
°
w .’ - -’
tn Ik
O otsnn
6.2
31
6 2
6.2
5.6
33
37
28
30
M,Øen.d&
Ceiton tatecfllonda____
1j .2-TndiUo eU ene
TrI oroe ieno
Wv,lJ
Hesad o ,obsunns
Homch o vobi e
Hemct oroe e n. —
BOAT TREA1Mwr SrANoAs os FOR F025
(Spent R Mdi ei D g yI
Usj iu tsr
244ioiz
Regijated coiedtuent
CG.. b

ch s rm -__—
Cw

-------
Federa1R làt r / VOL 55, No. 1( t Frld y TUne 1, 19BO I RUles and Regulations
calenlatiosi of the original abndards./
These recielons have b.ea ,reflecte&Lu
the UO61 standards. Additional
information on the revised standards
can be found in the Addendum to the
KOOt and U051 Background Document
As EPA noted In the November 22,
1989 proposal (54 FR 48410). 11 U051 Is
simply discarded before It Is used (for
example because It is off-specification)
then it would be unlikely to have all of
the same jtnminant as KOOl wastes.
On the other hand, when U051 is spilled
at a wood preserving site, then It could
contain the same contaminants, In
particular pentachlorophenol and lead.
as KOOl wastes due to the high potential
for cross .contRmination due to prior use
of pentachlorophenol at the site. Since
the Agency anticipates that most of the
UQS1 wastes come from spill residues at
wood preservingsitee. EPA is
conservatively promulgating standards
that include those constituents that are
likely to be present In this form of the
waste. In situations where a facility
never used pentachiosophenol or where
the U051 Is only anticipated to be
generated as an off-spec product (and
pentachlorophenol was never used In -
the production equipment), EPA
anticipates that the facility’s waste
analysis plan could be revised so that
only the constituents that are likely to
be present In that form of the waste are
monitored.
AND U051
Re
Jm for
0
YØ

Naphth ene ._....._________
15
74 -
1. 5
L5

33
Pei1ad orogfriend -
P ei v e_
Pyiun.___.
Toluono_____________
X ieno(s)
..:i . , ‘
Lead_
Ma,dmu, for
—S
¶
0.51
BOAT TREAThEPIT S A sco 1(001
NO UC51- -
Regiated constejent
-
Ueidm an for
Wang Ie


(mg/I) -
Napt itha one
0.031
0.18
0.031
0028
0.028
0.032
0.037
en chIoropI1eno I
Ftienanthrene
P ,ene
Toluene
XyIOne( s)... ._.
Lead__ .
f. 1(002, K003, K004. 1(005,1(006,1(007,
KODa
K002—Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of chrome yellow and orange
pigments.
1(003—Wastewoter treatment sludge frnmthe
production of molybdate orange -
pigments. -
K004 .—Wastewater treatment sludge from The
production of zinc yellow pigments.
K005 —Wastewatw treatment sludge from the
production of chrome green pig ’ nts .
K008 —Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of chrome oxide green
pigments (anhydrous and hydrated).
lC0 —Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of Iron blue pigments.
1(008—Oven residue from the production of
chrome oxide green pigments. - --
intodays rule, the Agency is -
promulgating nonwastewater and_ —
wastewater treatment standards for
waste codes 1(002 through K008.BDAT
for metal constituents In K002, 1(003,
1(004 1(005,1(006 (aithydrous), 1(007 and
1(008 nonwastewaters are based on the
performance of dwinical precipitation.
sludge dewateriag, and filtration. BOAT
for-chromium In 1(006 (hydrated) Is
based on the performance of
stabilization for F006 wastes, BOAT for
cyanides in 1(005 and K0W wastewaters
Is based on the performance of alkaline
chlorination. BOAT far metal
constituents in 1(002, K003 K004 1(005.
1(006, KIlO?, and 1(1108 are based on
chromium reduction, chemical -
precipitation, and sludge dawataring.
For 1(005 and K007 nonwastawaters, the
Agency is reserving the treatment
standard for amenable and total
cyanidas. The Agency believes that.
these wastes contain treatable
cnno.ntration, of cyanides. Because the
Agency did not propose treatment
standard for cyanides in these wastes,
in this rule theAgencyispcevidlng
notice that standards will be proposed
for restrictions In- a future rul miikrng
Detailed technical desoriptiona of the
specific production processes generating
thesewasteecanbefoundinthe -
Bacigr’auad Document for Inorganic
Pigmant Wastes.
(1) Non wastewaters. In the Second
Third Final Rule (53 FR 28594, June 23,
1989). EPA promulgated treatment
standards of “No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation” for 1(005 and 1(007
wastes. In today’s final rule, the Agency
is revoking these standards and is
promulgating numerical treatment
standards because a source wishing to
manufacture these pigments In the
future would be forced to apply for a
variance from the treatment standard
(40 CFR 268.44).
In the FtrstThlrd Final Rule, EPA also
promulgated a standard of “No Land
Disposal Based on No Generation” for
1(004 and 1(008 EPA modified this
standard to apply only to certain newly
generated waste as part of the May 2,
1989. Final Rule (54 FR 18836). On
January 11, 1989, EPA also proposed to
modify this designation to “No Land
Disposal Based on Recycling”. During
the comment period for the Second
Third Proposed Rule. EPA reccived
Information that the recydling pera Lion
under consideration for thesa’wastes
may involve a limited captive market for
the waste by-product therefore. not all
generators would be able to sell their
processed K004 and 1(008. As a result,
EPA revoked the “No Land Disposal
Based on No Generalion ’ standard In
the Second Third Final Rule (54 FR
288171 and Is promulgating numerical
treatment standards for these wastes in
toda s rule.
For the K002,K003,K004,1(005,K006
(anhydrous), K007, and 1(008
nonwastewaters. EPA is transferring the
performance of the treatment of
presipitatfon. sludge dewatering. and
filtration for 1(062 nonwastewa tars to
these wastes. The Agency believes that
these wastes are similar to 1(062
because the wastewaters from which
K062 sludge are derived are aumlar in
nature to the inorganic pigment
wastewaters (i,e ., consisting of inorganic
constituents).
In the case of hydrated 1(006
nonwastewaters, EPA La promulgating
treatment standards for this waste
based on a performance of stabilization
of F008. The Agency believes that this is
a technically feasible transfer because
of the chromium content and other
dissolved metals which are In higher
concentrations in P008 than 1(006. The
Agency received supportive comments
on the transfer feasibility of P006 to
(2) Wastewaters. EPA Is promulgating
treatment standards based on the
chrome pigment effluent guidelines for
BDAT TREAmIEZIT STANDARDs FOR KOOl

-------
2 86
Federal Re stet I VoL a-Na. 106 / FrIday, June 1.19901 RWes and Regulations
thsAgency believes that this lea lngicai
outgrowth of the notice w 4 qiument -
process. As such. the Ageii Ta today
modifying and promulgating the
wastewater standards for both 1(017 and
1(073 wastewaters based oc the
performance of wastewater treatment.
Information on the technical
development of the constituent specific
treatment standards for these wastes
can be found in the 1(017 and 1(073
background documents. Detailed
information on the development of the
wastewater treatment standards by
constituent can be found in the
background document entitled. Final
Best Demonstrated Available
Technolo (BOAT) Background
Document for U and P Wastes and
Multi-Source Leachate (F039) Volume A.
Wastewater Forms of Organic U and P
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates
(F039) For Which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standardi.
BOAT TREATh4 T STANDARDS FOR (017
L (Nos s*ewe isJ
Re i ed co a* (d
Umimsu t
‘y—

—
(mg
1 .2 .O .ct oioçiuçene
12 .3TlI 4 ..u . 5fl 5 . .
8 e42-cNoraiO sOw -
18
25’
7.2
‘
R 5sn
.
w r24.tiUr

—
- (m I
12Dd tos’ogr ane ... . ... .. ..
1.2.3-Trtch3oroCro sne - .
Bs(2.hIooee yf) eOw_..
0.85
0.85
0 035
t
BOAT T mte STAN S FOR (073
(Noo wats,i3
T-.
Max sTIumIo(

Carbon Oa Io__..
8.2
8.2
30
8.2
8.2
ch nn_______
Hexact IoroeUww -.
Teeactilovoetheno
1 .1 .1-Thch aio s Ow __.
Carton
-—
0.057
0.048
Ha e Oi&e
.

0.056
0068
0.064
j. 1(021
1(021—Aqueous spent antimony catalyst from
fluoromethano production.
Final treatment standards are being
promulgated today for nonwastewater
forms of 1(021 wastes as proposed. The
treatment standards for organics are
based on the transfer of performance
data from Incineration of
nonwastewater forms of 1(019 (heavy
ends from the distillation of ethylene
dichloride In ethylene dichioride
production) waste. No comments were
received on the proposed standards.
Concentration-based treatment
standards for antimony In
nonwastewater forms of 1(021 are being
promulgated today based on the transfer
of performance data from the
st bil1zatIon of ash from the incineration
amiwastewater forms of 1(048
- —
(dissolved air frotatlon (DAF) float from
the petroleum raffling Industry) and
1(051 (API separator sludge from the
petroleum refining Industry) want as .
In the November 1989. proposal (54
FR 48394). the Agency sImultaneously-
proposed alternative concentration-
based treatment etandardá forantlmony
nenw iewater based on the -
perfo mance-ot vitrification of arsenic
___ wastes (see section ULA34a.) of the
- November 22, 1989 notice describing the
development of this. arsenic standard for
D004 wastes) and antimony
wastewatera based on the performance
of lime precipitation, sedimentation and
filtration (see the November 22, 1980.
notice (54 FR 483033 descrIbing the
development of wastawater treatment
standards for U and P wastes). Al that
time, the Agency solicited c ment .
from the public on the appropriateness
of thesealtametiva transfers. However,
because no Co nmPnta er-data were
received for either set otetandards for -
antimony. ‘A assumes that generators
andiieat e of KI wastes agree with
EPA ’ in tlaI ssse8sment of the
treatment of antimony based on the -
transfer of performance data from K048
and 1(851 was1es Therefore. the Agency
is — the proposed -
trelio based treatment
standards for antimony based en the
transfer of perfwmsnc data from.these
wastes. Details on this transfer and the
other nonwastewater standardsJor K i
wastes can be found in the Background
Document for 1(021 wastes in the R( A
docket.
In the November 22. 1989. notice, the
Agency also proposed concentration-
based treatment standards for
wastewater forms of 1(021 based on
incinerator scrubber water from 1(019
waste. The Agency also proposed two
sets of wastewater treatment standards
for the majority of U and P wastewaters
for which concentration-based
standards could be established. One set
of standards was based on incinerator
s ubber waste while the alternate set
of standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data from
wastewaters containing these
constituents from various data sources.
The reader Is referred to the discussion
In section IILA.5.(aj(1.) of today’s
preamble for additional information.
As stated In the Final Rule for Lend
Disposal Restnctione for Second Thid
Wastes (54 FR 26629) and reiteraW In
the proposed rule for Third Third ’
Wastes (54 FR 48390). when the Agency
has appropriate wastewater treatment
data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater treatment-units, it
prefers to use these data rather than
scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. -
Commenter. to the proposed rales for
the First Third, Second Thrd awl Third
Third wastes however, almost -
unanimousLy supported the option of
promulgating wastewater treah nl
standards based on the performance of
speaflc wastewater treatment rather
than In inar scrubber water
constituent levels. Upon review of all
available data and Comments, the
Agency agrees with the coinmonte,..
and Is today promulgating
ni entration-baaed treatment
standards based an wastewatar
treatment data m1 than scrubber
water for wastes that were proposed in
the Third Third ru
While the Agency did not specifically
1dent1f the standards based on
wuntawater tzea t data as
alternatives for F and K wastewaters.
the Agency believe. thai this- Is a Logical
outgrowth of the notice and oxame.t
pwCOU . As such, the Agency 1* today
modi thg and promu ling the -
wastawater standards for 1(021
wastewatere based on the performance
of wastewatm treatment Detailed
informaticnon the development of the
BOAt TRe .m.aN1’ STANDA s FOR (073
- - h 1
,I IJs
wiv 2s.to
=
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR (017
- (Was waters]

-------
Federal Register! Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday; June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22 ?
wastewater treatment standards by
constituent can be found in the
background document.entltled. Final
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background
Document For U and P Wastes and
Multi-Source Leachates fF039) Volume
A: Wastewater Forms of Organic U and
P Wastes and Multi-Source Leacha tea
(F039) For Which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards.
BOAT TnE mlEr1T STANDARDS FOR K021
Nonwaste*a
(Re iaed from no nd c 5sposail
-
Re 5 em

Ma,thun for
e y 24-lioit

(m JI)
C oiotoim
0 .048
0061
060
Casbon te 5ethlondo..
An*nony
k 1(022,1(025,1(028,1(035, and 1(083
K022—Dlstlllatlon bottom tars from the
production of phenol/acetone from
cumene.
K025—Dletillation bottoms from the
production of nit a.2w . .e by the
nitration of benz48
K.028—Strlpping still te1Iifr m the production
of methyl ethyl p ifuthi
K035—Waetewater troatdl et sludges
generated In the production of meosota.
K083—DlsIllIation bottoms from aniline
production.
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for 1(022 (wastewaters only).
and all forms of 1(025, 1(028, K035, and
K083. Treatment standards promulgated
today for 1(025 and 1(083. revoke the “No
Land Disposal Based on No Generation”
treatment standards promulgated on
August 8, 1988 and modified on May 2,
1989. (See 53 FR 31167 and 31174
(August 17. 1988) and 54 FR 18838 (May
2,1989).) A technical description of
these five wastes can be found in the
Listing Background Documents for each
waste.
(1) Revisions to the Standards for
Waste waters. EPA developed the
proposed treatment standards based on
the transfer of performance data from
wastes believed to be as difficult to
treat as K022, K025, 1(028,1(035. and
1(083. The proposed treatment standards
for both wastewater and nonwastewater
forms of these five wastes, If applicable,
were based on residues from
incineration. Several commenters urged
EPA to develop treatment standards for
the organice regulated in waetewaters
based on performance data resulting
from wastewater treatment
technologies. Specifically, coinmenters
urged EPA to adopt the same
performance data used by EPA in
developing treatment standards for
8.2 multi-source leachate. Other
6.2 commenters urged the Agency to use
performance data from the Office of
Water.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 28829) and reitetuted in
the proposed rule for Third Third wastes
(54 FR 48390). when the Agency has
appropriate wastewater treatment data
from well-designed and well-operated -
wastewater treatment units, It prefers to
use these data rather then scrubber
water concentrations to develop
wastewater treatment standards.
Commenters to the proposed rule for
First Third. Second Third and Third
Third wastes almost unanimously
supported the option of promulgating
wastewater treatment standards based
on the performance of specific
wastewater treatment rather than
incl erator scrubber water constituent
levels. Upon review of all available data
and comments, the Agency agrees with
the commenters and is today
promulgating concentration-based
treatment standards based on
wastewater.treatment data rather than.
scrubber water for wastes that are
proposed in the Third Third rule
While the Agency did not specifically
identify the standards based on
wastewaterfreatmentdata as
alternatives for F and K wastewaters,
the Agency believes that this Is a logical
outgrowth of the notice arid comment
process. As such, the Agency is today
modifying the concentration-based
treatment standards for 1(022.1(035, and
1(083 wastewaters. However, EPA is
withdrawing the proposed
concentration-based treatment
standards for the 1(025 and 1(028
wastewaters. EPA Is instead
promulgating technology-based
treatment standards.
(2) Treatment Standards for K022
Waste waters. The concentration-based
treatment standards promulgated today
for K022 are based on performance data
generated from one, or a combination of
two or more of the following BDAT
technologies: biological treatment.
steam stripping, carbon adsorption.
liquid extraction, and others. (See
Section lll.A6.(3) of today’s preamble
for a discus8ion of these performance
data for multi-source leachate.)
Treatment standards promulgated for
metals (chromium and nickel) in
wastewater forms of 1(022 are based on
chemical precipitation followed by
vacuum filtration of wastewaters
containing the metals of concern.
One commenter objected to EPA’s
rationale for regulating chromium and
nickel In 1(022 wastewaters by relaying
on performance data from the treatment
of listed hazardous wastes that only
contained metals. The commenter
pointed out that EPA should rely on
performance data for metal-bearing
wastewater that also contain organics.
According to the commenter is is
because 1(022 wastewaters are likely to
contain orgaxucs and the performance
data from which the Agency was
transferring standards lack organics.
The commenter believes organics could
Interfere with the treatment of chromium
and nickel. The commenter, however.
failed to provide data or Information
that indicate that the proposed
treatment standards for metals could not
be achieved for 1(022 wastewaters. The
Agency stands by its rationale for
transferiing performance data of metal
bearing wastewaters to 1(022
wastewaterg.
EPA believes these organics exist at
low concentrations such that they would
not interfere with the treatment of
metals and that If they do exist at higher
concentrations, they can easily be
treated using chemical or wet air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption In order to reduce their
potential interference with metals
treatment. At the same time, these
organlca would then be able to comply
with the K022 wastewater treatment
standards for organics promulgated in
today’s rule. As an alternative, these
wastewaters (i.e.. if they were even
higher in concentration) could also be
incinerated in order to comply with the
organics standards and then treated for
metals. All three of these technologies
have been demonstrated to treat similar
wastes containing both metals and
organics.
Ma,Svun for
any e
(mg/kg)
Mms m for
WY SU I9IO
BOAT TREATMEWr STANDARDS FOR K021
(Wastowaters)

-------
22506
Fedmial Reglat / Vol. 55, No. 106 Friday, rune 1,1990 / Rules and Regulations
(3) TreoWient sSa idardsfbrR and -
K083. The concentralion-bosed,,
treatment standards proi T ied today
for 1(035 and K083 wastewaters ar
based on performance datti generated
from one, or a combination of two or
more of the following BOAT
technologies: biological treatment.
steam stripping, carbon adsorption.
liquid extraction, and others. (See
section IILA.6.(3) of today’s preamble
for a discussion of these performance
data for multi-source leachate.) The
treatment sthnclnrd promulgated for
nickel Lu wastewater forms of 1(0831s
based on chemical precipitation
followed by vaccum filtration.
EPA Is prom ulgating treatment
standards for organics In -
nonwastewater forms of 1(035 and 1(083,
primarily as proposed. The treatment
standards are based on the Incineration
of wastes believed to be as difficult to
treat as 1(035 and 1(083. In addition. EPA
does not believe that the constituents in
1(035 and 1(083 are likely to interfere
with treatment to the extent of in ki g
the promulgeted treatment standards
tin hieveshle . The trea nt standard
promu1gat for nickel In
nonwastewatar forms of 1(083 Is based
on the stabilization of lndneration ash.
The Final BOAT Background Document
for each one of these wastes provides
detailed information on the development
of these treatment standards.
Cyclohexanone Is one of the
constituents that was proposed for
regulation In 1(083 waste. EPA has
Identified other constituents for
regulation In 1(083 wastes that are as
difficult to treat At this dine, EPA Is
withdrawing cydohexanone from the
list of regulated constituents in 1(083
nonwastewater. However. EPA Is still
promulgating treatment standards foe
cyclohexanone In 1(083 wastewaters.
Available performance data does not
indicate any difficulties in analyzing for
cyclohexanone in 1(083 wü .aters.
(4) Treatment Metho A& aad
K026. For 1(025 and KL A.poLnted
out its preference for pr at1ng a
method of treatment over’s
concentration based standard for these
two wastes. This is because there is a
lack of characterization data for these
wastes which raises the uncertainty aa
to whether regulation of a very few
known BDAT list constituents In these
two wastes will provide regulation of
other BOAT list constituents that could
be in 1(025 and 1(020 The performance
data from the treatment of wastes
believed to be as difficult to treat as
1(025 and 1(020 support that wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of these two
wastes can be treated to meet the
proznul ted BOAT requirements.
As a resuIt EPA Is promulgating
incineration for nonwastewater forms of
1(025 and K028 and as an alternative for
the corresponding wastewater forms. In
addition. EPA I. also promulgating
liquid-liquid extraction followed by
steam stripping followed by carbon
adsorption as the treatment standard for
1(025 wastewaters.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K022
Reg tiatsd constituent
•
Usansan tsr
eny e

on
(mg/I)
At onone
Pitenol________________
ctwomlum (Total)
NIcke l_____________________
0.010
0
0.35
0.47
c o nam
Ma,drman or

(mg/I)
Totuene
0.0 50
0.52
0.40
•
Diphei *usan1ne
-
z
j t
el
v
o n
(INc 1M a
meted
Bens (a) wseene
Bems (at p sw.
Deans (aJ enifracons___
thens
Indeno CT. 2. 3-cd) p cene
Nan e__
BOAT T AT WT STANDARDS FOP K026
( Waa tar , end Nonwastawutersi
ONGIN) as a
method c i
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K035
(Wastewateral
Regulated constituent
MaJdtnInfl for
arT,

,—
(mg/I)
Dens (a) w t 5vaceno
Gh ene ___
F
I ’
P..... . . _....... .. .
Pyrene
o . nsol
0059
0.059
0068
0.059
0059
0.067
O.fl
0.77
m .p .Qe sota
2
i4
— r
Regulated constituent
Mai t m enk
wiT—

—
(mg/n
Pt ecol
0.039
BDAT TREAmIEWT So os FOP K025
T w vonitent standard for mp-Cresols a ax-
5 ed the wan of the mete- and pera-cresol
1, . . e i because ci the cktficulbes ii disangusahing
the m edij& Isomers analytically.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARD FOP K035
(Nonwastewutars]
Maxlm*an for
Regulated constituent
any angle

,A & 1
(mg/lW
BOAT Tn TM STANDARD FOR K025
3.4
34
34
34
3.4
3.4
34
3.4
3.4
34
3 .4
8.2

-------
Federal RTegister / Vol. 55. No. 106 1 FrIday. June 1.. 1990 LRu1Os_and Regulations
BDAT TREAThENT STANDARDS FOR K083
[ Re .ed bum no nd id ]
Regulated constituent
Mw n
w,
safle,
F
te
AMine_______________________ 14
OlphenlasT* e/ 5phen 1i*osasnIne_ 14
N ,u , , thie 14
Phenol__________
Cyclohexanone 30
Maáiium for
v n e
gth
TQP
Nickol.. ._ .. .__.. . ... ....__
0.068
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K083
IW iew . t e rs]
Regulated constituent
Maxtmwn for
ngfe
W 5$
on
(mg/I)
A, i e
Phenol
cyclohoxanone
N Icl ie l ..
0.81
0.039
0.47
Regulated constift nt
Ma,dmum for


ii l a 1
(mg/I)
Benzeoe...____ ......_
O hen n irie._.___ . . .__ ..__
D Iie1r*usamme
NiWob enzene —._...____________
0 14
0.52
0.40
0.068
1.1(028,1(029,1(095 and 1(096 Wastes
K028—Spent catalyst
bydrochionnator te ,h cju the
production of 1.1,1 -trlchlaroethans.
K029—Waste from the plodUct steam stripper
In the production 2,1’trichJoroethan ,
1(095—Distillation bottom. from the
production of 1,1,1-ththloroethene.
K096—Heavy ends from the heavy ends
column from the production of 1,1.1-
frlch loroethane.
The Agency is promulgating final
treatment standards for organic. in
1(029, 1(095 and 1(096 wastewaters based
on the transfer of treatment performance
data from wastewaters containing the
constituents of concern for 1(029,1(095
and K096 wastes from various data
sources IncludIng: (1) The Office of
Water’s Industrial Technology Division
(ITD) and National Pollution Discharge
P llminatloi9yetem (NPDES) data
(including the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
data base); (2) the Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory
(HWERL) database; (3) the Office of
Solid Wastes’ BOAT data (from
previous land disposal restriction rules);
and (4) additional wastewater treatment
data from literature articles on wet air
oxidation and powder activated carbon
treatment (PACT).
In the November 22, 1989 notice, the
Agency proposed treatment standards
for organic. In 1(029,1(095, and 1(090
wastewaters based on the transfer of
performance data from rotary kiln
incineration of 1(019 (heavy ends from
the distillation of ethylene dichloride In
ethylene dichlorlde production)
nonwaatewoters. Although no comments
were received on the proposed rule, the
Agency has modified the proposed
treatment standards to reflect actual
treatment performance data for
wastewaters.
In the November 22. 1989 notice, the
Agency proposed two sets of
wastewater treatment standards for the
majority of U and P wastewaters for
which concentration-based standards
conid be established. One set of
standards was based on incinerator
scrubber waters while the alternate set
of standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data for
wastewaters containing these
constituents from the above mentioned
data sources. The reader is further
referred to the discussion in section
IILA.5.(a.)(1.) of today’s preamble for
additional information.
As stated In thaPinal Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Thid -
Wastes (54 FR 20629) and reiterated lx i
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390). when the Agency
has appropriate wastewater treatment
data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater treatment units, It
prefers to use these data rather than
incinerator scrubber water
concentrations to develop wastewater
treatment standards.
Comnienters to the proposed rule for
First Third. Second Third and Third
Third wastes almost unanimously
supported the options of promulgating
wastewater treatment standards based
on the performance of specific
wastewater treatment rather than
incinerator scrubber water constituent
levels. Upon review of all available data
and comments, the Agency agrees with
the commenters and is today
promulgating concentration-based
treatment standards based on
wastewater treatment data rather than
scrubber water for wastes that were
proposed in the Third Third rule. While
the Agency did not specifically Identify
the standards based on wastewater
treatment data as alternatives for F anti
K wastewaters, the Agency believes that
this Is a logical outgrowth of the notice
and comment process. As such, the
Agency is today modifying the
wastewater treatment standards for
1(029.1(095, and 1(096 wastes.
The Agency is also revoking the
‘reserved’ status for metals in K029,
1(095 and 1(096 wastewaters. Existing
waste characterization data for
nonwastewaters indicates that these
three waste8 are essentially all organic
and would not be expected to contain
any BOAT list metal constituents. No
comments were received disputing the
Agency’s conclusion.
The Agency is also promulgating
treatment standards for metal
constituents in 1(028 nonwastewaters
based on the transfer of TCLPdata from
stabilization of F024 (wastes from the
production of chlorinated al1 hiaflcs
such as distillation resldues,1 avy
ends, tars, and reactor clean-out)
wastes. As was stated In the November
, 1989 proposed rule (54 FR 48395), the
Agency transferred the metal standards
for K028 nonwastewaters based on
performance data from proposed
standards for F024. Several comments
however, were received on the metal
standards for F024 and subsequently
K028. stating that the metal standards
were too low. See section [ ILA.4.c. for a
discussion of these comments.
The Agency is however, promulgating
as proposed the concentration-based
treatment standards for metals In F024
wastes. Consequently, the Agency is
also promulgating the treatment
standards for metals in K028
nonwastewaters as proposed.
‘BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 1(028
( Noiw sste. J
Regulated constituent
Me& um for
e .
T LP g/9
Owoemum (tolal) ._____________
L.eed_________________
0073
0.021
0.088
Nlckd . . ... .. .. . .. . ..____________
These standards do not replace the
standards for the organic. in 1(028
nonwastewaters that were promulgated
with the Second Third wastes.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 1001 Friday, June 1 , 199(1 f Rule9 and Regulations
BOAT TREAmIdir STAN NtDS FOR KO?9
Re Aated consetient
Ma nu n tar
wT- s

G O li o n
(mg/ I)
c tdorofoon.._._
12- Oichtoroe lhane —
1 ,1-0ithIoroe i 1ene. ..._
1 ,1 ,1-Thchtcroet? ne
Va l cfltcnde
0.048
0.21
0025
0054
0.21
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K095
Reg tod cons
Mn m far
enys iØe

—
(mg /I)
1.1.12-TeThJl. . ioa41w .
1 ,1,2.2-Tefrac f oroethwbe
To acNoro e
1 ,t2 .Tdthk w
Tdcloroeth , .
0.057
0 057
0 058
0.054
0.054
0 55
0.055
He d
Pems
BDAT ThEATMENT STANDARDS FOR K096
.
Regk dcon
Mn aa
(
1 ,1 ,12-Te eec tloioetha n.
1,1,2 ,2-TebncNoroetheno
TetractloroeV eno
1 ,12 -Td 5kj.v tS -
Tflctitometh e ns
0067
0.057
0.058-
- 0.064
. 0.064
(0.038-
0.055’
0055’
1 DtaN e ene
Pentactloroeliene____________
1.2.4 -Totienrene
m. K03Z K033 , K034 K0 ’, and
K098 Wastes.
K032—Wastewater treatm from the
production of chlordai j
K033—Waetewater and scrub water from the
chlorination of cyclopentadlene In the
production of chlordane.
1(034—Filter solids from filtration ot
hexachiorocyclopentadlene In the
production of chiordane.
K041—Waatewater treatment sludge from the
production of toxaphene.
1(097—Vacuum stripper discharge from the
ch3crdai e chlorinator in the production
of Chlordsne. - - -
1(098—Untreated pro .s westewater from
the production of toxaphene.
The Agency Is today promulgating
ffnal treatment standards for
wastewater and nonwastewater forms
of 1(032,1(033, K034, 1(041, K097 and
1(098 wastes. The nonwastewater
treatment standards are based on
performance data from an EPA
Incineration test burn that was
conducted in June 1989. (The reader is
referred to the November 22. 1989
proposed rule for additional information
on the test burn (54 FR 483901).) No
comments were received on the
proposed standards for any of the
specific constituents of 1(032.1(033,
K034 1(041.1(097 or K098
nonwastewaters. Therefore, EPA
assumes that generators of these wastes
agree with the Agency’s assessment of
the treatability of these wastes and their
individual constituents. Details on the
selection of regulated constituents and
the transfer of performance data for
these IC wastes are provided In the
background document for these
halogenated pesticide wastes which can
be found in the RCRA docket.
In section fflAl.(h.)(6.) of the
proposed rule for Third Third wastes (54
FR 48390 (November 22. 1989)). the
Agency specifically proposed two
alternative sets of concentration-based
standards for the major1t of the U and
P wastewaters for which concentration-.
based standards could be established.
One set of standards was based on the -
concentration of constituents of concern
as measured in Incinerator scrubber -
water while the alternate set of
standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data for
wastewaters from various data sources.
These alternative standards were
presented In section IILA.7. of the
proposed Third ThIr4nile (54 FR 48467)
as treatment standards for wastewater
forms of multi-source leachate, but were
specifically Identified as alternative
standards for U and P wastewa tots.
M tatedin the Final Rule for Land-
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26829) and reiterated in
the proposed rule for Third-Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390). when the Agency
has appropriate waatewater treatment
data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater freatmentunits. it
prefers to nae these data rather than
scrubber water concentrations to-
develop wastewate; treatment -
standards.Commenters to the proposed
rules for the First Third. Second Third
and Third Third Wastes elmo t
unanimously supported that EPA should
promulgate wastewater standards based
on the performance of specific
wastewater treatment rather than
incinerator scrubber water constituent
levels. After reviewing all available data
and comments, the Agency agrees with
the commenters, and is promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards based on wastewater
treatment data rather than scrubber
water for 1(032,1(033. K034, K041. 1(097
and K098 wastewaters. While the
Agency did not specifically Identify the
standards based on wastewater
treatment data as alternatives for these
wastewaters, the Agency believes that
this is a logical outgrowth of the notice
and comment process.
More detailed information on the
technical development of the constituent
specific treatment standards for
w6stewaters can be found in the
background document entitled. BDAT
Background Document for Wastewaters
containing BDAT list Constituents.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K032
(No rsI
Ro ated coneStuem
Mumfor
a ny ongle
j ’°
cc . ,—
(mg/kg)
HomcNorocydog ei i ene ._
-
2.4
o e
0M68
0.088
I4epiac lic.
I4eptscfilor epoxide
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K032
Re c on
Ma,dmixn for
any 24-ho t

—
(mg/I)
Hexact iIorocyc1open ene
cte -
0.057
00033
00012
0016
HeptacNor
HeØact Itarepo 1 ie. —
BOAT TR ATMEPIT STANDARDS FQR K033
ENtemi
Ma i d x m
c o
.
for any
angle ab
san e.
total
c o on
(mg/kg)
Hex 1aroc dogenta 5ene._. -
2.4

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 85, No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Regulated constItuent
M TxNn 1 Sf
any angle

com
(mg/kg)
Kexacfltoocyclopentadtene..
crwoieane._._._...._.
Hep1acS Sf . .. ...._._.
2.4
0.26
0066
0066
Heptactilor opoxide
Regulated CcnsUtuent
Maximum Icr
any 24.hoir

on

Ptexach icrucyc topentadjene .___
chiordane —
Heçtac n tor
Heçncn iorep ix.. iie
0057
00033
00012
0016
.
Regulated constituent
M
for any
sI b
I c
on
(mg/kg)
Toxapflene .._. ; ._____
2.6
M num
. 24
how.
Regulated constituent
1 S* l e
pcsD o n
(mg/fl
— - .....
00096
n. 1(038 and 1(037
Today’s rule promulgates treatment
standards for the wastewater forms of
1(037 and the nonwastewgtey forms of
1(038 as proposed Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific production
processes generating these wastes can
be found In the backgrmind document
for the listing of these wastes.
The Agency promulgated a treatment
standard of “No Land Disposal Based on
No Generation” for 1(038
nonwastewaters in the First Third final
rule on August 8. 1988 (53 FR 31174,
August 17, 1988). EPA amended this
standard on May 2. 1989, to apply to
wastes generated from the process
described ui the listing description and
disposed after August 17. 1988 (54 FR
18836). In the November 22. 1989
proposed rule for Third Third wastes,
the Agency proposed a transfer of
concentration-based standards from
1(037 nonwastewaters (based on the
performance of incineration in the First
Third final rule) to other forms of 1(036
nonwastewateri. such as 1(038 spill
_______ residues. The basis of this transfer is the
similarity of these two wastes, and the
fact that Disulfoton. the regulated
constituent in K036, is a regulated
constituent in 1(037 as well.
The Agency promulgated
concentration-based treatment
standards for 1(037 wastewaters based
on incinerator scrubber water
concentration levels in the First Third
final rule. In the November 22a1989
proposed rule for Third Thirc astes,
the Agency proposed to revi ê this
standard to be consistent with the other
organophosphorus pesticide
wastewaters. for which concentration.
based standards based on biological
treatment were promulgated in the
Second Third final rule on June 23. 1989.
The Agency stated that the
performance achievable by incineration
and the performance of biological
treatment represent BDAT for
nonwastewater and wastewater forms,
respectively, of the organophosphorue
pesticides. Because the Agency received
no comments on this proposal, the
Agency is today promulgating
concentration-based treatment
standards for 1(038 nonwastewaters and
concentration-based treatment
standards for K037 wastewaters as
proposed. Therefore, the Agency is able
to promulgate concentration-based
treatment standards fon Disullo ton in
1(038 non.waatewaters, and Disulfoton
and toluene in 1(037 nonwastewaters.
Standards applicable to
nonwastewaters are based on the
performance achieved by rotary kiln
incineration and the concentration of
organophosphorus pesticide measured
In the ash residuals. Standards
applicable to wastewaters are based on
the performance achieved by biological
treatment and the concentration of
organophosphorus pesticide measured
in the resultant effluent wastewaters.
Where the treatment standards are
expressed as concentration-based
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 1(033
BDAT T mt wr STANDARDS FOR 1(097
(Nonwastowater,]
Regulated constituent
Mn
for any 24-
, -
(mg/I)
Hexacfllorocyc lopenta ene ——
0.067
BOAT TREAmIENr STANDARDS FOR 1(034
(Nonwastewatersi
BOAT TREAmIENT STANDARDS FOR K097
(We stewatem]
Maximum
Regulated constituent
for any
Z ’
n
kexathiorocyc loç,entadlene -
2.4
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 1(034
(Wastewaters]
BOAT TREAm i STANDARDS FOR 1(098
Maximum
for any 24-
how
Regulated constituent
C O
foist
-on
(mg/It
l iexac i tlorocyctogentadlene
0057
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 1(041
(No J
BOAT TREATht T STANDARDS FOR 1(098
Wastewaters3
Regulated constituent
.
Maximum
for any
angle or
sample,
fo
ccmpco
(mg/kg)
-—
Toxapflerve ... • --- - : -
-;-
2.6
BOAT TREAmiENT STANDARDS FOR K04j -
(Wastewateroj
K03&—StlU bottoms from toluene reclamation
distillation In the production of
disulfoton
K037—Wastewater treatment sludg from
the production of disulfoton
MaxImum for
any 24-hois
c o n s t i t uent
com on
( mg/fl
ToAaphene__._ . . ._____
0.0096

-------
Fed. a1 Register / . -VoL 55, No. 106 / FrIday, June 1, 1990/ Rules and- Regulations
- —
that can achieve these cQ selrat1oa-
based treatment standard. are not
preduded from use by this rule. The
regulated constituents and. treatment
standards for these wastes are
presented In the tables at the end of this
section.
The Agency points out that the
promulgated concentration-based
treatment standards for K037
wastewaters are based on the analysis
of composite samples rather than grab
samples. This sampling procedure Is
specified for compliance monitoring
because the performance data on which
these standards are based consisted of
analysis of composite effluent samples.
BOAT T 1 nNT STANDARDS FOR K036
(No ewamml
(Revtsed from no land ctsposatl
RO Odenn
U
-w
—,
m
m
(m
O ts* tmn -
0.1
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 1(037
(Wastpwatevsl
ReO. enr tuem
M
Ior W
—


e n m•
0 jtfo on, __ —
0
o
Toluene- — —
o.K04ZK085.andX105Wastes
K042—Heavy ends or dIstfl aJlonresidmi
from the distillation
tetrathlorobenzene Id OductIoeot
K085—Dtstillatlon of fre lI . column
bottoms from the prod tlà o(
thisrobeom -
K105—Separa ted aqueous stream from the
reactor product w hing step *n the -
production of chlorobenzenes. - -
The Agency I. today promulgating
final treatment standards foe the
wastewa tee and nonwastbwater forms
of K042, K085 and KIDS. The treatment
standards or nonwastewaters are
based on performance data from an EPA
incineration test burn that was
conducted In June 1989. (The reader Is
referred to the November 22, 1989
proposed rule for additional Information
on -this test burn (54 FR 483901).) The-
wastewater treatment standards have
been modified from the proposed rule
and are being promulgated today based
on a transfer of performance data from
wastewater treatment
En section IILA.1.(b)(6) of the propoaed
rule for Third Third wastes (54 FR 48390
(November 22,1989)). the Agency
specifically proposed two alternative
sets of concentration-based standards
for the majority of the U and P
wastewaters for which concentration-
based standards could be established.
One set of standards was based on the
concentration of constituents of concern
as measured In Incinerator scrubber
water while the alternate set of
standards was based on a transfer of
treatment performance data for
wastewatera from various data sources.
These allernatlve standards were
presented In section lll.A.7. of the
proposed Third Third rule (54 FR 48487)
as treatment standards for wastewater
forms of multi-source leachate, but ware
specifically identified as alternative
standards for U and P wastewaters.
As stated in the Final Rule for Land-
Disposal Restrictions fur Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 26629) and reiterated In
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390), when the Agency
has appropnate,wastewater treatment
data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater treatment units. It
prefers-to use these data rather than
scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. Commentera to the proposed
ndor for the First Thrd. Secoad Third
and ‘Third Third Wastes almost
unanimously agreed that EPA should
promulgate wastewater standards based
om the performance of specific
wastewater treatment rather than
incinerator scrubber water constituent
levels. After reviewing all available data
and comments, the Agency agrees with
the commenturs, and Is promulgating
- concentration-based treatment -
standards based on wastewater
treatment data rather than scrubber
water for K042, K085 and K105 -
wastewaters. More detailed Information
on the .technlca! development of the
constituent specific treatment standards
for wastewaters can be found In the
background document entitled. ODAT
Background Document for Wastewaters
confnining -BDAT list Constituents.
The Agency received several -
comments on the proposed standards for
the PCB constituents In K085 waste.
These standard. were listed for seven of
the common nuxtureeof l s own
originally by the adename of Arodce
(I.e.. the proposed standards were listed
ferAseclo, 1O18 ,j221. 1222 .1242,1245,
1254, and 1260). One commenter stated
that an unjustified treatment level for
PCBs had been set and that the Agency
did not give a rationale for the level
selected. The commenter further urged
the Agency to set a treatment standard
at 50 ppm which is the regulated level
under both TSCA and the RCRA
California list provision. The Agency
disagrees with the commenter. Under
HSWA. EPA has been given authority to
establish treatment standards at levels
that minlmi75 threats to human health
and the environment. See S. Rept. No.
284. 98th Cong. 1st Sess. at 17, stating
that California list levels—which
Include a 50 ppm PCB level—are only
minimum starting points for establishing
treatment standards. (See also 55 FR
8840, Feb. 28 1990 explaIning that
current uncertainties as to waste
toxicity and mobility warrant retention
of the BDAT approach.)
EPA noted In the November 22. 1989
proposal (54 FR 48398), that untreated
1 (085 wastes contain a wide range of
PCB concentrations, however if Kb85
wastes exceed 50 ppm I Bs. they,-uiust
be Incinerated In a TSCA permi t 1
facility (several of the commercial
facilities that are permitted for RCRA
wastes are also permitted for PCB-
contnminated wastes under TSCA) as
well as meeting the concentration-based
treatment standards being promulgated
today. EPA believes that this approach
Is consistent with the statutory mandate.
Another commpnter stated that the
proposed PCB concentration-based
standard for 1(085 was inappropriately
low because the presence of
hexachiorobeuzene or -
pentachlorob n”- ne at their K085
treatment standard concentration levels
Interferes with proper performance of
SW—646 Method 8980’s Electron Capture
Detection Instrumentation, and therefore
PCB-levels In K085 cannot be routinely
quantified at the BDAT standard leveL
‘EPA believes. as stated In the preamble
to the proposed rule (54 FR48398) that
incineration virtually destroys
hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorobenzene. as well as PCBs. so
thefr ash and scrubber water levels will
be too low to cause Interference. As
stated In the -section of this Preamble
discussing how the Agency used
detection limits to set standards. EPA
deliberately set numerical treatment
standards above detection limits by
using multiple variability factors:
Cansequently numerical treatment
standards for incineration based
numbers represent the lowest numbers
an analytical Instrumentation system
can reliably report ather than the

-------
- ‘FederaiRegister I VoL 55. No. 100 / Frfday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22593
concentration of the conshtuent actually
present In the ash. EPA reiterates that
treatability variancea,.am available on a
case-by-case basis for generators who
cannot meet these standards. In
addition, if the waste has been
Incinerated and analytical methods
utilized in good faith, and the standard
still proves to be below the detection
limit, EPA will consider this to
constitute compliance with the -
treatment standard (see preamble
section ffl.A.1.g).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K042
(Nonwastewalarsi
Regulated consiltueni
M n
for any

w ,OS bOfl
(mgikg)
1,2 ,4,5 -Teead’utorobenzene
o .O fct i lorobenzene
p-0fcli1orober ene.
Pertecfdorobef ene
1 ,2,4Thctiforcbenzene —
44
44
4 4
4 4
4.4
Regulated constItuent
.
Mwth um
for any

on
(mg/ f)
1,Z4,5 -Tefltoro ee.. . .. .. ..
o .OcflIci ’o tenzene
p .Oth lorobenzene
Pentac n iorobenzene .
1 ,2,4-TflctiloroCenzene
0055
0088
0090
0.066
0.066
Regulated cons 5tuant
.

-
M
for any
ab
samgfe.
fo Ist
cc on
(mq/kg
Benzene .. --
4.4
44
4.4
44
44
4.4
44
44
. 44
092
0.92—
0.92
0.92
0.92
18
. 18
CNocober ene_
o-Ofth$orcbernene
m-Oicobonsene
p- Ofc ltIotobenzene —________
I ,2,4 .TflcNocobenzene
1,2 ,4,5-TetIachlorobenzone. ...._____
PentacNorobenzene
HexacNorobe uene .. -.. —
Aiodor 1016 —_____
Aoclor 1221
Aroclor 12 i —- .___
Aroclor 1242 .________
Asodor 124$-
ArocIor l2S4_______________
P ’ocforI2 6 0
-
Regulated constituent
Medns
far any
angla b
samp te,
on
(mg / ! )
Benrene__..____
ctuocooenzene
014
0057
0.088
0.036
0 090
0 055
0065
0.055
0055
0013
0.014
0013
0017
0013
0014
0014
——_________
o-Dsc I tlorobenzene —____________
m -Osth lorot,enzene *__________
p-Dfc f ilorobenzene
124-Tr,cti fo robenzene
1 ,2,4, STetr ach lor ebes -nene ..
Pen f ilorobenzene
Nexeoniorobenreno
Aroclo, 1016.............. .. . .... —
A,odor 1221.
Aroclor 123Z._....... ... . . . . . . .._
A ,Qd o r1242... ...__
A,ocfor 1248—
ArocIori2 S4_
Aiccfct 1260
.
- Re ated ent
I
for any
smgfo ab
-
fo t
on
(mgik )
B ene —_______
chiorobenrene_________________
o-DcNorobenzeno
p-D lct lom t ier2ene -____________
2 ,4,5-Telrac I tioropfleno !_
2,4,OTetac n toroØi enol
2Olc rogflen01
Phenol_______________________
44
4.4
4.4
44
44
4.4
4.4
4.4
p.1(044, K045 1(048 , and 1(047 -
K044—Wastewater treatment sludges from
the manufacturing and processing of
explosives.
K045—Spent carbon from the tmatnient of
wastewater cnntaln1nqaxnlnilvpc .
1(047—Pink/red water ThT operators.
Today’s rule revokes the “No Land
Disposal Based on Reactivity” treatment
standard for 1(044, 1(045, and 1(047
wastes and promulgates as proposed a
treatment standard of “Deactivation”.
The Agency is also promulgating a
nonwastewater treatment standard for
lead In the 1(046 Reactive Subcategory
as proposed (also see 54 FR 26607—608.
June 23, 1989), based on the transfer of
performance data from the stabilization
of 1(046 nonreactive wastes. This
treatment standard is based on the
performance of deactivation for the
reactive wastewaters followed by
alkaline precipitation, settling, and
filtration to form a nonreactive 1(048
nonwastewater that is then stabilized
for lead,
The Agency received several
comments Indicating that the BDAT for
the 1(046 Reactive Subcategory should
be deactivation followed by
stabilization as opposed to just
stabilization. The Agency agrees with
the commentera and is therefore revising
BDAT as deactivation followed by
stabilization. In addition, mahy
commenters had questions on the
definition of deactivation. To clarify this
point, the Agency Is defining
deactivitatlon for 1(044, 1(045, 1(046 and
1(047 wastes to be the process of
removing the characteristic of reactivity,
by technologies such as incineration or
chemical oxidation. See 40 CFR part 268
appendix VI for a list of technologies
that used alone or in combination can
achieve this standard.
For all 1(046 wastewaters, the
treatment standard is based on the
performance of alkaline precipitation,
settling, and filtration. The Agency is
transferring the performance of this
treatment system from 1(062 wastes. The
K062 wastewaters are just as difficult to
treat as the 1(048 wastewaters, based on
the concentration of lead In Ko (up to
212 ppm) which is the same or higher
than that which has been found in 1(048
wastewaters (up to 200 ppm).
BOAT TREATMENT FOR K044, K045, K047
(Norresatewaters and Wastewatersj
(Re fsod from no land c 5sposall
DeactI ’ ation (Demt) as a method ol tieatment ’
‘See CFR 26842 T fe I fo, a descr tfon 01 Pits
method 01 treatment
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K085
(Wastewatersi
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K105
(Nonwa rtewatei sj
BOAT T m wr STANDARDS FOR 1(042
(Wastewatere]-
BOAT TREATM STANDARDS FOR K085
(Nonweatew s tersj
BOAT TREAmt la STANDARDS FOR K105
Mastnsjm for
any e nØe
Regulated constituent
_______________________________ (mgi !)
Benrene __
o U —
O forotienrene
Z4,5 Tncnioropf ien01
2.4.8-Tnc ftI o ropheno l
2 .Q i IoroohenoI ___________________
0.1-4
0.057
0.688
0090
0.18
0.035
0044
0039
K040— .Waatewater treatment sludges from
the manufacturing, formulation and
loading of lead-based initiating
compounds.

-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, Na. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
BDAT TREATM9IT STANDARDS FOR 1(048
REAC1IVE AND NONREACTWrSUBCATE-
GORIES
Was*ewa ie al
Reg a t ed
M
tor w
—
=
te
—
(mg/ I)
Leed______________________
0.057
BOAT TREATUENT STANDARDS FOR 1(046
REACTIVE SUSCATEGOR?
(Nonwastawateil
Regulated consliSient
M m
ran


Lead..
0.18
q. 1(048. K( 9. 1(050.1(051. and K052
K048—Dlssc ed air floatatlon (DAF) float
from the etroleum refining Industry.
1(049—Slop oil emulsion solids from the
petroleum refining Industry.
1(050—Heat Exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge from the petroleum refining
Industry.
1(051—API separator sludge from the
petroleum refining Industry.
1(052—Tank bottoms (leaded) from the
petroleum refining Industry.
Wastes identified as 1(048.1(049.1(050.
1(051, and 1(052 are generated by
facilities ii i the petroleum refining
industry. Detailed technical descriptions
of the specific processes generating
these wastes can be found in the
background document for the listing of
these waste codes.
In today’s rule. EPA ia unlgating
revised treatment stand r the
organic and metal conet1 in 1(048-
K052 nonwastewaters an yanIde in
1(048-1(052 wastewaters! The specific
regulated constituents and treatment
standards for these wastes are Listed In
the tables at the end of this section.
Treatment standards for organic and
metal constituents In K048-K052
was tewaters and cyanide in K048-K052
nonwastewaters were promulgated on
August 8. 1988 (53 FR 31159) and are not
amended by this rulemaking.
The Agency has also decided to
reschedule these wastes to the third-
third and thus create a new prohibition
effective date for them. The legal
authority to take this action comes from
“EPAL’sJ ‘continuing authority to
reschedule wastes from one third of the
schedule to another.” Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 869 F. zd 1528 n.2
(DC Cir. 1989) (noting rescheduling of
the prohibition for multisource leachate
that had already taken effect).
Notwithstanding this authority, the
Agency is not undertaking this
rescheduling casually. The determining
factor in EPA’s view, is that even though
the wastes were prohibited In the first
third rule (and granted a two-year
national capacity variance), petroleum
Industry members were in legitimate
doubt as to what the ultimate treatment
standards would be and, to some extent,
what the technological basis for the
standards would be.
In particular. the original standards.
promulgated by EPA were based on
treatment of some of the less
contaminated petroleum refining wastes.
Subsequent efforts to reexamine and
possibly amend the promulgated
standards were delayed In part because
of conflicting t inirna from the treatment
industry regarding the equivalency of
performance of three-stage and five-
stage solvent extraction technology. The
petroleum refining industry itself
participated in research efforts
regarding treatment tests on some of the
more contaminated petroleum refining
wastes and generated some useful data
which was used in revising the
promulgated standards.
The result of this involved process is
that it could have been reasonably
unclear to a petroleum refinery wtiether
treatment standards could be achieved
using solvent extraction technology one
type of BOAT technology. Such a facility
could have legitimately delayed its
investment decision about what
treatment technology to use to comply
with the land disposal prohibitions.
Given this situation. the Agency
believes it is acting both reasonably and
legally In exercising its authority to
reschedule the wastes to the Third
Third.
The Agency has also determined that
there Is inadequate treatment capacity
for generated K048-K052 wastes. (See
section IILB. below where the Agency Is
granting a national capacity variance for
1(048-1(052 wastes). The revised
standards for organic and metal
constituents In 1(048-1(052
nonwastewatera and for cyanide in
1(048-1(052 wastewatere and the
previously promulgated standards for
organic and metal constituents in 1(048—
1(052 wastewaters and cyanide in K048-.
1(052 non wastewatere will become
effective on November 8. 1990 at the
completion of a six month national
capacity varianco being Issued far 1(048-
as part of the l’hfrd Third rule.
The treatment standard for cyanide In
wastewater forms of 1(048-1(052 Is
promulgated as proposed. Treatment
standards for organic and metal
constituents in 1(048-1(052
nonwastewaters have been revised as
described below.
During the public comment period, the
Agency received additional treatment
performance data for treatment of
organic and metal constituents in 1(048—
1(052 nanwastewaters. Treatment
performance data were received from
four commenters. BP America, Exxon.
Amoco, and Al’ !, for stabilization of
metal constituents in 1(048-1(052
nonwastewaters from five refineries.
These data were obtained from
stabilization treatment tests of solvent
extraction raffinate. incinerator ash, and
incinerator combustion gas scrubber
water solids using a variety of binders.
The Agency received additional
beatment performance data for CF
Systems’ solvent extraction system from
four conimentere: CF Systems. Ex rn.
Shell. and API. These data were
obtained from solvent extmction
treatment tests of organic constituents in
1(048-1(052 nonwastewaters from ten
refineries. Treatment performance data
for RCC’s B.E.S.T. solvent extraction
system were also submitted from two
commenters for treatment of organic
constituents in K048-K052
nonwastewatars from three refineries,
Treatment performance data for
multicycle solvent extraction were
submitted by one commenter for
treatment of organic constituents in
1(048-1(052 nonwastewaters from three
refineries. Also, treatment performance
data for BP America’s filtration/solvent
extractionf stabilization process were
submitted by one commenter for
treatment of organic constituents in
1(048-1(052 nonwastewaters from one
refinery. The Agency also has limited
datasubmitted by Thermal Dynamics,
Inc. for treatment of organic constituents
in 1(048-1(052 nonwastewaters using
high temperature thermal distillation
from one refinery. The basis for the
amended treatment standards Is
summarized below.
(1) BDAT Treatment Standards for
Metal Constituents. Today’s rule
amends the promulgated K0 8-K052
rulemaking (53 FR 31159) to delete the
treatment 8tandarda for arsenic and
selenium in nonwastewater forms of
1(1)48-1(052. Toda e title also revises the
treatment standard for nickel in
nonwastewater forms of 1(048-1(052.
The majority of the stabilization data
submitted by industry could not be

-------
F.’ ’a 1 .R ster I VoL 55. No. 106 I Fa4thy , June 1, 1000 / Rules and R ,ulattona
considered In developing this -
promulgated h r the
followtng zeasons: (1) Data were not
provided fora major4 of the regulated
constItuents; (2) untreated waste data
were not provided, and, therefore, no
determination of substantial treatment
could be made; (3) detectIon limits were
not provided for undetected samples;
and/or (4) treatment was not
demonstrated for a majority of the
regulated metal constituents.
Treatment performance data that
were considered In developing
promulgated treatment standards for
metal constituents in K048-KO52
nonwastewatera are discussed in detail
in the amendment to the BDAT
background document for these wastes
located in the RCRA docket Statistical
comparison showed that data sets for
stabilization of solvent extraction
raffinate submitted by Exxon and BP
America demonstrated better treatment
for chromium than the data generated
by EPA as well as that Submitted by
Amoco for stabilization of incinerator
ash. In addition, data submitted by
industry Indicated significantly huju .v
levels of n ks4 to the untreated waste
than In the waste stabilized by the
Agency.
Several commenters stated that the
data generated by EPA showed only
marginal evidence of treatment by
stabilization, and that an error was
made in calculating the treatment
standard for nickel in 1(048-1(052
nonwastewaters. Th Agency
acknowledges the error made in the
treatment standard calculation for -
nickel, and agrees with the commanters
that marginal evidence of atabiimatioa
treatment Is shown In the EPA
generated data regarding arsenic and
selenium. In addition, none of the
industry data submitted show
8Ubstantial treatment for these two.
constituents. Therefox , the Agency is
deleting treatment U-. 1in d for arsenic
and selenium in 1(o t
nonwastewaters. F thj 1 .to enaore that
the Agency Is accou kr the -
maximum variability In metals -
concentrations in 1(048-1(052 wastes, the
Agency Is using the data sets submitted
by Exxon and B? America to revise the
treatment shrngbird for nickeL Finally,
the treatment stnndnrd for thnn iun
remainR as promulgated In the First
Third Ruls.nai king because’ the data
submitted by Exxon and BP America. as
well as by Amoco, Indicate that the
treatment etandmd Is achievable for the
complete range of 1(048-1(052 wastes
tested using stabilization treatment
(2) BDA T Treatment Standania for
Or onic Constituea Today’s rule
revises the treatment standards foe all
sixteen regulated organic consUtu nte In
1(048-1(052 nonwastewaters. In revising
these standards, the Agency considered
the treatment performance data
submitted by industry for the following
technologies: CP Systems’ three-pass
solvent extraction. BP America’s
multicycle solvent extraction. RCCs
solvent extrRctinn. and TDI’a high
temperature thermal distillation.
The majority of the aforementioned
data could not be considered in
developing this promulgated rulemaking
for the following reasons: (1) Data were
not provided for a majority of the
regulated organic constituents; (2)
untreated waste data were not provided
and, therefore, no determination of
substantial treatment could be made; (3)
a majority of the regulated organic
constituents were not detected in the -
untreated waste; (4) detection limits for
the treated waste were several orders of
magnitude higher than those achieved in
other treated waste data sets, indicating
non-optimized laboratory procedures;
(5) treatment was not demonstrated for
a majority of the regulated organic
constituents; and/or, (8) adequate QA/
QC data were not provided.
lbs remaining data sets met the
Agency’. screening criteria and were
used with Agency-generated data from
Amoco’s fluidlized bed incineration and
CF Systems’ five-pass solvent extraction
treatment tests to calculate promulgated
treatment standards for organic
constituents in 1(048-1(052
nonwastewaters. These treatment
performance data are discussed in detail
in the ampndmant to the BOAT
background document for these wastes
located In thaRCRA docket
Several on mDntars stated that the
• data used byEPAto develop the
treatment standards do not reflect the
wide variability in. refinery ‘wastes, and
• suggested that the Agency use data
eubmifted by the petroleum refining
Industry to develop a larger database for
calculation of treatment standards.
However, one cominenter stated that the
Agency’s current use of a variability
factor In treatment standard
calculations Is erificlent, and additional
factors to acc nit for waste feed
variability would bias the data.
The Agency has addressed the
comm ntors’ concerns regarding waste
variability In calculating the revised.
treatment standards for K048—K052
promulgated In today’s rule. The data
sets that met the Agency’, screening -
criteria were reviewed to determine the
most difficult to treat waste (typically
containing the highest concentration
value) for each regulated constituent.
The corresponding treated waste
concenfrat was then multiplied by a
variability factor of 2.8 (this variability
factor Is used by the Agency when
attempting to account for variability
with only one data point (see the BOAT
Methodology Background Document
located in the RCRA docket)) to
determine the treatment standard for
each cons tituent A more detailed
discussion of the calculation of revised
treatment standards for the K048.-K052
nonwastewater organics may be found
in the amendment to the BDAT
background document for these wastes
located In the RCRA docket
Several cominenters stated that
currently available solvent extraction
processes, Including the propane
extraction system (CF Systems’) tested
by the Agency, cannot meet the
proposed BDAT standards. One
commenter stated that the propane
extraction system tested’by the Agency
to develop the proposed treatment
standards for organic constituents in
1(048-1(052 nonwastewaters cannot be
considered BDAT because It Ii a pilot-
scale unit and, therefore, is n (
“demonstrated.”
l’he Agency reminds the commenters
that BOAT I. technology-specific, not
process-specific. BDAT for 1(048-1(052
nonwastewater organics Is solvent
extraction and Incineration, both of
which are demonstrated treatment
technologies for 1(048-1(052 wastes, and
data considered by the Agency from
both technologies have been used to
develop the promulgated treatment
standards, thereby ensuring that the
treatment standards would not preclude
the use of either technology.
The Agency also points out that
although the treatment standards were
specifically calmilated using data from
CF Systems’ solvent extraction unit.
data submitted by RCC shows that their
amine extraction technology would be
able to meet the treatment standards for
all regulated constituents except bis(Z-
ethyihexyl) pirthalate. (High treated
waste concentrations reported by RCC
for bis(2-ethythexyl) phthalate were
apparently a result of laboratory
contzuvthuifton.) However, the RCC data
were bench-scale and could not be
considered further since pilot- and full-
scale data ware available to the Agency.
BP America’s solvent extraction data.
which were used to promulgate
treatment standards for 1(048—1(052
nonwastewatar organics in the first third
rule, in4lcate that this technology can
meet all but four of the revised
treatment standards, those for
ethylbenz in . bis(Z-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, as well as the new standards

-------
Faderat Regist ) VoL 55 No. 100- / F iday, June.1 . 1990 / Rules and Regulations
for xylenes and naphthalene. Also,
limited data available friálDFs high
temperature thermal distillation unit
show that It can meet all of the BOAT
treatment standards and should be
considered an equivalent BOAT
technology to incineration and solvent
extraction.
Several comxnenters stated that BDAT
for refmery wastes should be based on
both incineration and solvent extraction.
As discussed above, treatment data
available to the Agency from both
technologies were used to develop the
revised treatment standards. Therefore,
both technologies can meet the revised
promulgated standards. Although the
solvent extraction data showed
somewhat higher treated waste
concentrations than the Incineration
data, the organic constituent removal
elficlency for solvent extraction (98% on
average) Is close to that for available
incineration data (99.7% on average).
Additionally, solvent extraction
provides the benefit of recovering as
much as 388,099 barrels of oil per year
(provided all of the 1(048-1(052 waste
generated per year Is treated using
solvent extraction technologies versus
1ndnerati -technologies). This recovery
benefit can also be realized using high
temperature thermal distillation
technologies.
The Agency notes, however, that in
choosing to base treatmeef standards on
solvent extraction as well as on
incineration, it has chosen a techAolo j,
that does not destroy or remove
toxicants as well as incineration. EPA
believes this Is a permissible and
rational choice to make given that
solvent extraction is a recovery
technology and the law voices a strong
preference for use of such technologies.
See. e.g., HR. Rep. No.198,98th Cqng.
1st Seas. 31. In addition, solvent
extraction does perform substantial.
treatment on these wastes. Thus, the -
Agency believes its choi -be
consistent with the I - section
3004(m) and also ove - ory’goala
of encouraging materIel and waste
minimization. See, e.g. RCRksectlon
1003(8).
Several coznmenters stated that the
treatment standards for xylenea and -
naphtalene in 1(048-1(052
nonwastewaters, reserved at the time of
promulgation of the first third rule,
should be based on data recently
submitted by the petroleum refining
industry or should be transferred from
other regulated constituents with similar
chemical structures. One commenter
stated that the proposed treatment
standards for ethylbenzene and
phenanthrene In K041%- .K052
nonwastewaters should not ba
promulgated because they are below the
practical quantitatlon limits (PQLs) for
these constituents. Another commenter
stated that none of the BOAT treatment
standards should be set below PQLs.
The Agency points out that none of
the 1(048-1(052 nonwastewater organic
treatment standards are being
promulgated at levels below the PQLa
for their respective constituents as listed
In SW—848 for low level soil, the moat
similar matrix to Incinerator ash and
solvent extraction residues of the four
matrices for which PQLa are given, in
addition, the commenters should keep in
mind that the PQLa In SW-848 were
established to provide guidance for the
analysis of waste samples by
establishing minimum performance
criteria for analytical laboratories. The
PQLa listed In SW-148 do not
necessarily represent the lowest limits
of analytical performance achievable for
any given waste. The PQLa the
commenter refers to were obtained from
analyzing a non.K048-K052 Incinerator
ash. The treatment standards for all
regulated organic constituents in K04&-
1(052 nonwastewaters are based on data
submitted by industry, and the Agency -
believes that both solvent extraction
and Incineration technologies can
reliably meet these standards ona
routine basis.’ - - - -
The Agency wishes to clarlfythatlt
believes that combined treatment of the
K048—K052 wastes is appropriate and
does not constitute Empermiasible
dilution of the more concentrated
wastes. This is because these wastes
are generated from similar processes,
contain similar contaminants, and are
amenable to the same treatment -
technologies. Although the 1(051 wastes
appear to contain higher contaminant
concentrations than the other petroleum
wastes, the Agency does not consider
combined treatment of the petroleum
refining wastes to be Imperinissible
dilution of the 1(051 wastes. in public
comments to the proposed treatment
standards for these wastes In the First
Third rulemaking, which comments were
referenced In comments t&the proposal
in thiapreceeding. the petroleum
refining Industry urged EPA to “consider
the biological treatment and metal
fixation that occurs in a land treatment
facility, In tandem with other viable
treatment methods as means of meeting
the section 3004(m) treatment
requlrements.w Comments of American
Petroleum Institute (API), May 23,1988,
p. 44. Although land treatment Is a type
of land disposal (see section 3004(1cTh.
the argument apparently is that In
assessing the levet of pre.dlsposal
treatment to Impose -pursuant to section
3004(m), the postdlsposal treatment that
occurt In the land treatment unit should
also be considered.
EPA responded In the First Third
rulemaking that the statute forecloses
the result that API Is seeking. Land
treatment Is a type of land disposal and
the statute states that a waste must
meet the section 3004(m) standards
before It is land disposed. See. e.g..
Response to Comment Background
Document at Docket LDR—9 p. 1621
(August. 1988). EPA continues to believe
that the statute Is unambiguous on this
point All treatment necessary to meet
the sectIon 3004(m) standards must
occur before the waste Is land disposed.
Put another way, the level of
pretreatment required before land
disposal is not Influenced by any
treatment that may occur after land
disposal. See RCRA sections 3004 (d),
(e) and (g) (land disposal can only occur
In units receiving waste that “has
complied with the pretreatment
regulations promulgated under” tion
3004(m), or in no-migration units ee
also RCRA section 3004(mX2) -
(hazardous waste may be dispo of “it
such waste has been treated to the level
or by a method specified In regulatIons
promulgated under this subsection”).
EPA continues to believe that these
provisions are unambiguous. However,
even If It were determined that the
Agency has some disoretlon to Interpret
these provisions (see Chew-on U.S.A. -
Inc v. NRDC 487 U.S 837,843(1084)
stating that “If the statute is silent or
ambiguous with respect to the specific
issue, the question for the court is
whether the agency 1 s answer Is based
on a permissible construction of the
statute”), then the Agency would reach
the same result. In our view, the statute
Is - directed to eliminating the “long-term
uncertainties associated with land
disposal” (see sections 3004 (d)(1 (A),
(e)(1)(A) and (g)(5)) before land disposal
occurs. Hazardous wastes also are to be
“manag(ed) • In an appropriate
manner in the first Instance”. Sections
3004 (d)(1)(B) (e)(1)(BJ, and (gJ (5). The
mgst readily available means of
achieving these enumerated statutory
goals and the one directly commanded
by Congress, is through imposition of the
section 3004(m) pretreatment standards
(I.e., standards that apply before land
disposal). Any section 3004(m) standard
that took Into account possible
treatment after land disposal had
occurred would be relying on the “long-
term uncertainties assodated with land
disposal” to achieve the object of
section 3004(m)’. SubstantIal reductions
In waste toxicity and mobility so that

-------
Fedm aI Register I Vol. 55. No. 106/1 Friday.. Tune 1. ia a / Rules and Regulations
threats tOhl!flpln health anètbe
environnieni e miiiimivpd . This urnot
a reasonable way to r alrTle the land
disposal restriction provisions.
In addition, the reading urged by API
would amount, as a practicaI matter, to
an end run around the no migration test
in sectIons 3004 (d), (e), and (g). The
result advocated by API would result in
partially treated wastes being disposed
of in units that had not satisfied the no
migration standard. This again is at
odds with the natural reading of the
statutory scheme which indicates only
two alternatives for disposing of
prohibited wastes: disposal in a no
migration unit or disposal after
satisfying the section 3004(m) standard.
Again, this appears to EPA to be the
very result that Congress legislated
against.’
The approach API urges is also at
odds with the BDAT approach the
Agency has adopted to establish the-
section 3004(m) treatment standards. It
would also be at odds with the approach
EPA recently outlined that would cap
BOAT treatment levels Il those levels
were ever below de mhurnis
concentration levels of hazardous
constituents established by EPA as a
threshold for determining when threats
from land disposal are minimized and
wastes are no longer hazardous. See 55
FR 6840 (Feb. 1990). The Agency thus
believes it far more reasonable to go
forward with Its existing interpretation
which does not undermine its approach
to establiahing treatment standards.
(This approach was recently upheld as
consistent with the statute in Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council v. EPA. 888 P.
2d 355 (D.C. CIr. 1988).)
In short. EPA believes that it Is
reasonable to read the statute to require
that all pretreatment of prohibited
wastes occur before they are land
disposed. Further, the Agency has’
determined in today’s rule the extent of
treatment that satisfies the section- -‘
>3004(m)abin4nrd for the K048-052
wastes. Thus, thi, level of eøtment is
required before the wastes can be land
disposed (wilesa disposal is into a no-
migration unit).
BOAT Ti r ni a SmiioAiws FOR
K048, 1(049, 1(050, 1(051 AND 1(052
for
Regulated ao ediftient
si b
so
00 m
(mgIl)
cyamdos (to J).____. ..__. .._.
0028
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR K048
(Nonwastewatonj
Re aon

Ma,amu t for
w -

—
(mg/kg)
Benzene
Be i (a )pprens.. ... . . . .... ........ ... ...
B(2-eti lhoa 1)p1 i e tniate. .....
Qwy sene ______
Di .n-butyfphthalat#
Ethylbenzene.... ..........
N s pflthafone
Pt n e.___ _ . . . .
PhotO
-
14
12
7.3
- 15
38
14
42
34
36
36
14

Ma mean r
¶cLP(mG,n
Toluone_. -—_____
X)lenm (tetal)
Ae aoes
chromium (to )_ . ,_
N al. -— .._.
17
020
REVISED BOAT T xri an STANDARDS
coø4(049- -
(Nonwashrwa t ers3
-
Mwiun lor
Regi4ete4 J
- 0
ngfe
.
on
(mg/kg)
st-*
k
‘
clvonwi,t (teed) ._._
I 7
020
Regulated consteuent
Meanvjmfor
any smg)e

—
(mg/kg)
Boz a)g inne____._
Phenol______
12
38
Regufoledsenstiwots
Maximum foi
TIXP (mg/Q
—
Nic$ie l.____ -
1.7
0.20
REViSED BOAT TREATM r STANDARDS
FORKO51
(Nonwastewators]
-
Re n tue
ktaxinum for
ot ngte

on

Anthracone_
28-
14
20
12
7.3
15
3. 5
14
42
34
34
OS
14

Bonzene__ . . . .._________________
Benm(a)ant lvacene —

B is(2 .he4)pI tma lateL_. .__ . _ ..
Qi iyseno
Diu f1hala_._ .._ . .__ . ._._
EtPi p1be, u a m .
Naphthateno_________________
Pt 4hr e e _.
Phenol
P ene
Toluen.
Xy Ione (t o
,
R 00 n
Ma,onaan for
TC&P (m /q
clvon t (Iotal)
N idot I
17
0.20
—
Regulated consdber
any su e
samp
TQ.P (mg/I)
REVISED BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR K050
$ In fact. the icheme being advocated appear, to
resemble lb. original Ho Sithe land
disposal resedd 5oo pro sJ ,1v th sethottasd th4
Agency to evaluate dff 0 rnd& oi land disposal
undar dtffcreai standanM.la letpzinIng which
wastes were prohibited, nd& dnotcoatala enD-
migeatfon test ore mandahi,ypirfreatmeot -
provision. See section 5 (c) Si113. sot’. ax
at H.R. Rap. N 1 50. Seth e ing. 1 Seea. 4-1 (1503
Thu scheme was ol enacted, but rather was -
replarad by the present statute.
A also find. API’. position to be wurensonable
because It Ignores section IO0&J)(11I which
specifically avthc,hes lend disposal in ,ud.ce
Lmpom . tk at wastes oat mee ng the-section
3004(m) pretreatment standards provided that
ceftaun onodition. are In St. EPA believes that this
— Indicate. that w Coogies. miendatte p
allow the lead disposal of waits. not yet salui (ylxtg
the sectIon 3004(m) standard. Into land disposal p
unita not meethi the oootl sftoe test, It saId so -
explldtfy. There Is no owwIao applieshle so -
dlsoosal In lend Wee t nottI.
28
14
12
73
15
14
42
34
3 8
36
14
• 22

-------
598 Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday,, June 1, 1g9G I Rules and. Regulations
REVISED BOAT TREATh NLSTANOAROS
FOR KO5E—-
(Nonwastewa l a J
Regulated consttuem
Ma,dmum tar
0
j 1 ’
—
(mg/kg)
Benzene........__._
$4
12
62
6 .2
14
42
34
36
14
22
Benzo(a)pyrene..
o .Ceso l.., —
C,esol
Et enzan&..._ —
Naphthaiene
Phenan 5wene_________
PheiU_
Toluerie..________________
X 4enes (total)_______________
negutatad ccesbtient
Maamum for

TCLP (mg/I)
Chromeim (total)
N eL..____________
1.7
020
r. K060
K060—Ammonia still lime sludge from coking
operatices.
In today’s rule, the Agency is
promulgating wastewater treatment
standards for organic and cyanide
constituents as proposed based on the
performance of biological treatment
followed by settling and clarification.
These treatment standards are
transferred from the Office of Water
Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Iron and Steel Industry
Manufacturing Point Source Category
Coke Making Subcategory. In addition,
the Agency is promulgating
nonwastewater treatment standards for
organic and cyanide constituents as
proposed based on a transfer of the
performance of incineration for 1(087
wastes, which are generated from the
same industry as 1(060 wWsa (coking
industry) and have simil e.i igher .
concentrations of 1(060.
in the November 22, 1 oposed
rule, the Agency transfth difie
performance of alkaline chlorination for
FOOl through F009 wastewatere to the
cyanide constituent of 1(060
wastewaters. The Agency believed that
this was a technically feasible transfer
because the F007 through F009
wastewaters were more difficult to treat
as a result of the higher concentration of
cyamdes. Since that time, the Agency
has reevaluated the performance of
biological treatment for K060
wastewaters and believes that for this
waste biological treatment can achieve
similar treatment levels for low-
concentration cyanides similar to those
achieved by elkaline chlorination.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating a
numerical treatment standard for the
cyanide constituent in 1(060
wastewaters based on the performance
of biological treatment followed by
settling and clarification.
The Agency received no comments on
the applicability of the technical transfer
of the pefformance of the technologies
for these wastes, Therefore, the Agency
Is promulgating concentration-based
treatment standards for this waste as
proposed.
BOAT TREATMENT STAI4DARDS FOR K060
(Re $sed from no land J
(Wast,*atersj
Regulated constituent
Manmum for
any 24-hc s

—
(mg/I)
Benzene __,._ —
0 i7
0 35
0.026
0042
19
Benzo(a) p rene
Nephthalene
Phenol_____________________
nideafrotal) —
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K060
(Revised from no land d sposai3
astewetem l
Regulated CC(%S$ttijent
Maxssum for
0

on
jmg/kg)
Bensene_____________________
0.071
3.6
3.4
3,4
1.2
Benso(a) p ene
Napnth a lene
Phenol
yw’isdes (Totat) . .__
5. 1(061
KOel—Emission control duet/sludge from the
primary production of steel In electnc
furnaces,
In. today’s rule, the Agency is
promulgating wastewater treatment
standards for cadmium, chromium, and
nickel in 1(061 wastes as proposed. The
treatment standards are based on the
performance of chemical reduction.
followed by precipitation with sulfides
and lime, and sludge dewatering a wae
set for 1(062 wastes. For lead, the
Agency (a promulgating wastewater’
treatment standards based on data
received from the foundry industry. The
treatment standard is based on the
performance of precipitation with
magnesium hydroxide and filtration for
wastewaters generated from a cupola
furnace. The Agency believes that the
performance of this treatment system
can achieve the promulgated treatment
standards for the other metals
(cadmium, chromium. and nickel)
because of the metal hydroxide
solubilities.
Many commenters also suggested that
the Agency develop treatment standards
for this waste based on a transfer of
treatment data from the Effluent
Guidelines Point Source Category of the
Iron and Steel Manufactures. The
Agency disagrees with the commenters
and does not believe that Effluent
Guidelines data represents a 1(061
wastewater. The data show low level of
metals in the waste and there is no
corresponding influent and effluent
concentration levels for the metals. EPA
therefore excluded this data in the
development of the treatment standards,
Many commenters suggested that the
transfer of the performance of treatment
for K062 was not an appropriate transfer
due to the chemical and physical
differences between the two wastqs, I.e.,
pH of wastewaters, Influent lead
concentrations, and settling diffe$nces
between hydroxides (1(062) and des
(1(061). The Agency disagrees wfth he
commenters and believes that chemical
and physical differences between the
two wastes does not prevent treatment
to the same concentration level. The
Agency believes that changes to the
treatment system such as the addition of
other precipitating agents to alter the pH
can aid In the performance of the
treatment system thereby achieving the
treatment standards.
In addition, the Agency received data
from generators of 1(061 wastewaters.
These data indicated that 1(061
wastewaters contained higher
concentration of lead than are typically
found in 1(062 wastewaters. Therefore,
the Agency evaluated all of the
available wastewater data from
comment submissions and from the
Effluent Guidelines database. Data
submitted by the foundry industry
Indicated that lead concentrations can
be substantially reduced by
precipitation and filtration. The Agency
believes that these treatment data better
represent the typical concentration of
lead found In K061. Therefore, the
Agency Is using these data t develop a
- numerical treatment standard for lead.
The calculation of the treatment
standard can be found in the Final
Addendum Background document for
1(061 wastewaters.
EPA promulgated treatment standards
for nonwastewater forms of 1(061 as part
of the First Third final regulation on
August 8. 1088. Two subcategories for
nonwastewater forms of 1(061 were
definedi the low zinc subcategory (less

-------
Fedaral . Bgiste 1. VoL 55,. No. . 106 / Friday.. Jun. 1. 1890./ Rules and Regulationa
than 15%) and th.high zinc subcate ory. 1.1(088 -
(greater than 15%}. Th tflMinent - K088—Solvent washe, and sludges, caustic
standard fez’ the Iowzlnc subcategoiy washes and sludges, or water washes
was based on th e perfermanc&of and sludges from the cleaning of tubs
8tabiizatIOfl. For the high zinc and equipment used In the formulation of
subcategory.. the final standard was-”No ink from pigments, driers, soaps, and
stabilizers containing chromium and
Land Disposal Based on High
Temperature Metals Recovery as a
Method of Treatment” technology (53 FR Today’s rule revokes most of the
31221). Due to a shortage in high treatment standards promulgated in the
temperature metals recovery capacity, First Third final rule (53 FR 31168,
the effective date of this treatment August 17. 1988) for 1(088 (solvents-wash
standard was delayed until August. aubcategory). Today’s rule, however,
iggo. A.n Interim numerical keeps the previously promulgated
based on performance of stabilization treatment standards for metals
technology Is In force until that time. r 8UI8tOd in K08a
In the proposed Third Third rule. EPA
In the proposed rule, the Agency explained Its determination not to
requested comments on the extension of su tegorize K080 (beyond -.
the existing. Interim treatment standard au trgo tion for wastewaters and
for another year. The Agency received nonwaetewaters This determination
comments indicating that Industry IS In was based on the available
the process of building recovery characteri atlon data of 1(086 and on the
processes, thus alleviating the Agency’s available treatment performance data
concern at proposal that an additional for wastes believed as difficult to treat
extension of the Interim stabilization as 1 (086. Commenters concurind and
standard would reward dilatory conduct, supported EPA’s determination for
In developing optimal treatment The regulating two forms of 1(088. The
Agency believes It appropriate to extend Agency is thus adopting this proposed
the Interim standard as an alternative to approach in the final rule of 1(088
high temperature recovery for. one wastes.
additional year. The.Agency -proposed to revise most
The Agency also proposed to amend of the existing freatment standards for
the existing treatment standard for organic constlhients regulated En the -
zinc K061.wastea to be resmeiting In a:. 1(086 solvent wash subcategory waste.
high temperature metai recoveiy - .. (The existing treatment standards were
furnace. EPA has decided not.to amend - prt lgated in the-First Third final rule
the existing standard. The standard FR 31220. August 17, 1988)). Also
Itself Is presently under review by a the Agency proposed to expand the LIst
of x guiatad constituents In K088 to
panel of the District of Columbia Cif -OWt include acetohenone, dl-n-
Court of Appeals (API v. EPA. No. 88- bu1h 1ate, butylbenzylphthalate,
1606) and the Agency Is concernect that dlethylphthalate, thmethylphtha1ate dl- -
the change In the treatment standard tt’ n-octylphthalate, and cyanide (total).
proposed could confuse the mattez at, list of additional organics Is
Issue In that case without resolving adopted In today’s ru1e As noted In the
them. The Agency therefore has decled Third Third proposed rule and the
not to change the description of the . - proposed BDAT Background Document
existing treatment standards for these Addendum for 1(086, the proposed’ -
wastes. revisions to the 1(088 treatment-
standards are consistent with the Tfand
P treatment standards development
protocol unless otherwise noticed. All
the-proposed treatment standards for
1(080 wastes were based on
incineration.
Commenters fully supported the-
proposed revisions to the treatment
standards for 1(086. They point out that
the propo8ed standards for most of the
constituents are more-representative of
______________ K086 waates. However, cominenters also-
urged the Agency to develop the
treatment standards for organics in 1(088
waslewaters based on performance data
from wastewater treatment technologies.-
rather than an Incineration scrubber..
waters,
S D FOR K061.
BOAT TR ml rn
-
- U u
-

n flse eM
—
(m fl
c*won sn
iot
o
0.44
—
Lead . --
N _____
As stated in the Final Rule for Land
Disposal Restrictions for Second Third
Wastes (54 FR 28829) and reiterated in
the proposed rule for Third Third
Wastes (54 FR 48390), when the Agency
has appropriate wastewater treatment
data from well-designed and well-
operated wastewater treatment units, it
prefers to use these data rather than
scrubber water concentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards.
Coinmenters on the proposed First
Third. Second Third. arid Third Third
rules almost unanimously supported that
EPA should promulgate waste wa ter
standards based on the performance of
specific wastewater treatment rather
than incinerator scrubber water
constituent levels. Alter reviewing all
available data and comments, the
Agency agrees with this comment, and
Is promulgating concentration-based
- treatment standards based on
wastewater treatment data rather than
scrubber water for all wastes that were
proposed in the rule for Third Third
Wastes. While the Agency dldmnot
specifically Identify the standa da based
on wastewater treatment data’ as
alternatives for F and K wastewaters.
the Agency believes that this is a logical
outgrowth of the notice and comment
process. As such, the Agency is today
modifying the wqstewater treatment
standards for 1(080.
The treatment standards promulgated
today for organfca in wastewater forms
of 1(086, are based on performance data
generated from a combination of two or
more of the following BDAT
technologies: bioLogmal treatment,
steam stripplngrcarbon adsorption.
liquid extraction, and other. (See section
ULA.8. of today s preamble for a
discussion of these performance data.)
These treatment standards are
expressed as concentration-based
standards: however technologies
capable of reaching the standard are not
eiccluded from being used.
Comments were received indicating
detection limit discrepancies in
nonwastewater forms that contain
cyclohexanone and methanol. Based on
the available data, EPA believes that
cyclohexanone and methanol may not
be amenable to quantification and a
concentration based treatment
standards may not be a viable
regulatory option. (See section -Ill.A.5.6.)
Cyclohexanone and methanol are two
of several organic constituents that were
proposed for regulation In 1(088 wastes.
Due-to complications in analysis for
these two constituents in
nonwastewater treatment residues, EPA
is wlthdrawiiig.cyclohexancne and

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 1 Fri day. June 1, 1990 1 Rules and Regulations
methanol from the list of ii (t d
constituents for 1(088 nonwastewaters.
EPA identified other organlc
constituents In 1(088 that are as difficult
to treat as cyclohexanone and methanol
and thus believe that by regulating these
other organic constituents,
cyclohexanone and methanol should
also be treated. However. EPA is still
promulgating revised treatment
standards fur cyclohexanone and
methanol in wastewater forms of 1(088.
Available data for cyclohexanone and
methanol containing wastewater do not
Indicate any analytical problems similar
to those in nonwastewaters containing
cyclohexanone and methanol.
Therefore. EPA delermined It Is not
necessary to specify a method of
treatment or an indicator or surrogate
constituent for these two constituents In
nonwastewater forms of 1(088.
EPA Is reaffirming the treatment
standards for chromium (total) and lead
for all forms of K086 wastes, as
explained below. Today’s rule abolishes
K088 waste subcategories (beyond
wasteweters and nonwastewaters) and
revokes almost all of the treatment
standards promulgated on August 17,
1988 (53 FR’31187). However, EPA is
retaining the wastewater and
nonwastewater chromium and lead
treatment standards that were
established In the First Third final rule
and making them applicable to all forms
of 1(089. These standards are based on
the wastewater treatment residues
resulting from the hexavalent chrom1
reduction to trivalent chromium
followed by chemical precipitation and
filtration of a wastewatei’ believed
similar to 1(088 wastewaters.
The treatment standards for cyanide
(total) are based on residues from the
aLkaline chlorination of wastewaters
containing cyanide. Detailed
information for the development of the’
treatment standards fore
regulated constituents c ’ and In
the Final Addendum BTh B ckgrowid
Documents for K088. -
BOAT TREATMENT STN4DARD8 FOR K086
(Wmte ieis]
Maxk un
Regulated onneawont
—


tm o/0
BOAT TREAml r STANDARD8 FOR
K088—Cont lnued
(W.stewetess]
Development of Treatment Standards
for UandP Wastewaters and
Non wastewaters Exciuding Metal Salts
and Organometal!ics
Today’s rule promulgates treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of U and P wastes
(as defined in 40 CFR 281.33(e) and (f))
that are identical to treatment standards
for multi-source leachate identified as
F039 (see section ULA.8. for additional
discussion of treatment standards for
multi-source leachate). Thus, this
section of the preamble presents a
discussion of the development of these
standards. Treatment standards for
other U and P wastes that are listed
specifically as metal salts or organo-
metaffics are discussed In previous
sections of today’s rule. (Notm
Treatment standards for additional U
and P wastes have already been
promulgated In 53 FR 31174 (August 17,
1988) and 54 FR 26594 (June 23, 1989)).
This section of the preamble allo
includes a discussion of the prom Jga ted
treatment standards for U and P stes
that have been identified as potetitThlly
reactive, exist primarily as gases, or are
cyanogens. The specific U and P waste
codes covered by the following
discussion are listed at the end of this
section In the table of standards.
In the proposed rule. EPA grouped aLl
of the U and P wastes into various
treatability groups based on similarities
in elemental composition (e.g., carbon,
halogens and metals) and the presence
of key functional groups (e.g., phenolics,
esters, and amines) within the structure
of the Individual chemicaL The Agency
has also accounted for physical and
chemical factors that are known to
affect the selection of treatment
alternatives and to affect the
performance of the treatment, such as
volatility and sohibility. when
developing these treatablilty groups. The
use oi the chemical (e.g.. pesticides and
pharmaceuticals) was also important in
establishing these groups. Emphasizing
the use of these chemicals allowed the
Agency to identify Issues specific to
these groups of chemicals, to target
potential sources of data, and to solicit
comments and data from specific
industries and public Interest groups.
While the Agency presented the
proposed treatment standards for U and
P wastes according to these treatability
groups, the promulgated treatment
standards are-presented In this section
according to the physical form (i.e.,
wastewaters and nonwastewaters) and
whether the treatment standards are
concentration-based or technology-
based. More information on the
Regulated constituent
-
Me im for
st s e

com
OnWQ
ctmm um (roed)
Lead
0.32
0.037
Regulated constituent
•
eny

—
(mg/a
Bis(2 .ethylhexyOped ate._
But ,tem y lçh 5adate
Olathyl thaina_____
0.28
0.011
020
0047
0057
0.0 17
0.34
0.05 1
5 &
0.089
0.069
0.088
0.080.
0064,
0054
032
Dtmeth’,l pl,thsIate
Di-n -butyl pt thaiata —
Dl .n .o 4 Ø al e
Ethyl e_________________
Ethyl beunne
MethanoL______________
Methylene tde_..
Naptithalene_ —
Nfoobenzeno_____________
Totuene
1,1,1-Trlc N o roe lbeno . . . ... . ,
Tr lchto roelh tene —
Xylenes (Total)_ -
‘Skdaid (or methannt la based on eftes a
— — ue g SW-848 Method 8000.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K0d6
U seasteas rsI
.

for
Acetone
- ieo’
-
28
2.8
79
62
28
28
28
28
33
6.0
32
38
33
3.1
14
28
5.6
5.6
28
1.5
Acetcçhenoi ’
B ts(2.eI4h4)pt ielste._._ ._. .—
— alcchot_______
Bufylbezy ifithala1e
._
Olethyt e-- -
Obtieth 4 ph 5
DW buP,4 pf theia e
DIo ylpl 1th ato_..._____.___._
Ethylecetale — . .._.._
Ethyl bwaene ——
— — lOSOAS______
Methyl ethyl ketone_______
Methylene chlorIde.____
M hthatene._._ _.........._........_
Nibobenzeiw_________________
Toluene
1,1,l .Trtcfltoroethene_
Tnchloioethylene_
Xylene.(TOba _ _....
cyetlde(Toba) —
R eted c e
MaAnum tar

TQP
0.004
0.37
Load ._..__ ......... ... .. ....
Acetoghenono................
n.Bufyla ._ --

I 2.Oichtorobenzene —
Methyl ob u l y l kelano_ —
Methyl ethyl ketone .__. -
Cyanidos’T,fol)
0.28
0010
56
036
0.088
0.14
0 .28
1.9

-------
P nl Raglst I Vof. 55 No. 190/ FrIday, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
601
develepinent of apedflc treabnpnt
8tandards for these waI rcen be found
In the badtground document for U and P
wastes. While the back ound
documents for these wastes hi the
proposed rule were presented according
to treatability groups, only one
background docwnent (In five volumes)
for these wastes exists for the final rule
and Is presented similar to the following
discussion.
a. Concentration-based Standards for
Specific Organice
The regulated constituents for the U
and P wastes for which the Agency is
promulgating concentration-based
standards generally are those specific
constituents for which the U and P
waste Is listed (as specified in 40 CFR
261.33 (e) and (ffl. However, for several
U and P wastes additional constituents
have been selected for regulation for
various reasons. More detail on the
selection of regulated constituents can
be fmmd in the proposed background
documents. The regulated constituents
for these wastes and the prornulgeted
treatment standards are presented In the
tables at the end of each section. See
also treatment standards for Ft139 in
section lILAC, of today’s rule.
(1) Wastawoters. As explained in
preamble section ULA.1. the Agency is-
adopting in this notice the definition of
wastewaters that was used to
promulgate treatment standards In the
First and Second Third final rules—that
is. wastewoters are those wastes
containing less than 1% TOC and less
than 1% TSS. See also the general
discussion of the wastewater definition
in section ULA.1. of today’s rule. More
detailed information on the wastes
covered by this section can be found In
the 1nal BDAT Background Document
for U and P Wastes and Multi-Source
Leacha tea (F039), Volume A
Wastewater Forms of Organic U and P
Wastes and Multi-Soa ce Leachates
(Fa39) For Which These’Aju,
Concentration-based Ttentth nt
Standards.
Lii the November 2Z 1999 proposed
rule for Third Third wastes, the Agency
proposed two alternative sets of
concentration-based standards for most
of these wastewa tars. One set of
standards was based on the
concentration of these constituents in
incinerator scrubber water. These
scrubber water numbers were proposed
because the Agency was not certain that
the altennata standards wou4be
available in time for proposal ‘The
alternate set of standard, was based on.
a transfer of performance data from
various sources 1ncfuding (1) The Office
of Water’s tndustr%al Technology
D l vi on (fl ’D) and National Pollution
Discharge Filmination System (NPD€S)
date (specnflnshly from the Organic
Cheniii bu . Plastics, and Synthetic
Fiber, (OCPSF) database); (2) the
Hanardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory (HW L) database; (3) the
Office of Solla Waste’s BDAT data
(from previous Land disposal resthctlona
rules); and (4) additional wastewater
treatment data from literature articles
on wet air oxidation (WAO) and PACT.
These alternative wastewn tar treatment
standards were presented In section
m.A.7. of the proposed Third Third rule
as treatment standards for waatewater
forms of multi-source leachate. When
the Agency has appropriate wastewater
treatment data from well-designed and
well-operated wastewater treatment
units, it prefer, to use these data rather
than scrubber water omcentrations to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. (This does not, however.
prechide the Agency from establishing
treatment standArds for other wastes
based on constituent concentrations In
Incinerator scrubber waters.) Also,
commentars unanimously requested that
the U or P wasteweter standards be
based on th, performance of biological
treatment rather than Induerator
scrubber water constituent levels. For
these reasons, the Agency baa chosen to
flnalise the treatment standards based
on the proposed alternate standards
with some revisions. None of today’s
final wastewater standards In this
section are based on scrubber water
concentrations.
As stated In the November22. 1989
proposed rule, the Agency also
conducted wastewater freat t tush
for selected U and P chemicals seing
wet air oxidation, powdered activated
carbon treatment (PACT), and carbon
adsorption. In a itlon to these data, the
Agency received perfarniance data on
the treatment of multi-source leachate
wastewaters just prior to proposal. The
results of these tests ware not available
in time to analyze forthe prop sisl. but
were placed in the administrative
docket to the proposed rule and noticed
for comment,
Most of the aforementioned data
supported the adiievability of WA’.
pPeferred proposed treatment standards
(the alternate set of standards). The
Agencyreviewed all of thesedata
during the cemment period to determine
whether they could be considered best
demonstrated available technology. In
reviewing these data, the Agency also
considered the influent concentration of
the treated omathuent. whether the
treated stream was representative of
that U and P wastewater, and bow
achievable the detection limit Ia in
similar a, other matrices based on other
data received. The Agency has revised
some of the proposed wastewater
standards in this final rule based on
data received just prior to proposal.
Coinmeatera requested that the U and
P wastewater standards be based on the
performance of biological treatment
rather than wet air oxidation followed
by PACT. Where biological treatment
data were not available, the Agency
promulgated standards as proposed
based on Office of Water data, or in
some cases, used wastewater data
based on the performance of wet air
oxidation followed by PACT or
wastewater data generated by treaters
of leachate.
Proposed standards were revised for a
number of reasons (1) Based on a
review of recently received multi-source
leachate wastewater data. (2) based on
a review of the recently completed wet
air oxida tion (PACT study and ( ) based
on a review of the existing data-used to
generate the proposed standards and
comments received on the proposed
standards. More detail on these
revisions can be found on a constituent
basis in the background document for
these wa8tewaters, Where proposed
standards were Inconsistent ly large
because of poor data availability, the
Agency reviewed alternate sources of
data to develop standards that are more
consistent with similar con netits but
still considered achievable by treatment
The following discussion explains in
more detail the rationale for these
revisions to the proposed standards. The
constituents for which standards were
changed from the proposed standards as
presented in section IIIA.7. of the Third
Third proposed rule as treatment
standards for wastewater forms of
multi-source leechate are listed in a
table at the end of this section. This
table includes multi-source leachate
organic constituent, as well as U and P
organic wastewaters.
Constituents for which multi-source
leachate data were used to develop
standards are given the reference code
(1), Revisions Based on Multi-Source
Leachate Data. m the table at the end of
this section. For the majority of
constituents, the multi-source leachate
data ,nppo 1ed the achievability of the
proposed standards. Some of the multi-
source leachate data were not used,
however. beiause they did not show
substantial treatment. Where multi-
source Ieechate data showed a proposed
standard could not be met, and
demonstrated substantial treatment
using a technology that could be
considered BOAT. those data were used

-------
22602
Federal Register I Vol. 55 No. 1O&# Fridays June 1, 1990 / Rules and RegulatIona
ln .ead. Also, where a o at t ent had
an exceedingly large standard because
of lack of good data, multi-8ource
leachate data were usedtodevelop a
more appropriate standard whenever
possible.
Constituents for which WAO/PACT
data were used to develop standards are
given the reference code (2). Revisions
Based on WAO/PACT Data, in the table
at the end of this section. More
information on these data can be found
in the Onsite P ngtneering Report of Wet
Air Oxidation and PACT System
Treatability Study at Zlinpro/Passavant.
March 1990. The Agency found that
WAO followed by PACT performed
better than WAO alone. Influent
concentrations were designed to be high
enough to represent U and P
wastewaters. These data demonstrated
that a number of constituents could be
substantially treated by wet air
oxidation followed by PACT. Where
these data showed substantial
treatment, they were used to develop
standards for constituents for which the
Agency does not have good biological
treatmentdata or multi-source leacliate
data demonstrating substantial
treatment
Constituents for wblçhihe Agency
reexamined the data that were used for
proposal are given thi reference code
(3). Revisions Based on Review of
Existing Data, in the table at the end of
this section. The data sources and
transfer cholces uaed for the proposed
standards were reevaluated. These
constituents Include those for which
changes were made as a result of
comments on the proposed standards.
The standards in this categJ y were
changed for a variety of reasons. The
standards for 1.4-Dioxane and ethylene
oxide, which were inconsistently larger
than other constituents in their
treatability group, were revised based
on a transfer of treatxn i d a from
ethyl ether. The standai
inethacrylonitrile and 1 oenltrile
(ethyl cyanide), which a , ;
inconsistently larger than other
constituents in their treatabllfty group,
were revised based on a transfer of
treatment data for acrylonitrile. The
standard for 1 ,1,2.-Trichloro-1,2.2-
trifluoroethane was revised based on a
transfer of treatment data from
hexachioroethane. The remaining
constituents In this category have
revised standards due to a change in the
methodology for calculating variability
factors and accuracy correction factors
when HWERL or NPDES data were used
to develop treatment standards. More
Information on these revisions can be
found in the background document for
these wastewaters.
None of today’s promulgated U and P
wastewater standards are based on
incinerator sorubber water. However, It
should be noted that when the Agency
promulgates concentration-based
standards, the regulated coffiniunity may
use any method of treatment to achieve
these standards, so long as it does not
constitute land disposal or
imperznlssible dilution.
Many of the new wastewater data
Include analysis of composite samples
rather than grab samples. Thus, the
Agency has developed many of the
concentration-based treatment
standards based on an analysis of
composite samples rather than grai
samples. Where data from analysis of
composite samples were used, the
Agency so indicates in the appropriate
table of treatment standards at § 268.43.
More information on the Agency’s use of
grab and composite standards can be
found in the preamble section .A.i.
The Chemical Manufacturing
Association (CMA) calculated
wastewater treatment standards for
many constituents based ondata
contained in the OCPSF database using
a modified BDAT Methodology, and
submitted these suggested limiti to the
Agency for review. A did not use the
CMA standards, but did consider the
OCPSF data base, the analyses
conducted by EPA ’s Industrial
Technology Division. and the BI AT
methodology. EPAs analysis differs
from CMA’s and sometimes produced
higher and lower limits. For example,
the standard suggested by CMA for
chloroform in wastewaters is lower (i.e.,
more stringent) than that promulgated
by the Agency specifically for
chloroform in 1(009 and 1(010
wastewatere. In developing the BDAT
standards, the Agency examined data
beyond that contained in the OCPSP
data base. Thus, our selection of BOAT
sometimes involved the analysis of data-
beyond that Included in CMA s
suggested limits.
Finally,, EPA Is promulgating
treatment methods as standards for
several wastewate? forms of U and P
wastes for which the Agency had
proposed concentration-based
standards. After examining certain
information received following the
proposed rule. EPA adjusted treatment
standards for many nonwastewater
forms of U and P wastes and realized
that several types of analytical problems
associated with nonwastewatere
applied to wastewatere as well. Section
fflA5.a.(2). Immediately following.
discusses these problems at length.
Consequently EPA I, promulgating
treatment methods as standards for
wastewater forms of the following U
and P wastes: P082, N-
nlfrosodlmethylamlne U017, benzal
ch1oridê U073, 3,3’-dlchlorobenzidlne
U074. cis-i.4-dlchloro-2-butene: U091
3 ,3’-d lmethoxybenzidlne.
CONCENTRATION-BASED BDAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P
WASTEWATERS
a e
ss
- R
com aWen
(mg/I)
I an
U004 —
U0O&..... 2 .Acetytam no8ucreno .—.
uoos_
U0 . Ar* _____
U018_ Beiu(e)anthracene_
U019_ 8en ’aio
uo - Be -
U024_ s 2
me
U026_ eth
UO27
. 5w.
U029 B mometh
U030_ &om
ether.
U031. - 8u l alcohd
U038_ 4 e
Q o be
ch
U039 O o aes
U043_ Vk 4 & ós
UO44 h m
u0 - o_ —
U047__._.
UO48 Q_
P ac
P e
Gr oi ( m . w d p.
o C00
aP OOT
Ny-COT
1 Cbom
12 .0bomoe 5 ne___
D om
0.28
0.17
0010
0.059
0.24
0.81
0.059
0.14
0.061
- 0.038
0.033
0.065
5.6
0.0033
0.057
0.10
0.016
0.27
0.046
0.19
0.06 5
0.044
0.059
0089
0.059
0.067
0.11
0.77
036
0.023
0.023
0031
0.031.
0.0039
0.0039
0 055
o ti
0.028
0.11
0088
0.036
0 090
0.23
0059
021
0025
0054
0.089
0.044
0.044
o as
0.036
0.038
u05o-
u oSt—
uos l—
u051—
U057
u06 0-
uose-
U061_
uo,1—
u081—
U°81—
U063
u069-
U067-
U068 .. .
U070
t 71_
U072_
(J075_
uore
U077_
UO78
U079_
U06o—
u 081-
U052
uoss_
U084_
U064 ..
-
12Od ue 5 e
1,1 Ncroeth
5 l2.0U ethen .
24O IcIiIcmgIanoL___
1.2-CIdd cxopane_
Sana ’1,3-

-------
1f ll.gW / VOL 5& No. 1O . / Prlday sun. 1. 199O / Rules and Re u1atIons
CONc TRATION.BASE BDAT TAE*T-
MENT SINNON1C6 N U N P
WASTEWA7ERS—c Ofl flUOd
Re
w
E I s oede __.__._..
Ethylottw —
Ed pl iiemectylate__
U127_ Hexactilorct ertzen._.._ . ..
U128 —
U129... .. . a 4. .8I4C
U129.__ beteBHC —
U129_ de s.8HC__________
U 129_ gwv -8HC
U130__ Hsx hlo ocyc* penta-
U131_
U131___ Indsnc(t.2 . )p sns
U138__ lodomethan _______
U140 . .__ .. 00ut 4 aJcollct______
U141_ b . __________
U142_ Ke oi
U152_ l r$o .
U15&_ $Ier*.....__ . .. . ...
U157..__ 3Meth lthlowi wene......
U158_ 4,4 Iie bb . .
U159_
U161.._... M tt d I IbI
U162.__ I 6 14 me6 a 1aXe _
U166 . . . . ... N v1iele.* .
U18a__ 2-t ,l * ..__
U169_.._ Nl8oO .is________

U17& . . .._ M-M01eodie8v y*,s_
UI 7$ .__ N4% .Jee. ... .. . . . ..
Lfl80_ M W0*IU_
U181_ 5N O-tehj is_____
U183_ P d $or en__.
U185_ P1 1uL, nzen*. .
U107
U%I&_.. d___________
U192_
U198 . . ._ Pyndki.
U203 S .
as -i .3 orogmpena
—
I 0U vbe _
24O QoS o uene ._ -
2.6-Omitrotoluene _________
Oi -n.octyl pflthalate —
D her$ . .
I2-OcI enti 1 a *__ .. _
_o e -

E 1
Eth 1lb .o -
Fth..4 _________________
Etr me8 e. ,4aw -
EW 1sr.o -
-__
cN _
r lexacNotoe*iano__
. —nr w -
—
-A.-----
r T
ndA.
-
1.2.4.5-Te l
Tetrac oco e p .das
—

Tqbun .ethi q 01 dCrm -
4 Tv oiophe
—

—
X 1ene05
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
3
3
3
3
3
I
2
I
3
I
2
3
3
1
1
1
3
S
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
I
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
3
3
3
CoNcENTaAT1oN-$As BOAT ThEAr-
MENT STM40NIOS FOR U AND P
wASIEwATERs—continued
P.
0
2.4-CPsS 4 pbersL. . .. . ...
,
BAStS OF REVtSiONS to U, P AND F039
WASTEWATER STANDARDS—COn ,Ued
U093
U 101
U105___.
UI06 _
U108___.
UI”—.
UI t2_......
U115........
U117. .___
Ii1,8_
UI2 0 .._..
U121_
Re o tsnte
West.
00de
Regulated orgai c
nt.
TOW

P024
pCt leroej lne
0.48
P037_
0le *l
0.017
7_....
P048_
P069_
4.6OI*oc r
2.4OflmL_._
Er.dosIten 1
0.20
012
0023
P _
Endos*itairi II •
0029
P050.
Endosutfan sul te_ ._
0029
00028
PO6L._
En i *,
P051
E la asts
P05 9.. . ....
H ..* ij
00012
P059 ..._
P060_
P017__
P082
P101_
Hopt o, sp.n 4 _
o_..._
p-M oei*ie-
N eodme ne
£810 0
0.016
0021
0.029
040
024
P123_.
To phene....._.. . ..... ..... ... ..
0.0095
Thss. sls..daith re a mlxtas o( er
— a ’.e Eed s ids esstaed .lthsr
re 00ft190148 1% lie teolss law at 29L43.
BAS$ . OF REVISIONS TO U. P ANC F039
WASTEWATER STANCAROS
S
013
0098
0.32
0.55
012
0.40
034
0.12
0.12
014
0005
0.0 2 8
0.055
005
005014
0.00014
0023
00017
0067’
0.055
00059
0.18
5
0.001
0.00
0.081
00055
0 . 50
028
0.14
014
0069
052
0%,
0.12
0.40
0.40
0013
0.313 —
9.055
0.055
0.0 0 1
0%,
0.0 0 5
0014
0.0S?
0.051
0.067
0.05?
0.005
063
0.0 54
0064
0.72
0.20’
0.021
0.0 0 5
001
Aceteos__ __
Ace *1 —
Be81e ,_-
Ben h
8romo i ch lorc ieV w ie___________
8 ethene_

CWbOQ
2Q -l3- l a ne ____________
c mo
bs-(2.Gt iy0 e0ui__________
zch loroes 1 l
-
3 -.
Qesci (n st p. Isomtr . -
4.4-Me l i 1enebla -(2coen3ne)
—
M — ne__
Met tg
Me me nes oos&o__
2phth am ie -
P.N oen __-
N-Nsto eomed $e9 . -__
N-NI

Ii 2 .2 ’Tetr’-
TC aos__
t1.1-TrlcNoroeliaj .
1.I2 .Tr il 8iens . . . . . ..
S
3
I
3
I
3
3
3
3
3
I
3
2
3
I
S
3
3
3
3
I
3
3
3
3’
S
3
3
3
3
I
3
3
3
3
3
I
$
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S
U207_.__
U209_
U210_
LQ 11
Uv5-
U _.
U2V_
U228
U238
U240_
U243_
U247. ..
P004 . .
P020_
D om
0 W LmW wec.os
2.4-

ads.. MN. .S_
2-eeo- I-4.6 -
-.
2.4-OUWuwohenol’ -
Note T s ee —
under lailieracs te i nor be U Cr P
wast. des cr uwy be U or P os wh cfi are
nor bel Re sdla dey trula(L . F 4i it
P097 w fle s9esler lie 8 3, slit. Jwei-
WY 11 1989 end la m jdad here onl . becwjse Its
a rogu4at. cen 3ie, .4 eUtj..oi,ce etha1e )

-------
Federal RegIster/Vol. 55. No. 106/Friday, Junel, 1990 fRulei t Pigulatk
R icoe for the b ci 5 r aed s*en ds
at e as Icilowa ___
t—l e 4 oas &o based on se ci troalmerd
date pre’ .’iously & n sttod icr nUd4o %co Iead e
2—Pev sions e based on ieIy of Pesbnent
date from EPA ’s WAO/PACT s5 dy ‘?or selected U
and P theinicals -
3—Rensions aie based on ro.anai’ eis ci eidsdag
eabfleflt data and comments
(2) Non wostewaters. EPA is
promulgating nonwastewater
concentration-based standards for the
majority of U and P wastes as proposed.
All promulgated concentration.baaed
standards reflect the performance of
well-designed and well-operated
incineration systems and were
developed primarily using the results of
fourteen incinerator test burns (not to be
confused with test burns carried out as
part of the RCRA permitting process)
which EPA undertook for the
development of treatment standards for
specific F and K wastes plus selected U
and P wastes. The Agency reexamined
these data together with other data and
comments submitted during the
comment period. Based on this re-
analysis, the Agency changed the
proposed treatment standards for
approximately seventy-five constituents.
These changes are summarized in the
tables at the end of this section.
These changes took the form of either
different numerical values for
concentration-based standards or
promulgating incineration as a method
of treatment for wastes for which EPA
had proposed concentration-based
standards. Where the values of the
numerical standard changed. some
promulgated standards are lower and
some are higher than the proposed
standards. In no case, did EPA
promulgate a concentration-based
standard for a waste code for which a
method of treatment was proposed.
In the course of developing the
proposed standards, the Agency had
examined the logistics of generating
incineration data, conel relative
availability. expense._____ for
nonwa tewater form._______ these
organic U and P wast&eede* EPA
decided to select a limucii 1 d iber of U
and P waste code compouiidI
(representing the various classifications
inherent to the structure of these
chemicals) for additionahesting In’ two
test burns prior to the proposed rule.
These new data were used in
conjunction with the data from the
previous twelve test burns to develop
the proposed treatment standards for
the remaining untested wastes. The
compounds that were tested were
selected to represent the treatability of
each group of waste codes, based on
similarities in chemical structure i.e..
presence of key functional groups.
elemental composition (indnding
chlorine, sulfur, and nitrogen). number
of carbon atoms, arrangement and
number of aromatic and aliphatic rings,
isomer and homologue series, and
degree of chlorination.
The two burns were designed such
that the physical forms, concentrations,
and soil content of the feed would
represent the range of U and P wastes as
EPA anticipates they will be generated.
The treatability test consisted of two 6-
hour burns consisting of 11 liquIds and 7
solids. Clean fill (i.e.. dirt) was added to
produce ash representing that resulting
from incineration of a waste spilled on
soiL Four sample sets of ash and
scrubber water were analyzed for BOAT
list constituents. (More information on
the test burn can be found in the Orisite
Engineering Report Treatment
Technology Performance and Operation
for John Zink Company, October, 1989).
Through these incineration tests, EPA
demonstrated that incineration is BOAT
for a wide variety of U and P organic
compounda—halogenated, non-
halogenated, volatiles, semivolatiles,
and pesticides. EPA’s evidence for this
is that these compounds are present at
significant levels in untreated wastes
and then appear at or near detection
levels in the ash residues from these
tests. Thus, data from these lnclneraflon
tests assumed a critical role In
developing concentration-based and
technology-based treatment standards
for nonwastewatere.
Detection limits represent the lowest
values of a contaminant that an
analytical measurement procedine can
reliably measure in a particular matrix
(e.g., incinerator ash). Detection lImIts
are especially significant in developing.’
concentration-based standards based on
incinerator performance because a well-
designed and well-operated incineration
system appears to reduce the
concentrations of virtually all of the
investigated organic compounds to
detection limits. EPA treats the
detection limit as the quantitative
expression of the post-treatment
concentration and therefore calculates
concentration-based standards by
assuming that the detection limit
represents the lowest level to which
incineration can lower a coatsmfnant’
concentration.
Several sources of data received after
the proposed rule was published led
EPA to make the changes between the
proposed and final rules discussed in
the rest of this section. One source was
comnienters’ data, especially the
“Interlaboratory Ash Study” discussed
In the following section. Another source
was an in-house study y EPA 4 a Office
of Research and Development pointing
out recently discovered major problems
in quantifying analytes for which EPA
had proposed concentration-based
standards. Additionally, EPA
reevaluated its own calculations and
modified several sets of standards to
ensure a consistent methodology.
Comments about the proposed
concentration-based standards fell into
two groups: comments about treatment
standards for individual waste codes
and one substantial comment from a
group of waste treatment industry
representatives dealing primarily with
the issue of detection limits in
incinerator ash. This comment provided
EPA with a significant amount of ash
characterization data. Although some
aspects of this data were flawed. EPA
considered this study carefully when
evaluating the standards before
promulgation the Response to
Comments Background Document
presents EPA’s critique of this study’s
strengths and weaknesses. Subsettlon
(1) of the following discussion o
comments presents a detailed
discussion of how EPA evaluat !his
commenter’s ash data. Subsectl n 2)
describes all of the changes between the
proposed and final standards, and
subsection (3) discusses the other
significant comments received on the
proposed concentration-based
standards and analytical issues.
(a) Use of the Interlaboratory Ash
Study. One commenter, representing the
waste treatment Industry, submitted a
study undertaken by several
laboratories associated with commercial
incineration facilities to verify whether
industry labs can reliably quantify the
regulated constituents at the level of
both the proposed and previously
promulgated concentration-based
standards In Incinerator ash. The study’s
secondary purpose was to identify those
regulated constituents for which
.corjcentration-based standards may be
altogether inappropriate (i.e., inferring
that standards expressed as methods
are more appropriate). The commenter
analyzed many RCRA-regulated
constituents, virtually all the organics on
the BDAT list, in samples of Incinerator
ash at levels near the concentration-
based standards. These data included
six detection limits reported by each of
six laboratories representing the
average of seven replicate detection
limit determinations made on a single
sample of asl
incineration facility.
These data also Included six sets of
seven spike recoveries reported by the
six laboratorles—42 recoveries in all for
each analyte. (Recoveries represent the

-------
. F4ege sto L (oL 55 Na. 1( I Fnday, June 1,. 1990 / Rules and Reg Jatipna
fraction of a knowi uantlty of the
cnmponn<i st1dnadded tó ‘
sample and theamq r 1 (Le., -
ecoveretl) h subsequent analysis.)
EPA evaluated the commenter ’s
detection limit and recovery data for
each regulated organic constituent by
first comparing these detection levels to
those obtained by EPA during its
various test burns. For most of these, the
commenter’3 detection levels fell within
an order of magnitude of EPA’s
d3tection levels. As a result EPA did
not raise concentration-based standards
for those analytes where the
commenter’s detection limits fell very
close to those EPA achieved.
Consequently, EPA made several sets
of changes between the proposed and
final standards foUowlng analysis of this
commenter’s data. These changes
primarily occurred when EPA
reevaluated cases where the comlnenter
reported higher detection limits than -
EPA used to calculate standards.
Although EPA had generally used the
highest of the set of up to fourteen
incinerator ash concentrations as the
basis of the Third Third proposed
sta dard for m y ompaund& some
exceptions were made In the case of
apparent outliers and where EPA
believed a particular raw waste matrix
best represented the waste in question.
Most of the changes In the numerical
values between proposal and
promulgation arose fromdn EPA
reevaluation of the use otrecuvery
factors In’ calculating concentration-
based standards. EPA had caJ ilatèd
the proposed concentration-based
standards for halogenated.aliphatlcs.
aromatics and polynuclear aromalica
using an average reco rery factorof
several compound.. HoweveA
concentration-based standards..fog the
rest of these wastes were calculated
using a recovery factor from a single’
compound, not the average of several
compounds. To ensure consistency
among all concentrntf based-
standards, EPA cho a calculate
standards for halog J1phatfca,
aromatics and poly aromatics
using a single compoovery -
factor. The followingt tpounds were
affected.
1. Halogenated aliphaftcs U044.
ch1oroform U076. 1 ,1-dinMoroethane .
U077, 1,2-djchloroethane; U078. 1.1-
dichioroethylene; U079, trans-1,2-
dtchloroethylene; U080, methylene
chloride; U083, L2-dichloropropane
UO84 cls-1.3-dichloropropen U084,
trans-1,3lichforopragejy ; U131,
hexachioroethane; U208. 1.1,1,2-
tetrachloroethane U 9, 1,1.2 ,2-
teLrach1oroethdne U21O .
tetrachloroethylene; U211, carbon
tetrachlorlde U228 1,1,1-
thchloroethane U227, 1,1.2.
trithloroethane and UZ4&
hexachioropropene. ‘The proposed
standard for U22& trichioroethylene had
been calculated using single-compound
recoveries and therefore did not need to
be recalculated.
2. Aromatics: U239, total xylenes. The
proposed standards for U019, benzene
and U220, toluene; U239, had been
calculated using single-compound
recoVeries and therefore did not need to
be recalculated.
3. Polynuclear aromatics U005, 2-
acetylaxnlnofluorene; U018
benzo(a)anthracene U022,
benzo(a)pyrene; U050 chrysene; U063,
dibenzo(aj )anthraceie; UI2Q,
fluoranthene: U137, indeno(1 ,3-
c.d)pyrene; U157, 2-
methyichiorolanthrene; U165,
naphthalene U051. naphthalene,
pentachiorophenol. phenanthrene,
pyrene and total xylenes. The proposed
standard for U051. toluene had been
calculated using single-compound
recoveries and therefore did not need to
be recalculated.
A second set of changes to numerical
values resulted from EPA’s declilon not
to base concentration-based-standards -
for U and P nonwaatewaters on data
from three of the fourteen test buds. and
to r alculate the concèiitrath,n-baged
standards with data from the other test
burns lnvoMng mattices mor s inflar to
U and P matrIces. Thes burns I
Incinerated ICOn. 1(013 and 1(fllt -
acrylonitrile.cyanlde wa8tes 1CO24 -
phthallc anhydride wastes ai d 1(037
dlsulfoton (a41 organophosphate -
pesticide) wastes. EPA’s’reaaon for
extiuding these barn, from the dätabäse
for U and P nonwastewater II that each -
of these waste matrices has a relatively
unique composltiou In terms of Including
very few .bemical-compounds.B
contrast the test burns EPA chose for
the promulgated standards, namely
those Incinerating creosote wastes
(X0o1) ethylene dichioride wastes
(1(019), and veterinary pharmaceutical’
wastes (1(102). all Involved matrices
which axe both difficult to treat and
difficult to analyze. The Background
Document for Organic U and P wastes
and Multisource Leachate, Voleme C.-
discusses the difference among these
waste matrices In more detatt -
Nonwastewater standards affected by
this dec ljionare - — -
1. Halogenated pesilcides and
chloroJ enzene P060,Jsodrin; and U142
Keponé. - -
2. Miscellaneous halogenated.
organics: UO45 chlprnmethane U 158.
4.4-methylenebis (2-chloroanilAne and
U075. dichlnrOdifluaromethane.
3. Oxygenated orgaalcs U159 methyl
ethyl ketone U002, acetone; Ui08 1,4
dloxane UIIZ- ethyl acetate: and U117.
ethyl ethez -
4. Organonltrogens: tl009.
acrylonitrile U172, N-njtroso-di-n-
butylamlne U179, N-nitrosopiperi&ne
U180, N-nitropyrrolldlne; U181. 5-mtro-o-
toluidine.
5. Pharmaceutical wastes: U155,
methapyriline.
EPA is promulgating a higher
concentration-based standard for U043,
vinyl chloride because the commenter’s
reported detection limits lie well above
the detection limits which EPA used to
develop concentration-based standards.
The promulgated standard for vinyl
chlorfde reflects the choice of a different
and higher detection limit from the
ethylene chloride (K019J waste matrix.
EPA reevaluated fts choice of
recovery values or P047, 4,6-dinitro-o-
cresok P048, 2 ,4-dinltrcpbenol; U034.
acetophenone; and U170, 4-nitrophenol
to ensure consistency with the
methodology. Therefore the numerical
values have changed betwee roposal
and promulgation for these f
compounds.
(b) Changes from Concentration-
Bated Standards to Methods of
Treat ient as Standards. The rest of the.
changes consisted romulgatn
standards e cpressed as methods of
treatment for U and P wastes for which
the Agency had proposed ooncentra lion-
based standards, For P003, acroleln
U003,acetbwfrjle U073. 3,3’-
dichlorobengjdjne; U038
chlcrobenzdate U16 2-naphthylamine:
U093. p-dlniethylaminoaaobenzene; and
U057.cyclobexanone, the data,
subxnftted by a cpmmenter representing
the hazardous waate treatment industry
reported such drastic detection limit
discrepancies or extreme recoveries that
EPA believet these analytea belong In
the category of those not amenable to
quantification. EPA notes that the
proposed wastewater standard for P003.
acrolein, had been a concentration-
based standard while the
nonwastewater standard was a method
of treatmenc promulgated standards for
both forms of P003. acrolein. are
methods of treatment
For -2-chloio-’i,3 butadlene, a
constituent of F039 leachate not
regulatedas a LI or P waste the
conime ter reported zero recoveries for
several sets ofreplicates and extremely
variable recoveries for another. Based
on EPA’s awn experience in quantifying
2-ch1oro4,3butathene the Agency Is
promulgating a treatment method for 2-
chloro-1,3 butadiene rather thaita

-------
Fed a1 Regie r / VoL 56, No. 1 E / Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
concentration-based st niL rd as
proposed.
For 1.1017, benzal chI 4 h. the Agency
solicited comments on data with
adequate QA/QC verifying that
Incineration reduces benzal chloride to
detection levels. One commenter
suggested that the Agency regulate
benzyl alcohol and benzaldehyde,
hydrolysis products of benzal chloride.
as benzal chloride surrogates. The
commenter stated that EPA used
surrogates In regulating phthalates in the
Second Third rule. However, the Agency
believes that this situation Is different
because there is no way to correlate and
codify how well the concentrations of
benzyl alcohol and benzylaldehyde In a
waste matrix reflect the concentration of
benzal chloride, especially In a waste
already containing substituted
benzenes. Although the commenter did
provide EPA with certain limited
analytical data demonstrating
quantification of benzal chloride mth
SW—848 method 8015 In a waste stream
from a remedlatlon project. the
commenter did not characterize the
matrix or the treatment process well
enough for EPA to set numerical
treatment standards for 1.1017. Therefore.
since EPA received no specific
Information demonstrating successful
measurement of benzal chloride, EPA Is
promulgating incineration as a
technology-based standard for benzal
chloride as U017.
It should be noted that EPA Is
promulgating, as proposed. the
concentration-based standard for beiizal
chloride as a constituent of 1(015
nonwastewaters. EPA believes benzal
chloride can be quantified In 1(015
nonwa8tewaters more easily than In
U017 nonwastewaters for the following
reasons: EPA ’s data show that K015
untreated nonwastewaters contain so
much benzal chloride (at least 90%) that
instability In water does not hinder
benzal chloride ldentlflq tthn andalso
that incineration has -
treated 1(015 nonw Jiowever,
the composition of an wastes
is, by the definition o1*i aates.
extremely variable. an etmnzal
chloride composition may very well fall
below the level of reliable
quantification.
EPA also ehanged several standards
In response to information In a recently
released EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) study, EPA/000/S4—
89/010, ‘USEPA Method Study 3& SW -
848 Methods 8270/3510 CC/MS Method
for Semivolatile Organice Capillary
Column Technique; Separatory Funnel
Liquid-Liquid Extraction”. This study
evaluates the analytical methods most
commonly used to quantify aemivolatile
analytes, a category of organic chemical
Including more than half of the
compounds regulated In this rule.
Although this study was carried out In
support of the RCRA ground water
monitoring regulations and consequently
looked only at aqueous matrices rather
than at the incinerator ash matrices
used to develop these nonwastewater
concentration-based standards, the
study documents such serious analytical
problems with several Third Thirds
analytes that EPA has chosen to
promulgate incineration as a treatment
standard rather than the proposed
concentration-based standards. These
analytes are U197, p-benzoqnlnone;
U132. hexachiorophene; U166 1,4-
naphthoquinone; U187, 1-naphthylaxulne;
P082, N.nitrosodlmethylamine; U184
pentachloroethane and U201, resorcinol
plus the leachate components arun iite,
benzenethiol. phthallc anhydrlde.
dlbenzo(a,elpyrene, trls (2.3-
dibromophosphate) and
thbenzo(a,flpyitue.
This study determined how reliably
these analytes can be quantified In
aqueous matrices by examining the
recoveries obtained and the precision
achieved over the course of multiple
analyses by several laboratories.
Statistical analysis indicated that the
recovery data for the analyles listed
above were so unrealistically high or
low that EPA has declined to
recommend he use of SW—848 methods
3510/8270 far quantifying these analytes
in ground-water monitoring at RCRA-
permitted facilities.
In promnlg theg the Third Third final
rule. EPA chose to Incorporate this
recommendation about the severity of
the problems associated withSW-840
me4h,%ds 3510/3270 and therefore move
these analytes into the category of those
compounds to be regulated with
technology-based standards. The reason
for this decision [ a that the study
documents significant problems with
GCIMS (gas chromatography/mass
specirometry) which is the technique
used almost exdusively to quantify
organic compounds In all environmental
samples and Is the basis not only of
SW-846 82.70, but for meet other SW—MO
methods for organic analytes) which are
common to most methods used to
quantify these compounds.
EPA makes one exception, however.
In the case of I (Dinoseb), to Its
decision to promulgate methods as
standards for those analytee
reconimended for deletion from methods
3510 plus 8270 In this ORD study. Since
EPA has upecific analytical data on the
Incineration of Dinceeb and since the
data was of sufficient QAIQC. EPA Is
promulgating the conëenfration-based
Dinoseb standards as proposed.
In rev1 wIng its own data. EPA also
determined that Inadequate
documentation exists demonstrating the
successful quantification of U074, cis-
and trans-1,4-dlchloro-2-bntene.
Considering this togetherwith the
problems In quantifying these
compounds as a pair because their
widely different boiling points
complicate their behavior in the CC/MS
apparatus, EPA is promulgating
incineration as a method rather than the
proposed concentration-based standard.
These decisions affect leachate
standards as follows:
1. All nonwastewater leachate
numbers will change as the
concentratIon-based-standard for that U
or P waste constituent changes.
2. Compounds Identified In the study
as problem analytes by Method 38 will
be dropped from the list of wastewater
and nonwastewater leachata
components, with the exceptlon4Po8a
N-nitrosodlmethylamine, for which the
Agency has data indicating th
be successfully quantified In -
wastewaters. Consequently EP
promulgating a concentration-based-
standard for P082 wastewaters while
promulgating methods of treatment as
standards for P082 nonwastewaters.
3. Compounds, namely benzal chloride
and i.4-dlchloro-2-butene, for which
EPA decided to promulgate methods as
standards rather than concentration-
based-standards as proposed will be
dropped froju the list of leachate
components.
4. Cotnpounds dropped because the
commenter’s incinerator ash study
identified problems with quantifying
them in ash due to questionable
detection limit, and recovery values will
be dropped from the list of leachate
nonwastewater components but will
remain on the list of leathate
wastewater components because the
analytical pmbIcun i Identified by the
commenter s study apply only to the
incinerator ash matrix and not to
aqueous matrices from other treatment
processes.
(c) Changes and Tree tability Groups.
EPA received several other comments
about the proposed concentration-
based-standards for nonwastewaters.
The proposed rule described how EPA
developed each concentration-based-
standard for each waste In a treatability
group. Each treatablhty o p section
discussed bow the chemistry of waste
codes compared to a compound
incinerated in one of EPA’ , fourteen test
bums. In addition, the proposal solicited

-------
Fed a1 Rt - / VoL No. 1O ’f Friday, !ufle 1. 1990 f Rnlas and Re9ulatlons
co ente on Issees specific to that
treatab ty ,u aa!awhn e (is..
comments onSQ centrpla M ’the
Orgunosulfur Was1cs r pertinent to
mdiv dual members of that treatability
group (i.e., information onposeibte
methods for benza l chloride analysis In
the Miscellaneous Halogenated Organic
Wastes section).
Treatabihty roup oriented
information describing how each
concentration-based-standard for each
U and P waste is presented in the
Background Document far Organic Ii
and P wastes and Multisource Leachate,
Volume C. The foilewu discussion
addresses waste-specthc WWTiIs, but
the prev’us discussion contaii this
prearn’oles primary explanation of those
promulguted standaith winch differ
from the proposed etamiarth,
Furthenuw’s. these F and I C wastes-
which weregrouped with similar Uand
P wastes are discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, in the section identified by
the F and K wastes.
The foil wi aragraphe review
those treatability-group oriented lasses
which generated significant comments,
especially those for which EPA
explicitly solicited comments in the
proposed rule. These paragraphs
summarize the cos ments and EPA a
response in order to provide the
regala ted community with a coherent
picture of the issues evaluated in
developing the pr mzitgeaad standards
rather than to be aneithaustive
summary of eacii decision made for
each U and P waste regulated In this
group. Such comprehensive summaries
appear in the 3ackgrow t Document Lot
Organic U and P wastes and
Multisource Leachate, Volumes B and C;
these present in detail how EPA
developed the proposed standards end
then modified them for promulgi Hntm In
response to information subsequently.
(A) Brominated Orgenics. In the
proposed rule, EPA solid Led mp nj
on several process- design and air
emissions control I unique to
bromine ncinerati of
particular interestw J rating -
conditions needed to suxe adequate
bromine oxidation ai need for air
pollution control devices. EPA ‘ -
particularly wanted infurujflhlOfl -
indicating whether treatment standards
promulgated in this nile should mandate
a maximum bromine concentration in
the feed to the incinerator and the use of
air omissions control devices. The
Agency also solicited comment on the
appropriateness of biod radation as
BDAT for P017, bromoacetone.
EPA received no substantive
conunents on the proposed bromine
standards. Specifically, commenters did
not provide’ the process design or -
emissions untrul Infoneatton EPA
solicited In li i1 of bruiuhie’a unique
corrosive properties. -
Therefore, EPA Is promulgating the
nonwastewater standards as proposed
in the absence of specific vOui nt5 .
EPA continues to believe that
combustion of these wastes could pose
risks from air emissions at particular
facilities. The Agency, however, is
unable to resolve these concams at this
time. Since any prublam inithely to be
site-upecthc, EPA believes, given ow’
current itatlom, that the best way to
evaluate and control potential problenia
with obie onabie airesnssfoasfrnin
burning brominated wastes is a permit-
by.permit approach thrum the use of
the omnil,ua permit authority In section
3 005(c)(3).
(B) Aromat and Other
Hydrocarbons. The only comments
received dealt with fuel substitution as
an alternate treatment method foe those
wastes is this group which nat
amenable to qficatioa. . -
(C l Oxygenated Orgmnim hi the
proposed ride, the Agency salieiind
comments on three sets of lasses
Involving analytical methods (1)
Difficulties the regulated commuiuty
may have experienced analyzing UO3L
n.bu2aiuil U112, ethyl scetatei and U117.
ethyl ether uaing methods the Agency
only recently authorlzed (2) analytical
data charac&ertmng attempts to qaanUfy
P003; acrolain, since the Agency
questioned the acrolein data generated
in the fourteen EPA test burna and (3)
data characterizing attempts to quanhfy
methanol in waste matrices, particularly
with SW-a a methuda , (See 54 FR 48423.
Nov mher 22, i289 .) -
The Agency receised no substantive
informnatloninreepáase to these
requests. Although ana nrnmeater - -
submitted ana]yticsl data showing that
the commenter’s system had treated
U15& In the nammpnter’s waste stream
to low levels, (his data could not support
a numerical standard for methanol
because the commenter’s data did not
describe the treatment system or the
influent waste stream in enough detail
to assure the Agency that this system
could successfully treat the wide variety
- of Ul54wastenthe regulated Cuuiuiuiiity
must manage. More importantly, the
commenter’s data did not address the
analytical difficulties encountered in
quantifying methanol.
An thar r nmmpnipr rh iI1pngpd the
Agency’s decision to set a treatment
method as a standard for U154 rather
than to transfer theSotvents Rote -
methanol number, promulgated in
November 1988. to U154. EPA believes
that the analythal difficulties associated
with quantifying methanol mU andP
matrices are significantly mom severe
than those associated with quantifying
methanol Ins TCl2 extract, as Is the
basis of the } t-RJu5 Solvents Rule
methanol standards. Therefore. EPA
chose incineration and oxidation as
methods for methanol In U end P wastes
to ensure methanol destruction.
Parenthetically. EPA notes that 53 FR
31164 (Anguat 17, 19881 explaIn. how -
EPA developed the Solvents Rule FOOl-
Foes standards.
(D Organo-N1trogen Compounds. In
designating incineration as Best
Demonstrated Available Technology for
organoriitrogen wastes, EPA considered
defining ‘BDAT Incineration” for
organonitro vcs as Including process
controls to mmimize No. emissions.
The proposed rule solicited comment
on several air-emission-related technical
problems and regulatory Issues
anticipated to complicate the
incineration of organonltrogen wastes
(see 54 FR 48417, Novembor , 1989).
The issues all arise from the corrosive
behavior of oxidized nltrogen
compounds. EPA speciflcallyT$ Iicited
comments on three aspects o
incinerating organonitrogen tes: (1)
Information on Incinerator
concentrations of nitrogen demurn tz-dted
to have been successfully incinerateth
(2) ijifuruiation on incinerator design
and oparatlon—especlafly air pollution
control devices—believed to meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act under
Sections 108, 110 and 111 and under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program’s New Source Review, and (3)
comments on whether to invoke the
omnibus permitting requirements of
RCRA (final a uteace of section OO5) -
for units burning these wastes, or
alternatively, to prohibit burning these
wastes In combustion units without
appropriate air pollution cuntrots.
Several cummenters urged the Agency
to leave responsibility for air quality at
hazardoua waste treatment facilities to
the RCRA permitting process under 40
CFR parts 284 and V0 and consequently
not to include air emission controls in
the land disposal restriction regulations
as pert of the definition of the treatment
system. EPA n rved limited data
characterizing NO generation at several
RCRA-permitting test burns incinerating
several organonitrogen wastes plus a
narrative description of emissions
control systems at one of these
incinerators. These data showed low
NO, emis.,ions . However, tins
Information was not detailed enough In
terms of specifying process design and
operation parameter values toe the
Agency to use in defining BOAT as

-------
22608
Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 106 / Friday. June.i. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
Clean Air Act as well as the noxious
odors of many of these organic sulfur
compounds. EPA specifically solicited
comments on three aspects of
Incinerating organosuifur wastes: (1)
Information on incinerator feed stream
concentrations of sulfur demonstrated to
have been successfully incinerated; (2)
information on incinerator design and
operation—especially air pollution
control devices—believed to meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act under
Section 108,110 and 111 and under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program New Source Review, and (3)
comments on whether to invoke the
omnibus permitting requirements of
RCRA (final sentence of section 3005)
for units burning these wastes, or
alternatively, to prohibit burning these
wastes In combustion units without
appropriate air pollution controls.
As was the case with questions raised
in the proposed rule about incineration
of organonitrogen wastes an& NO 1
emisssions, several commenters urged
the Agency to leave responsibility for
air quality at hazardous waste treatment
facilities to the RCRA permitting process
under 40 CFR parts 264 and 270 and
consequently not to Include air emission
controls In the land disposal restriction
regulations as part of the definition of
the treatment system. EPA received no
data whatsoever characterizing SOi
emissions or emission control systems.
The RCRA permitting procedure
required Regional or State approval of
the entire Incinerator system. Including
process feed as well as air emission
control units. Additionally SO 1
emission3 arespeciflcnlly limited by
Clean Air Act stationary source permit
requirements. Since both these permits
are Issued on an individual facility
basis, allowing individualized process
controls, and since EPA lacks adequate
data to dictate realistic SO 1 control
system design in this reule. EPA agrees
with these commenters and chooses not
to mandate air emission controls for
organosulfur Incineration systems. At
this time, EPA believes that permit-by-
permit determinations under the RCRA
omnibus authority are most appropriate
for units that may burn these wastes.
EPA intends to provide guidance to
permit writers with respect to facilities
burning these wastes.
EPA proposes treatment technologies
as standards for all eighteen of the
organosulfur wastes, partly because of
the difficulties In analyzing these
wastes. One commenter submitted a
package of data characterizing both
chemical oxidation treatment namely
chlorine dioxide, as well as an
analytical method for organosulfur
wastes. However, EPA cannot develop
numerical treatment standards based on
this data because the method does not
quantify the individual U and P
organosulfur compounds nor does it
differentiate regulated from unregulated
organosulfur compounds; the
comxnenter’s analytical method gives a
“total organic sulfur” number which
EPA cannot use to develop standards
because It gives no Indication how much
comes from U and P organosulfur
wastes In a mixture and how much of
this “total organic sulfur” number mes
from nontoxic and unregulated ‘
organosulfur compounds in the w%
stream. Furthermore, the commeii s
suggested method. chemical oxid ón,
is already the treatment method
mandated as a standard for
organosulfur wastewaters.
(F) Miscellaneous Organic
Halogenated Wastes. As it did for
Organorutrogen Wastes and
Organosulfur Wastes. EPA requested
comments on the need for controlling
sulfur dioxide emissions In the course of
incInerating P028, P118, U020 and U062.
As discussed In the section on
organosulfur wastes. EPA received no
substantive comments on emission
controls used in incinerating
organosulfur compounds. Although EPA
is not building specifying emission
control systems into its definition of
BOAT for these wastes. EPA intends
that the issues of air emissions will be
dealt with on a permit.by-permit basis
through the section 3005fc)(3) omnibus
permits authority.
incineration plus specified emissions
controls for all facilities disposing of
organonifrugen wastes. -
The RCRA permitting procedure
requires Regional or State approval of
the entire incinerator system. Iffduding
process feed as well as air-emission
control units. Additionally. NO 1
emissions are specifically limited under
the Clean Air Act stationary source
permit requirements. Since both these
permits are issued on an individual
facility basis, allowing individualized
process controls, and since EPA lacks
adequate data to dictate realistic NO 1
control system design. EPA agrees with
the comnienters and chooses not to
mandate air emission controls for
organonitrogen Incineration systems. A
permit-by-permit determination under
the RCRA omnibus authority may be the
most appropriate mechanism for
providing air emission controls for
facilitiesburning these wastes. (These
points by and large apply to proper
controls on burning brominated and
sulfur-rich wastes as well, and were
discussed earlier In this section.) EPA
Intenda to imwide guidance to permit
writers with respect to facilities burning
these wastes.. -
(E) Organesulfur Wastes, The Agency
Is promulgating treatment methods as
standards for all eighteen organosulfur
waste codes as proposecli incineration
for organosulfur nonwastewaters. and
Incineration alone or wet air/chemical
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption for organosulfur
wastewaters.
Just as for NO 1 emission with the
Organonitrogens category. EPA
considered defining “BOAT
incineration” for organosulfur as
Including process controls to minimize
SO 1 emissions. The proposed rule
solicited comment on several potential
technical problems and regulatory
Issues anticipated to complicate the
incineration of organosulfur wastes (see -
54 FR 48417. November 2 ).The
issues aLl arise from th” - e -‘ -
behavior of oxidized snI9 unds,
some of which are regula u er the
CHANGES IN CONCENTRA11ON-BASED STANDARDS FOR U, P,AND F039 NONWASTEWATERS
4.6-D irit o- e oI —.
Code
CoflStthJant
Revised
(mg/kg)
Proposed
(mg/kg)
P047......
P048 . .
P060
U0 04_
u005-..
u0o9--
(JOtS —_
U022_.
lio43 --
..__. .__
..—.—..—-..———..——-
----
.
-
-* . .-.
.- -_
-*__-
—
2.Ace 4a soene
Ae_ . . . .__
Be (a) & v . - —-
Bnn(alp ie
--
-.__
.
V cNodd&_._
180
‘so
0060
160
9.7
140
84
0.2
82
33
140
140
0010
0 14
96
13
028
36
38
o 035

-------
Note. The rsbtuanb re l ed ui U P w oodas are 4130 regulated a F039 l t ateis.
CHANCES FROM CONCENTRAUON-8ASEO
STANDARDS TO TECHNOLOGY-BASED
STANDARDS FOR U AND P No.i
WASTEWATERS
C tsthuar l Refc
CHAN S FROM CONCENTRATION-BASE)
STANDARDS T0 TECHNOLOGY-BASED
STANDARDS FOR U o P NoN-
WASTEWATERS—COnth’,ued
Co
C s FROM CONCENTRATION-BASED
STANDARDS TO TECHNOLOGY-BASED
STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON-
WASTEWATERS—Coq nued
IRe ised ov
C sbtue ,d
U017 p-Benzoquinone. -. .... ... _......J (J197
U074 CHorob.nzilate______ .._J U038
Yed R1!gi4er / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1 0 / Rules and Regulafions
cHANGES N CONCENTRATION-BASED STMIThRDS FOR U,. P , PMD FOSS NOMWAS1 WATERS—C nued
Code
.
U045 ...
Uos0 ......
1 )051 ...
1)051_. ...
U051 . -.
UCS I_. .
1)051
1)063.. -
—- . .-. — -.--—- - .-. — - — -.
roi t Q e . _. .. . . . .___ — --_____ .. —. - —. . -. . -
.. . .. -
Napl ithalene...... ..._.........._. . _ . ._.....
PentachloroØ i . . .. ... . .. ___ • - - -
Phenan rane .. . . _ -. .. . ...... .. .. . .... .. -.
P ,ene_ —— -...—.-- ...- —-——..—---.-—..-.-.--—-..--. . -
Xylenes —— . .___.... .. - ...._. .______________ . . - - . -
Dibeu(a .h)anUva _.. .. .
U075_
U076....
U077.. ...
UQ7B_..
U079 ._. .
U080
—_— __ -___ _ . . -
crod,fluromet . e .._._ -- .. - .... .. . -
1.1-0,croediajie______ ... . . . . _ .. __. - . -
12-Dcfl oroe8 ane . . .. . .. - - .—-- -
1.1-Didilthylene_ _. -. .__• —— -
b ens -1 oeth ione - -- - —- . ... .. — . . -
Methy1 e thI __. .. .. . . .. . ... .. — ... . . ..
U083 .
UO84
1)084. -.
- - .. . .... -
i2-0ch ropr ana . . ... . - . ._. .. .. - -. . _________________ - -
- -_._..__________ ... -
- . .. ..___
1)108
- —__
1,4 -0io ne... —— — —.-. -—
U112
1)117 .
U120
Ui 31 .
1)137 -.
U142_..
U155_..
U157_ .
U158_ .
U159
U165_ -
U 170
U 172.......
U179_
UlBo -. -
U1B1_-.
U208_
U209 . ..
1)210
U2i1_ .. —
-
) atate.._. . . . . . ..
EN 4ether .. .. .. .. -
F’uoren hena -. . . . .. -
Hexacfllcroe e ..... .... . —.
lodeno -_ . - -.. - -_——. . - *
Kepon........ ,... -
N tflaN o . . ..._.
.-- - .- .— -
4.4’-Mab Q- roen la e) -.

1)226
U227
1)239.
U243 -
F039
F039
F039
F039
F039
F039.
F039
F039 - .
F039 —
F039 —
F039
F039
F039 —.
F039
F039
F039 -
FC39
F039
F03 9 —
F039 —-
58
33
82
3.1
74
3.1
8.2
28
82
72
72
72
33
33
33
18
16
18
170
33
82
28
82
013
1.5
‘5
35
35
3.1 -
29
17
.4%
35t
28
42
42
58
58
58
5.8
28
28
52
15
46
45
45
40
40
15
15
7 9
15
7-9
79
1.8
56
52
52
0
5.7
82
56
36
15
14
1.5
I.5
33
13
$0
62
62
82
62
31
15
15
15
260
56
140
36
3.6
o 043
0.89
33
29
200
59
65
54
220
220
56
82
82
62
6.2
82
62
33
37
01
0I
0I
01
01
0.1
77
1.3
t 8
15
16
71
2.1
21
1.5
100
50
02
58
-__- -- ... - . . -
4P lflropheno l — - .. - . _ .. _.. .. .. ......
— .._.._.__
N-Nitro o -piper ,thne __ . .. .-_ - _- —-- —--... .._. . . ... ....
N-N lt roso-pyrrcIi .. . . _.. . . _... .._. . . . ...
5 -Nitro-o-toli,d ,ne ______- - ... —... ..-- . .____ ._. —
1,1.1 .2 -TauacHoi-oethajw_._.... .___. _ ._. _. ..._ . .._.... _ . ...______ ______ ... . . . -
1,122-Thrac li loi -oegwie - - . . . .. - . .. .. .. . ___ . .. -. -
Te oeli t tene_ .. - -. .. ._ ... ._. . . ___________________ _____ .
Ca en te a de ... -. . . .. _
1 .1,i-Tncfl1 o e . . _ . ... . .. ---.-- ..-... -
1 .1 .2-Tr lchloroeflia ne._ - . .. .. . . - . _. __________- -. - — . .. .. ..
Xylenes (total) . _. _.. - . .... .. .. .. .. * — . ... . .. - ......._____________ _.. . — -
Hexacfl loroprWene.. ... —-._.. .. .... - - -
FanipTh. . . ..._. .__. .. . __ -
. .._—.---..- . -—.. .-- .- — __________ ---.- -
Parathion . .. .. .. . ._ . .._ .... _. -. . --
Pflorate ...._. . . ._. ... — . ._ _ _ . _ .. . - ... ._._. .. _ . ... .. ______-.
AoenW ... .. . . _. . ._ .. . ... ..... _. . _ .. .. -
_-.
- .-“—-_--. - — .—__- -—--
BIvmod icN ,rome lnj ie -— ... ... —.. . - - . _ ... ... —--. .. — - . .
Butyl benzyi plithatale _._______________ . —. - -—-__ - -—.___________ —...
-. -- -— - -- ---__---.-- --- -- - -
fluocene .. __ ._ _
S8sex. (2,4 .5-TP) .. . . . .. ________ .. . _. -. -
2.4.5-1 - - - ._.._. - _________ . _ - ____..
-. C nidesUnt8O - .. . ... . . ..... ___. ...._ .
• Arsemc. . . _ .. ___.•. . •. . .._ -.
• Barium — -. . _ — ... —
Acgtontri le
A n -
1)003 Be cNonde -___
P003 I .4-Dd ,Ioro-2-butene (c 13 and trar ..

-------
22610 Fad a1 Register I VoL 55, No. 106 1 Friday. June 1. 1990 I Rules and ReguYatlons
CHANGES FROM - CONCENTRATION-BASED
STANDARDS TO TEC*4IOLOGV-BASED
STANDARDS FOR U AND P NoN-
WASTEWATERS—Continued
CONCENTRATION-BASED BDAT T T .
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON.
WASTEWATERS—ConthUed
Waste
code
Regulated
co ents
.
Total

(mgi kg)
CONCENTRATION-BASED BDAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P NON-
WASTEWATERS—Cofltiflued
-
Const tee rfl
•
e ised for
codes
Cyctobexanone . . . . .. . . ... ...
1)057
3 3’-I cfltorobenz,d1ne . . ..... -..... -
p . me t h an noazcben2ene . ...
Hexach loroptwne.._.. . .. . .. -- ..
1)073
1 )093
U132
1 4-Napflthoqumone ... .. ...... . ... .
1)160
i4apki yta a sne .. .. .. ._ . .. .....
1)167
2-Napiith I a n a ne . . ..
N-Ni osodtmed y1anune _.._.._ . ... —.
Pentect tocoethane .
1)168
1)082
1)184
Resoranol ... ..* ... .
1)201
Waste

Regulated
ssfljeeta
Total

Consab ents for *1’ icfl concen atjon-based
standards have been opped for F039
nonwastewatas
Acelonithie....
2 .Q l o ro-1.3-fx ,tadiene_.._..._
1.4 -Dsctdoro-2-butene
Aranelo . ..
Ba enettnol
p-8eoqwone_ . .. . ..._ .. . . . .._.
Ber aicteonde .__..
Gt I o roOera1ate_
D enzo(a.e)p e
Dibenzo (a,i) p ene
3 3-0scflorobe d ne

HexacN
l.4-Napfl t hoo none_
UO30 _
U031 .
U008 .
1 1037__...
0039
U043. _
UO44
U045
U04?_._
U048_ . .
1)050
1)051
U051
U 051_
U051_.
1 )051
U 051_
U051_
U052 . .
U052_ . .
U06 0_
U060_
U06l
1)061
U061_
U081_
UO61_
U 061_
U063_
UO68
U 067____.
UO68
1 )070
1 ) 071 —
U072._.......
1)075
1 )078_ . . .
u077—
1 )078
U079_
U080_
uoei_
U082_
u 3—
U064_
1 )084
ulol
u105—
Utos—
u108—
1)111 —
U112_
u117.—
uite_
U 120_
U127
U128_
U129...___.
1)129 —
U129._
U 130_ . . ..
&omogben —
eth
n-8ut l alcohoL....
chfordane. alpha and
be
bomene . . -
VeiØ chlode . . . . .. ......_
ch ron thane (methyl
chfonde).
2-O foronaphthaIene
2-crdoropneno l
Lead (measured si mg /
I m T t.P extract).
Pentachiorophenol —
ne
Toluene
Xylenes
cresof (m. and p.
DoO -
p.p.. 000
o .p’ -C OO —
p,p’-OOO
o OE
pp-DOE - —
o.p -OOT____
p. 94301
O et o(a,h )anthracene.
1.2 -D romo-3-
12-Dubromoethane.. -
-
Duch forodifluorometh-
1,1 -O h i o roethane,
12-Ofcfl lometane . .......
1.1 cNcmethy1ene
W ans-I .2-
2 .4 td v phen o l . .
Z6 -D ’ch lomp henof
l2Dich l o ropropane . . . ..
as -i oropropene
U’an s -1.3-
2.4-Cimethyl phenol
2.4.On*oto fuene
2.8-Diratrotofuene
1,4Cioxene
Ethyl acetato__....... . .
Ethyl ether
Ethyl n ThW 4ate —
Puoranthano
Tr lctdoiornonolhioco-
me
He orobe ne
Nexach lombutathene
beta-8HC____
delta -8HC
HC_
d ien
Hexachforoethane —
15
2.8
0 13
57
14
33
56
33
56
57
82
051
31
74
31
8.2
28
28
56
3.2
0087
0087
0067
0087
0067
0087
0087
0087
82
15
15
15
82
6.2
62
72
72
72
33
33
33
14
‘4
18
18
18
14
140
28
170
14
33
160
160
8.2
33
37
28
0068
0068
0.066
0 066
48
28
Pentachioroethane ._ —- —. -
Phthaiicanhydnde_
Resorc.nof _...... . _. ._ . . .. .
D phen y lamm e .
D hosanxno . _-
Methanol ... . .. ... . .. -
Cywiides(amenable)
Thelnim. __
Tr s-(2.3-dibromogropyl phosphate)
CONCENTRATION-BASED BOAT TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS FOR U AND P Noit-
WASTEWATERS
U137..
1)138
1)140 -. . -
1)141 . —
U142 —
1)152.
1)155 -
1)157
U158
U159
U161
1)182.
U165
1)169...
1)170
1)172.
1 )174 -
1 )1 79
u18°
U183_.
U185-_
U187... —
1)188
1)192
U196_ . . .. . . ..
U203
1)207..
1)208. -
1)209.
1)210 . . -
U220 ..... —.
U225.._
1)226
U227_..
1)228....
U239.___
1)240 —
U243...
U247___._
P004_
P020. --
P024.. . .. -
P037 ._. —.
P047. — .
P048_
P050.
P050 . . . ._
P050_
P051
P051 .
P059_
P059
P060_:
P077_
P101 —
P123 . . .. . ._
fndeno(12.3 -
c.d)pyrena
todomethane . -
IsObutyt alcohol....
teosafrole
Kepone . -.
Meacryto r atnle.
Methapyniene.
3 -Methylchloenthrene ..
4 Methyt a ns-b 2-
chioroanifflie)
Maittyl ethyl ketone..
Methyl isobutyf ketone...
Methyl methacrylate.....
NapfWtalene . .. . . ._
Nitiobenzene. . ... . ...
4-Nit roghen o l
N os
sodiethylanta,e
N-N osog y,r o lcne_
-
Pentec h forobenzene
Pentach loron ttroben.
zone.
Phe ceth . -
PhenoL _
Pronamtde .
P y dme.
Safrole . .
1.2.4.5.
Te t rac t t lorobenzene .
1.1.1.2-
Tetrachfcroethana
ij22-
Tebacflloroethane.
Te t racti loroethene___
Cerbon la onde
Toluene..______
Tr fbromomethane
(bromotonn).
I.1.1-Trlchioro ethane. . ..
I.i.2.TflchloroeV ne . . ..
Trfllooethene.__ . . . . _.
Xytene(e)
2.4-
X and.
Hexachlorcpropene.... . _.
Uethoxycfllor
Mdnn.
2-eec-Out y44.8-
p .Gh oa ne
D don_--
4& OesoL. . ....
2A-O tn ltioØiond
EndosuflanL .. . .. . . . ..
Endosuff an II
Endosuffan suffate. -. -._
Endi _
Enden astohydo_
_- .
Haptath -
p .N oa e ___
Ethyl cyarede .. .
Toxaphene.
82
65
170
2.6
013
84
15
15
35
36
33
180
3’
14
29
17
28
35
35
28
37
48
.2
i 5
18
22
19
42
42
58
56
28
15
56
58
56
28
10
28
0.18
0068
2.5
16
013
160
160
0068
013
0.13
0.13
013
0066
0.066
0066
28
360
13
Waste
code
Re ated
— (mg/kg)
consbflienta
-; ;‘.
1)002 . -
U00&. . . .
1)005... - -
U012_.
U018_..._
u019_...__
1)024
1)025. -
U027..
U029 -.
Acetone
Acnone
2 .Acety fatnsnottuorene..
Ben cene -
Bemene
bss .(2.Ghforoethoxy)
methane.
be- 2 -CNoroethy1)
ether.
b ,a -(243hforthcpmpy l)
ether
Bromomethane
160
97
140
64
14
8.2
38
8 .2
7.2
72
7.2
15

-------
Fed aI Re iMer/ VoL 55,No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22811
b. Technology-based Standards for -
Specific Organics
As explained In section IILA.1.(h)(2)
of the proposed rule (54 FR 48387), the
Agency has determined that for many U
and P wastes, as well arlbr some F and
K wastes, several complications arise in
terms of how reliably the primary
hazardous constituents can be
quantified. These complications formed
the basis of the Agency’s decision to
promulgate technology-based BDAT
treatment standards (i.e 9 a method (or
methods) of treatment) rather than
concentration-based constituent specific
standards for these wastes.
The proposed rule set methods of
treatment as standards for a slgmflcant
fraction of Third Third U and P wastes.
In the course of evaluating information
received since the publication of the
proposed rule. Information coming both
from comments about the proposed rule
and from Internal EPA studies and
reviews. EPA is promulgating methods
of treatment as the final treatment
standard for U and P wastes for which
EPA has proposed concentration-based
standards. The reasons for this set of
changes are discussed In section
ffl.A.5.(a Since the standards had
originally been proposed as
concentration-based standards, the
section on nonwastewaters with
concentration-based-standards Is the
appropriate place to discuss these.
In developing treatment standards for
the proposed rule, EPA found that for
any particular hazardous constituent.
there are four categories of
quantification complIcations: (1) There
are no methods, such as one in SW—846,
that are currently verified for the
quantification of the constituent of
interest in treatment res lduals (2)
calibration reagents (i.e., standard
solutions of known purity for validating
compliance with QA/QC procedures of
that chemical are not currently available
on the commercial market: (3) the ‘ -.
chemical is unstab1e water and’
Immediately hydrol J o a different’
entity (i.e., it reacts th Watet) and (4
the U or P waste is n b$cIflcall r listed
as a single chemicat Iy(e.g: P030 I a
listed as “soluble cyanide salts, not
otherwise specified”). Chemical specific
complications were presented in the
appropriate section of the proposed rule
preamble that discussed the specific
treatabiity group where the UorP
chemical has been classified.’
The Information EPA received after
the proposed rule did not invalidate this
scheme for classifying analytical
problems, but it did add compounds into
the categories of “problem analytes”
listed above which EPA had previously
considered amenable to quantification.
The main reason is that incinerator ash
Is a more problematic matrix for
quantification of organic analytes than
EPA had realized; elemental carbon and
silicon in ash absorb organic
constituents and bind them onto the ash
particle so that their true concentration
cannot be determined by instrumental
analyses.
The Agency is promulgating certain
methods of treatment as the treatment
standard for many U and P wastewaters
and nonwastewaters. Generally, for U
and P nonwastewaters, this process Is
relatively easy because incineration
processes are relatively indiscriminate
in the destruction of organics due to the
high temperatures, efficient mixing, and
consistent residence times available
from a well-designed and well-operated
incinerator. However, in the case of
wastewater treatment technologies,
there are more chemical specific factors
to consider such as: water solubility,
Instability, molecular size, volatility,
elemental composition, and polarity of
the specific chemical that Is to be
treated. Other waste characteristics will
also effect the efficiency of treatment
such as: total organic carbon, oil and
greases, total dissolved solids, total
suspended solids, pH. and alkalinity/ -
acidity.
(1) Non wostewaters. The Agency is
promulgating the proposed technology-
based standards, namely, Incineration
as a method of treatment,- for the organic
U and P wastes determined to be
unquantifiable as proposed.
Additionally, for those unquantifiable U
and P wastes containing only carbon.
hydrogen or oxygen. EPA Is
promulgating fuel substitution as an
alternative to incineration. In the
previous section of the preamble, the
Agency Identified additional U and P
wastes for which the proposed
concentration-based standards have -
been changed to technology-based
standards (I.e., Incineration). The
technology has not changed, but the
number of wastes to be regulated with’
Incineration, or fuel substitution where
appropriate as a method has Increased.
The Agency received numerous’
comments requesting that the methods
proposed as the treatment standard
Include fuel substitution as a method of
treatment. Coinmenters noted that many
organic U and P wastes in the “not
amenable to quantification categoly”,
auch as cuinene, have significant energy’ -
recovery value and are thus blended for
fliel substitution. One commenter further
stated that without this change in the
standard, these wastes would require
Incineration at a much greater expense.
The commenter urgeè the Agency to
allow fuel substitution for several
particularly flammable waste streams
which had been mixed with other
wastes and comprised less than ten
percent of the resulting mixture. The ten
percent cutoff was intended to prevent
the generation of acid combustion
products.
The Agency agrees to allow fuel
substitution as a treatment method for
wastes net amenable to quantification
which Contain only carbon, hydrogen or
oxygen in their molecular structure, In
terms of the treatability groups
identified in the proposed rule this
means fuel substitution Is promulgated
here as an alternative method for these
groups: all “Aromatics and Other
Hydrocarbons”, all “Polynuclear
Aromatics”, all “Oxygenated
Hydrocarbons and Heterocyclics” and
those “Pharmaceutical” and “Phenolic”
compounds which do not contain
molecular constituents other than
carbon. hydrogen or oxygen.
The Agency notes that this final rule
sets fuel substitution as an alternative
method for a larger set of wasles than
did the proposed rule; fuel s titution
was proposed as an alterna to
incineration for “Oxygenated
Hydrocarbons and Heterocyclics” alone.
Additionally, several wastes In these
treatabiity groups have been added to
the category of wastes not amenable to
quantification since the proposed rule
and thus fuel substitution and
Incineration is being promulgated as a
standard for these wastes for which the
Agency had proposed concentration-
based standards. These wastes are:
U057, cyclohexanone: U168, 1,4-
naphthoquinone; U197, p-benzoqwnone;
and UzOl. resorcinol.
In other words, EPA bans fuel
substitution as an alternative to
Incineration for all unquantifiable U and
P wastes which contain halogens, sulfur
or nitrogen. Eliminating these wastes
removes the potential for unregulated
SO 1 , NO 1 or halogen emissions from
boilers or other thermal combustion
facilities not yet regulated as types of
treatment units under 40 CFR 264. EPA
believes that wastes without halogens,
sulfur or nitrogen can be treated by fuel
substitution as well as by incineration
because the aromatic and aliphatic
(both saturated and unsaturated)
components of these wastes are
typically used as fuel because of their
high heating value; and the oxygenated
and phenolic components are already
partially oxidized.
Ta summarize the promulgated rule
for noni,vastewater forms of U and P
wastes no amenable to quantification:

-------
fr ’e’I— i1 R. iMez J Va 53, No 1O g FrWay, 7ui 1, ia & I Rnles a ReguIation
$ c ed d a5 t
stewa er fonns 0
POO2—I.Ace? ,1 24iois
POO7—Wuscr 5- moeth 4
P006
* Thiç5e
PO17—.8romo e
POI8-8ruci s
POV-C nA
Po —,-4o .aei q ei i.e
Po4s-
—
Po47-4 so e• u
PO49-Z4D øU
Po - s a
Poe4- _m—
Po6T—a-$ da
PoTh- t
PO72-4-NI $2-*I Ss (B. 5i
PO75.—I
PQ82 .—N-f4 taa
P1O8—Sayo ’W*i& 3&%
P1 18—Th ’ .
UOO7-A
LJOIO— o C
UOI1-A
UO14— e
Uo15- Q
UO17—8a
Lm2o-eer e sifbn
-
uo -c
UO4I-Z3 .
UO42-
uo -c_ —
-
UO73—3.3V’cfl be ri.
UO91- 3s s
UO92- neth
th 1anwioazobenzen
U*Io-Oçsc o
UI 14- E e e s. ImcaR c w
UI 16—.E ctaoa
UI19—€ ( methane suitbnate
UI32—MJI& b. ..u
Ul .—Lasi pii.
U11 I- ’
UI4O— .& fl i
U15O—U p aA
U 153-Methar io(
U? —Nea,f 5o D Of t$
U163 N N Nogu *k*
UI84—ib .
U1 —1. I
Ul68—24 ’
U171—2- 5 co iw
U173—N.N od-i iano iYun
U17 - N rsaus s-th u e
UI77—N-l1 so1S .m $s
UI7W N n -N m UsI
U1e4—Pu .oethane
U19I—Z.P &ie -
U193—1.3 .Pt pmie 8 I flS.
U194—e Wri
U202-Sacchenn and s&b
U218 - -TNoe a s e -
U21 5—Th wa a
U -eT 5’hr P diNiNe
U23o—r J.
U -E
U2 — 5 an s e s at 2 4-O
U244_:Thtw,
o ? uel s.eeftj n at
eó me
POOi - b *3%
•P1O2-P,op o o(
UOO1-A
UOOO—Au k W
UO1 I$ . 4
UI —7 ,T2 0 JJ 1 tbsg ci, a n
UI13— aa
U122-P
SaIment far nor s o 1ec fame o
UI24—F nn
U125—F 1
Ut26—G a3 e
UM1—.M .se * 1id.
Ut54—Ue 5
tflGU—1.4-NaptifiOn$

U186-= .1 .3-Pe .
U1G7 - .-p iI * -
U2O1—Pme — ’J
U213—Totr *oñ,ae
U248—Wa rt (<03%3
(27 Wastewaters. PA has typically
proposed two alternative methods of
freatment as the eatment standard for
these U and P wastewater treasabWty
groups. hail cases, the Agency believes
that mcloeratfan. while not always
practical for wastewatecs. will provide
an effictent destr tioa of these organic
U and P coimt Iusnts in wastewa (era.
Wiule the Agency does not want to
Ident Incineration as the primary
BDAT treafu -tPnl technology for these
wastewatess,-it also does not want, to
preclude its e. In addithn. the Agency
does not want to process needIe .)
variances for a technology thati
recognized to be effective. flerefàPe . in
all cases, “Incineration as a Method of
Treatmenf’ Is prcuniifg ted as one of the
alternative freatment standards for
wastewater forms of these organic U
axidPwastes. -
However, other ddatioo-based
treat 1 techaoLo&es are more
appropriate than Lj i in rat n for
aqaso u waste strea e and EPA ia
pru iigatiig .evera frea nt systems
based on.xlidatkiai foUnwed by carbon
absorption as aethods S x these
waatewa 12. The w tewater tr atm iit
technoio , th most âose ro es
hzinerathm La wet air o idatloo It in
specifically doaigued Lu destiny organics
La wer*swa cs and .fficleiitly oxidizes
organica L a se media by operating
at relatheL h j t u perati es and high
preanues. Euithe ie. wet a
oxidation La typically parfnr d
wastewetora that relatively high
cooreetietioas of organica (La.. those
that are at er — the 1% TOC cut-of!
for weitewater4 Far westewa tare that
contain a ’- ’ 4y lower
coacentra of o,ga’ d .io4cal
oxidation typically pro idss the
neceserry des oa of organlos to
levels that c theabe odaozberkoeto
acthfated wbon (a, a
EPA in pro )gatIng
(INCINJ se the thed of Tre. t’ fiw
those organic U a n d P w cont rn. .g
nitrogen. pheaphoroes. a . thdothie.
bromuie or fluorine in their molecular
slrudiae and “Inelneratiosi It1N) or
Fuel SubaUtution 1FSUBS as1 Method
of Treatmeur for those ovgan cU and P
wastes containing only carbon.
hydrogen and oxygen in their molecular
structure. See 40 CFR 28&42 Table I for
a detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code fir the p rentliesea.

-------
Federal Rejlâtes /r Vol. 55, No. 1Ot I Friday; June’ 1 -1990 I Rules and Regulations
polishing step). Electrolytic oxidation Is
also included under chemical oxidation
because the process-actually perfOrms a
form of chemical oxidation Induced by
electricity and because the Agency has
data Indicating its effectiaenesa in
destroying cyanides and other organic
species with complex bonds.
Since these technologies are known to
provide effective treatment for
constituents that can be analyzed, the
Agency is therefore promulgating
oxidation methods followed by carbon
adsorption as alternative treatment
technologies for most of the organic U
and P constituents that requires
specified methods of treatment
None of these technologies have been
specifically Identified as better than the
others due to the current lack of data for
those constituents that are difficult to
analyze, or for any other surrogate!
iachcator parameters. However, the
Agency is currently investigating the
potential use of surrogates/indicators
that could be used in future rulemaklng
to ensure complete destruction and to
determine which technology performs
best for these U and P constituents in
wastewaters,
For quite a few of the organic and
some inorganic U and P wastes that
require specified methods of treatment.
concentration-based treatment
standards have not been promulgated
because the compounds are relatively
unstable In water. This instability
Implies that they should easily be
destroyed with any chemical oxidant
(and most probably at ambie t
temperature ‘and air pressure).
Commenters requested that EPA
allow biological treatment for all U and
P wastewaters not regulated by
numerical standards. EPA rejects the
use of biological treatment for any of the
U and P wastes which cannot be
analytically quantified. Because influent’
concentrations of these compounds
cannot be measured, the treatment unit
operators cannot control the levein of
these compounds re the working
organisms In the biôl treatment
unit, or document th th wastes are
effectively biode ra ie risk of -
sending unmeasurabT diit1ties’of’
these wastes to a biological treatment
unit includes the possibility of shock
loads that would disable the plant’s
working organisms, and allowing these
wastes to exit untreated in the effluent
until the biological freatment ’system
could be restored to working order.
Even the presence of an activated
carbon unit downstream from the
biological treatment unit, an option EPA
had proposed, might not prevent high
concentrations of the shock load
components from passing through the
entire treatment system with essentially,
no treatment Ashock load high enough
In organic components could push the
activated carbon unit to breakthrough.
sending the shock load components
untreated to land disposal.
Consequently. EPA is precluding the
use of biological treatment as a sole
mechanism to achieve compliance with
BDAT. Biotreatment that is performed in
units prior to the use of a BDAT
technology or in otherwise exempted
units is not precluded from use by these
regulations.
Commenters suggested that PA drop
the requirement that activated carbon
follow chemical/wet air oxidation or
biological treatment EPA believes that
the promulgated treatment standard
option of oxidation, electrolytic,
chemical or wet-air, followed by
activated carbon is superior to the
commenters’ suggestions because
oxidation is more rugged than
biotreatment: less easily disabled by a
refractory influent stream and more
easily restored to working order than a
biological treatment unit As discussed
in the proposed rule, wet-air oxidation Is
most appropriate for those wastewaters
near the wastewater cutoff level (La. 1%
TOC). while chemical oxidation
effectively treats those wastes with
lower percentages of TOC. EPA’s
decision to require activated carbon
following the oxidation step ensm’es a
backup system to compensate for the
uncertainty about final effluent
concentrations of these U and P wastes
inherent in any process treating
unquantifiable wastes. Most
importantly, however, since spent
activated carbon from treating these
wastewaters becomes a nonwastewater
form of these wastes (54 FR 48384), and
thus must be incinerated according-to
the promulgated nonwastewater
standard, requiring activated carbon
treatment ensures that both wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of these
wasteego to incineration. a method
demonstrated to successfully treat a
wide variety of organic wastes.
EPA’s response to commenters stating
that requiring both oxidation and carbon
absorption for these U and P
waste-Waters puts an arbitrary and
heavy burden on those generators who
had been using biological treatment
alone or other simple methods of pre-
disposal treatment Is that the volume of
these wastes generated is small enough
that arranging for the promulgated
treatment process does not pose an
undue burden. Furthermore, some of-
these wastes are sufficiently refractory
that the oxidation-carbon adsorption’
sequence Is necessary toenmire
consistent and complete treatment.
In the proposed rule, EPA also
solicited data demonstrating the
feasibility of regulating TOC or COD
(chemical oxygen demand) as a
surrogate for these U and P
wastewatere: By setting a concentration-
based limit on the TOC or COD level of
a waste to be land-disposed. EPA would
necessarily limit the concentration of a
organic toxic materials in that waste.
Commenters objected to this proposed
practice as unrealistic. No information
was submitted demonstrating that TOC
or COD could be reliable surrogates for
these unquantifiable organic
compounds. Consequently, EPA Is not
promulgating the use of TOC or COD as
surrogates.
One commenter objected to the
method-based standard requiring
activated carbon following biological
freatment the commenter reported that
his plant routinely Bent pharmaceutical
wastes to the facility’s In-plant
Industrial waste treatment plant and
stated that the activated-carbon
requirement was superfluoua PA has
removed the biologicaI-txeat nt option
for wastewater forms of wa not
amenable to quantification fl4 explauia
this decision. Including the requirement
that the spent activated carbon be
incinerated, In the section lll.a.5.a.(3).
Far wastewater forms of organic U
and P wastes not amenable to
quantificatiorn EPA Is promulgating
“Incineration (INCIN) as the Method of
Treatment” or, alternatively, “Chemical
oxidation (CHOXD) or wet-air oxidation
(WETOX) followed by carbon
adsorption (CARBN).” See 40 CFR 288.42
Table 1 for a detailed description of the
technology standard referred to by the
five letter technology code in the
parentheses.
(Wet ciadaSom ct fi cai cidda 5cn), toSowed by
carbon eda,.rp k..ç or m eaSon m meeiods ot
Seatment for wastewster forme ot
P0O1—Warfa,tn (>0.3%)
P002—t .Acetyl 2.thiowea
P0os-A m
P007—Muedmol (5-An noed il S4scicenêol)
P014-8enzene tmct (Thlogflencl)
PO18i,-dilorometh l ed er
PQ17—8r mo ootono
P018—Brucr ie

-------
FLILur 1 Regiatat! Vol. 55, No. 106 1 Fziday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and egulaiMna
-l .(o-O boØ 4
Pc34—2c q1-4.e- Ieocneno’
PO -Epm
P—Th
PO47—4 O OI 3
PO -A
PO -F .
P084_
PO87-2 th e
PO1O—Ak1lcarb
P072—1-Na .Z 1oi & (Bw 4
P075—Nice ssid saI
PiO2-Propar l &co
P1O8—S ,ctve
P1 16—T7 . t.
Piie—rnc1 ’ *a
U00 -A
U0 08-Acr , Se
UO1O— m C
UoTh- .
U0l4-i saI*w
U01 5—Azaset
uo16-B ( J,
UO1 7—8 di .t
U_ —
U021-8o ns
U041E 5 p O
Uo42—2.a m I 4 v yf Ier
meth 4 e er
uo -4c o. l u M
UO55-
U —
U062-
UO64—I.2.7.8-O e p e
-33 —
uo74—l.4- .a -ne
U089-O be
uogo— ,
u091-— -
UO92-O neUe ___
U094—7,12-DimeeTØ be a U &4n&
U097—0Vnethy cetom l
Ut 1O—O rop Ie wis
U113—EthyI act laie
UI 14—E 5iyiene b d th ocaiban* ad
UI 18—Ethylene thuoures
U du o t si . W
bOnW R . or ‘- m.5 de at
treath,eal lot w 55eWa r lones at
UllS—Ethyf methane aitona
ui 2 2—rennJi . t,J
Ul23—Fom acid
U124— i
UI25—F r
U128—G1y aldef yde
U13Z-Ne ienens
U147—Maletc dijd
U148—Ma Hy3a S
U149— a l ouor* 5e
Ut —.Me l e n
U153—Med ane U ol
U156— 4 c io.oceben
U163—N-Ms* yl Pè Uo No eni
U164—MethyfV our.c 5
U167—t4 t i
UI71—2-N itrops i.
U173—N-N i osode? aoto na
U178—N-NiVDeo .N-edvy1ue
U177—N-N -N4nU I,
U178—N-
U182—Pamidat d.
UI84—Pv o ia
U186 —l.3-Per i ne
UI95—t.3-P. me a*
U%I4—itp i
U197— -8e o i iene
U2O2-Sec U W
LS2I3—Tetri
U218-Thuoscot aciu e
U2I9—Th& . .
U222— .o .T I ii J .i.I
-
U238—TrDe a
L1237—Uracit aiua d
U2 Ee,,4
U24O-i at*40
U244—T!*arn
U248—W 3%)
P the pvI ) ee of EDAT
de e,minations. the Ag y has
identh d fmw tabcate ones a xorthng
to amilaritle, in freatment. chemical
composition , and structure. Theta
groups arm (1) kiith ’rable Reactive
Orgnnit and Hydrazine vatives (2)
Incinerable lzmrgenics (3) I’luorme
Cwnpoonds and. (4) Recoverable
Metallics. The discutazan of the
frea ent standards apphcable to each
subcate ,ry are as follow,.
(1) !ncine, th1e Reactive &ganics and
Hydxozine Derivatives.
P009—Ammortium picrate
P081—Nitroglycerin
P112—TetraMromethane
UO23— nxotrlcl jride
Ut 8—& a-Dimett yt benzyl hydropei-o,crde
LJ1O3—D ethyf sejfate
UI6G—Methyl ethyl kelone peroxide
P068—.Methyt kythamie
Pl05—So a le
U08&—N. N-Diethythydaazine
UO98 -4. iDl ethythydsu2ne
U G—1. Z-Dthyth dranae
U1t -4. Z-Dthy anne
U133—Hyafrazine
EPA has roeped these wastes ld b a
eatability group together becau 1ey
contato flO metal constftuente ait ve
high inherent feel valves. Conseq è tly.
because of the sheilar charaderistka.
these wastes curt be treated wIth the
same
The Agency does not believe.
however, that cancentr tIon-based
treatment standards can be established
for these wastes at this ttme. The major
problems In estabNshiz concentration•
based standards for these wastes are
(1) EPA does not currently have an
analytical method for measuring many
of these wastes La freatment residues;
and (2) where the Agency does have
methods, there are no data available on
the treatmentof these chemicals. In
cases when there Is no verified
analytical method for a particular waste.
EPA tries to find an appropriate
measurable serrogata or Inr1 r ntnr
cpmpnimd however. no constituent baa
been identified In these wastes that
could be usedasa s*x-rogaieor indicator
compazni (Sen ‘itfri A.1..h ..(2) for a
detailed disr1z.sion of analytical
problema4
OneoL the ape flc pcoble
enamatered m alLulysis of Pt & P11)6,
P112. U UO6 U sod Uioa Ia that
these w esbeeskduwo quickly in
water lrelyee} and *lmt the arndysia
of wastewatar fasu of these wastes is
very dif t a, well as c1 hazardona
dtie the intmeUy of the readlas. See
further J wst eLon thethipestd
Instability in on w clevelo ent
of fr,.&tre & Ien1 ,deio metina
(Wet or or a 4 . & by
camon ai1a
ee5n lot a bne at
c. Used PWa,tee11 t-are Pdentfally
Rea
These wastes were grouped together
because they ate either highly reactive
or explosive, or they are polymers that
tend to be highly reactive. These wastee
posta aig iiTh ant risk cfurfnghanrflfng
due to their rcactIvit this Is reflected In
the fact that there are no stRn Iard ‘jflJ—
8 ’ methods for alyzlagreacthnty.
Because of th. difficulties to baudTh2g
and analyzini these wastea. the Agency
Is prniniiTgiith g tr ntmi t ataudarria
expressed as req ufred methods of
treatment (that slimini .fingthe .need ta
analyze freallr.nt reeidaie4 -
Agency kWeS Ied several
options he do .eleçiici tr- t
standards he these waste., isdoxinrg
nc1ner, en. e’si.nei e,ddatkm and
chne reak . of these
wastes are antly dby
incineratien . Oths. wades Uhtded in-
this gro be recovered ocao .. 5 .. d.

-------
F L raI Rëgfster/ Vol. 55 i No. 106 /Frlday, June 1. 1990/Rules and Regulatlbns
W.Ai.h. 2.)(c.) of today s notice. in
addftlon, the Agency tacks dsta on what
effects the hydroIysis ,ivducta would
have on the environment, Besides,
verified analytical methods do not
currently exist for the q nt1fica lion of
these hydrolysis producli in treatment
residues.
Another analytical. problem Is created
because P081 wastes are only
quantifiable by HPLC methods (Note:
EPA rejects HPLC methods for waste
treatment residual matrices for reasons
discussed in section Ill.A.1.h.(2.)(a.).) in
addition, there are no verified SW—846
analytical methods for measuring P009
and U133 in treatment residues.
These analytical problems preclude
setting concentration.based treatment
standards; consequently, the Agency
proposed “Thermal Destruction” (e.g.,
incineration) as a required method of
treatment for the nonwastewater forms
of these U and P wastes (54 FR 48427),
The Agency, however, reconsidered the
treatment technologies applicable for
treatment of wastes in this treatabifity
group as a result of Information in the
comments.
EPA continues to believe that
incineration is an applicable technology
beca use data indicate that most of of
these wastes are currently Incinerated
by commercial, as well as military
facilities. Additionally, since mostthese
wastes have high Btu values. EPA also
believes that these wastes (e.g.,
hydrazine is used in rocket fuel) are
excellent candidates for fuel
substitution, Nevertheless, the Agency
has also determined that these wastes
carl be chemically deactivated using
chemical oxidation and chemical
reduction technologies.
Based on afl the available
information, the Agency Is promulgating
‘Incineration (INCIN), Fuel Substitution
(FSUBS), Chemical Oxidation (CHOXO),
or Chemical Reduction (CHRED) as
Methods of Treatment” for P009, P068,
P081, P105, P112. U023, U086, U098,
U098, U099, U103, LJ1 -U133 and UI80
nonwastewaters. 2 Table liii
today’s rule for a d ptfon of
the technology standãHxeferred to by:
the five letter tecbn zide In the.
parentheses. .“- -
The Agency proposed ‘ nclnerotion or
Carbon Adsorption” as required
methods of treatment for the
was tewater forms of this treatability
group. During the comment period, EPA
received information about the
treatment capabilities of other
technologies and reevaluated the
technologies applicable for treatment of
wastewaters In this treatablilty group.
EPA still believes that indneretion is
applicable because it will destroy the
constituents present in the wastewaters.
Carbon adsorption is also applicable
because wastewater forms of these
wastes can easily be adsorbed due to
the branched and ionic nature of their
structures. (It should be noted that after
adsorption (and before disposal) the
contaminated carbon must be treated in
compliance with the treatment standard
for nonwastewaters,) However, data has
also been provided that indicate that
some of these wastewaters (I.e., P068)
can be treated by ozone/ultravIolet light
oxidation; hence, the Agency believes
that chemical oxidation and chemical
reduction to be applicable technologies
for destruction of the constituents in
these waste streams. EPA also has
information indicating that
biodegradation is capable of destroying
the compounds in wastewater forms of
this treatability group.
The Agency believes all the above
mentioned applicable technologies are
demonstrated and available hence,
“best”. Therefore, EPA is promulgating
(INCIN), Chemical
Oxidation (CHOXD), Chemical
Reduction (CHRED), Carbon Adsqrption,
(CARBN), or Biod radation (BIODC) as
Method8 of Treatment” for P009, P068,
P081, P1.12, 0023, 0066, 0008,
U098 , U099, 0103,0106, U133 and 0160
wastewater , See section 268e43 Table 1
in today’s rule for a detailed desaiption
of the technology standard referred to
by the five letter technology code in the
parentheses.
Although there is an SW-846 method
for U109 , the Agency ía not establishing
a numerical standard for this waste
since it is very similar to P068, 0088,
0098, 0099, and U133 (all are hydrazine
compounds) and it is the Agency’s belief
that the promuign ted methods will’
provide effective treatment for this
waste.
The Agency is unaware of any
alternative treatment or recycling
technologies that have been examined
specifically for these U and P wastes
and solicited data and comments on
such technologies but received no
response on this Issue. In any case, the
treatment standard does not preclude
recycling (provided the recycling Is not a
use constituting disposat see 261.33,
first sentence).
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P009,
P088, P081, P105, P112, 0023, 0088,
0096, 0098, 0099, 0103, 0109, U133,
AND 0160
( Nar ieu , .io ,d
In aUon (lN0lN , of a iton (FSU8S),
cftem ,cal ondaton (cHOXO), or cnd ,y caI reducbon
(CHRED)es Methods of treatment’
• See p26842 Table I in lodsy’s cub for a do-
tailed descnpeon of tile iecli.,ulwj Sl d referred
to by the frye alter technology code ci the pareruhe.
se
BDAT TR m4Ewr STANDARDS FOR P009,
P068, P081, P105, P112, 0023, 0086,
0096, 0098, 0099, 0103, 1J109, U133,
AND 0160
Inar.eraUon (NC*l), chernicat udebon (CHOXO),
chemical reduction (CH EO), c&bon adsorption
(CARBN). or b de edaflon (SIOOG) as methods of
‘See 26&42 Table i foday’s rule for a do.
uses deea n Sb the t hnob y standard referred
to by the live after technology code ci the parenthe.
so s.
(2) Incinerable Inoigaiuca ,
P006—Aluminum phosplilde
P006—Phoaphin.
P122—Zinc pbosphide(>1lm)
U135—Hydrugm sulfide
0189—Phosphorus sulfide
0249—Zinc phospkude (<1O )
These wastes were grouped together
because they consist of compounds
containing only Inorganics such as
sulfur. nitrogen. phosphorous, and
metals. Additionally, these compounds
are either extremely toxic gases or can
generate toxic gases under aqueous
conditions. Treatment technologies for
these wastes should Include equipment
to prevent releases of the toxic gases
into the environment.
The Agency does not believe that
numerics] treatment standards can be
established for these wastes at this time.
The major problem in establishing
concentration-based standards for these
wastes is that EPA does not currently
have an analytical method for
measuring these wastes In treatment
residues. For example, one of the
specific problems encountered in
analysis of P006 wastes is that they
break down quickly In water
(hydrolyze), making the analysis of
wastewater forms of these wastes very
dlifficult. In cases when there is no
analytinal method for a particular waste,
EPA tries to find an appropriate
measurable surrogate or indicator

-------
22616
Federal Register / Vol. 55 No. 100 / Friday June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
compound. howevar no constituent has
been identified in these wastes that
could be used as a surrogate or Indicator
compound for nonwastewaters. See
section UIA.1.h.(2) for a detailed
discussion of analytical problems.
Data available at the time orproposal
indicated that these wastetwere being
Incinerated by some commercial
treatment facilities. Therefore, the
Agency proposed a treatment standard
of “Thermal Destruction” for the
nonwastewater forms of these wastes.
EPA has reevaluated the applicable
technologies for wastes In this
treatabthty group as a result of
information submitted in the comments.
One commenter specifically requested
that chemical oxidation be a method of
treatment for phosphine gas (P096) and
hydrogen suffide gas (U135). This
conimenter said that both gases are
flammable and toxic to Inhalation and
can be treated by controlled reaction
with aqueous solutions of potassium
permanganate. The commenter stated
that this treatment allows the margin of
safety that venting into an Incinerator
does not since both gases, when heated.
emit highly toxic oxides, either sulfur or
POX. The Agency agrees with the
commenter that chemical oxidation and
chemical reduction technologies are
applicable for treatment of wastes in
this treatability group. -
The Agency continues to believe that
incineration can be used to effectively
and safely treat these wastes. However.
because most of these wastes will-
contain high concentrations of sulfur
and pho6phorous when discarded as off-
spec products, they will require as part
of the treatment the use of air pollution
control equipment capable of controlling
the emissions of phosphorous and sulfur
to acceptable levels (see the discussion
of this issue as It relates to organo-
nitrogens and organo-sulfur U and P
wastes in section il1A3.g.). EPA does
not believe that fuel substitution is
applicable for wastes in this treatability.
group because of the hn rs Iji associated
with the toxic gases th t b
generated.
Based on the informat* p aented
above, the Agency is pi 1ug
“Incineration (INCINI, ( Th ’ãl - -
Oxidation (CHOXD), or Chemical
Reduction (CHRED) as Methods of
Treatment” for P006, P069. P122, U135.
U189, and U249 nonwastewaters. See
section 288.42 Table I In today’s rule for
a detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code in the parentheses.
For wastewater forms of P006 P096,
P122. U135, U189. and U249, the Agency
proposed a standard of “Chemical
Oxidation Followed by Precipitation as
Insoluble Salts”. EPA has reconsidered
the “insoluble salts” requirement and
believes that because most of these P
and U wastes are generated In small
quantities it places a large burden on
treatment facilities treating these wastes
by Incineration or chemical treatment to
require use of chemicals that will
precipitate a small portion of their total
waste volume to insoluble salts when
other chemicals may be more desirable
for.their specific treatment needs. EPA’
also believes that the Individual facility
discharge limits will control releases
into the environment of any soluble
compounds generated as a result of
treating these compounds.
EPA has also reconsidered the
technologies proposed as BDAT as a
result of information submitted In the
comments. One commenter submitted
Information indicating that incineration
is the best treatment for these
wastewaters. The Agency does not
believe that treatment using
technologies that usually require
aeration steps such as biodegradation
technologies are applicable because of
the toxicity of the gases that could be
formed during treatment. Additionally.
carbon adsorption is not considered
applicable technology for thorganlc
compounds that do not have branched
molecular structures. The Agency
believes that thermal and chemical
destruction technologies such as
incineration, chemical oxidation and
chemical reduction provide safer and
more effective treatment than either
biodegradation or carbon adsorption.
The Agency Is promulgating a•
standard of “Incineration (INCINI,
Chemical Oxidation (CHOXD), or
Chemical Reduction (CHRED) as.
Methods of Treatment” for P006, P096,
P122, U135, U189, U249 wastewaters.
See * 288.42 Table 1 in today’s rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
-technology code in the parentheses.
The Agency is currently unaware of
any alternative treatment or recycling
technologi s that have been examined
specifically for these wastes and
solicited data and comments on these.
but received no response on this issue.
The final rule, in any case, does not
preclude recycling (provided the
recycling does not Involve burning as
fuel or is not a use constituting disposal;
see 261.33. first sentence).
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P006,
P096, P122, U135, U189, AND 11249
(Noneasfewaters d wastewatera]
lnonerahnn (INCIN). chenacsf caldaderi (ClIOXO). er
chelTical redec n (D4RED) as a method of
ea5nerd’
See secbon 268.42 Table I ii todays rule f a
deladed desaipbon of the technology standard re-
tarred to by the ftve letter technology code ii the
pwe
(3) Fluorine Compotznds.
P056—Fluorine
U134—Hydrofluoric Acid
These wastes were grouped together
because of their physical form and
because they contain fluorine. Both of
these chemicals may be generated as
gases (although U134 Is often generated
as an aqueous acid). Both of these
chemicals are also highly reactive and
highly corrosive.
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard of “Solubilization In Water
Fqllowed by Precipitation as Calcium
Fluoride” as a method for the
nonwastewater form of these was çs.
based on the chemical properlies
aqueous fluoride ions and the
insolubility of calcium fluoride.
Agency also proposed recovery
alternative specified method. The
Agency requested comments and data
on these options.
EPA has reconsidered the “insoluble
salts” requirement and believes that
generally P056 and U134 wastes are
generated in such small quantities that it
places a large burden on treatment
facilities treating these wastes by
chemical treatment to require use of
chemicals that will precipitate a small
portion of their total waste volume to
insoluble salts when other chemicals
may be more desirable for their specific
treatment needs. EPA also believes that
the individual facility discharge limits
for fluoride will control releases into the
environment of any soluble compounds
generated as a result of treating these
compounds. Therefore the Agency is
tiot finalizing the insoluble salt
requirement
EPA Is promulgating “Adsorption
(ADGAS) followed by Neutralization
(NEIJ1’R) as a Method of Treatment” for
P056 nonwastewaters and
“Neutralization (NEUFR) or Adsorption
(ADGAS) followed by Neutralization
(NEUTR) as Methods of Treatment” for
U134 nonwastewaters since this waste
can exist as an acidic solution or a gas.
See 268.42 Table I In today’s rule lot-a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter

-------
Fe Misl Registec / Vol. 55. No. 100 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
617
technology code in the parentheses. EPA
believes “adsorptIc ” instead of
“solubilizaliou” bettsr desaibes the
process of releasing a gas into a liquid
media and that “neutraj alion” of the
resulting acidic waste allows the
regulated community greater flexibility
than “precipitation as calcium fluoride”.
The Agency made this decision as a
result of information indicating that
most facilities are currently treating
giiseous forms of P056 and U134 by
reacting the gases with alkaline solution
and that it is common practice to
neutralize waste hydrofluoric acid
(U134).
One commenter said these fluorine
compounds are miied with other wastes
requiring incineration and that they can
be safely incinerated and that
incineration should be an allowed
technology. The Agency is not
precluding incineration as long as the
acid off-gases are scrubbed with -
alkaline reagents to achieve the
treatment standard of “Adsorption
(ADGAS) followed by Neutralization
(NEUTR)”. In this case, the water will
act as the adsorbent and the alkaline
reagents will neutralize the acidity.
The Agency has collected data for the
wastewater forms of these wastes (see
BDAT Background Document for
Wastewaters Containing BDAT List
Constituents in the RCRA Docket).
Based on these data, the Agency
proposed a concentration-based
treatment standard of 35 mg/I fluoride
for P056 and 1J134 wastewaters. This
standard is based on the treatment
performance of lime precipitation
followed by filtration. The Agency -
received no comments concerning the
wastewater standard and is thus:
promulgating this standard as proposed.
BDAT TREATMEN r RDS FOR P056
(Nonw 3
4OGAS) 4 we y neuea 5zatjon
(NtLJ1R i
BDAT Tnc. rii rrr STANDARDS FOR U134
(Nonwastawat arsj
BOAT TRE TMEN ’T STANDARDS FOR P056
AND U 134
tW wui , s)
Regulated consfl ient
M
I .’,
an e ab
sample,

comp
rn
Rnde ..
35
•See §26&42 Tthie 1 ii todays nie to.’ a de
tailed desa’ptcn of the tectir.o oqy starids d rofened
to by the S ’e lett lechnoIo code m the p ,wnthe-
SOS
(4) Recover’cble Met.oiics,
P015—Beryllium dust
P073—Nickel carbonyl
P067—Osmium tetroxide
The Agency has identified the wastes
in this group as metal wastes that have
a high potential for recovery. Because
there are so little data on these wastes,
characterization is very difficult All the
wastes in this gron contain metallic
elements (Le., beryiflum, osmium, and
nickel) that can be recovered due to
their high economic value. Information
available to the Agency indicates that
recovery of these meta!i!c elements from
these wastes is feasible and is currently
practiced.
The Agency proposed a standard of
“Recovetyas a Method of Treatment”
for both rionwastewater and wastewater
forms of these wastes. At the time of-
proposal, the Agency was not aware of
any treatment alternatives applicable to
these wastes and solicited comments
and Information to help Identify
alternative treatment.
Several commenters stated that it is
inappropriate to establish recovery as
the only acceptab! treatment method
for nickel carbonyl (P073). One
commenter generates very sniafl
quantities of P073 (typically less than
two pounds per year) and said that due
to the highly reactive nature of the
chemical, long-term storage in order to’
obtain quantities sufficient to justify
recovery either on-site or off-site would
present a significant safety hazard. This
conunenter currently disposes of P073
by oxidation, either thermally in art
incinerator, or chemically in a
laboratory scale treatment facility
followed by stabilization and feels that
this is the only safe, economical and
environmentally sound treatment
method for small quantities of nickel
carbonyL
The Agency agrees that it may not
always be practical to recover small
quantities of nickel and that oxidation of
wastewaters followed by stabilization
of nonwastewaters will provide an
effective treatment for nickel carbonyl
(P073). Since EPA has performance data
for chemical treatment of nickel in
wastewaters believed to be sunilar to
P073 wastewaters and stabilization data
for nickel in nonwastewaters believed to
be similar to P073 noriwastewaters, the
Agency has decided to develop
concentration-based standards for P073
nonwastewaters and wastewaters. EPA
is promulgating a concentration-based
standard of 0.32 mg/I nickel for P073
nonwastewaters and a concentration-
based standard of 0.44 mg/I nickel for
P073 wastewaters. This standard will
allow generators the flexibility to use
any appropriate method of treatment to
achieve the numerical standards.
Another commenter stated that it is
inappropriate to establish a treatment
standard based only on recovery as a
method of treatment for beryllium dust
(P013) and osmium tetroxide{P087) and
su ested that EPA develop-quantitatwe
or alternate technology st -an rds.
However, the Agency receiv l neither
performance data nor infor ion
regarding alternate treatment methods
for these compounds during the
comment period and has no
performance data in the BDAT data
base to develop concentration-based
treatment standards On the other band,
the Agency did receive a comment from
a producer of beryllium and beryllium-
containing products which said that
although only very small quantities of
P015 are generated at any one time,
recovery is a viable and preferred
treatment method in light of the high
economic value of the recovered
beryllium. Additionally, the Agency is
aware that it is current practice to
recover osmium from P087 using bench-
scale technologies because of the high
economic value of the recovered
osmium. Consequently, the Agency
believes that recovery Is BDAT for P015
and P087 nonwastewaters and
wastewaters and is promulgating
“Recovery (RMIETL or RTHRM) as a
Method of Treatment” for all forms of
P015 and P087. As noted through the
preamble, Congress expressed a strong
preference in the land disposal ban
legislative history for recovery as
opposed to treatment followed by
disposal. See. e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 198 at
31. The standard for these wastes is
consistent with the Congres8ional
preference.
Neuinthzaton cNEUTR) adsorption ( AOGAS )
foliowsu by fi ,Uleiza 5ofl (NBJTR is . eem d . 0*
5eatmaiut’

-------
22618
FedeTal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 f Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT SIANÔARDS FOR P015.
AND P081
Raxi eiy (RMETL c i RTHRU) as a method of
treatment
See U6842 T b4e I m todays ru$e for a de-
laded descngbon of the tethnology stand d refeired
to by the ftve leflar tects o ogy code ii the parenthe-
se
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P073
(Nomeestewators]
Ma
Re jlated ccnsVtuent
Leacflate
(mg/U
NdeL. ..._____________
0.32
BOAT TREATM STANDARDS FOR P073
(Wastewatere]
Rco
Ma
ei b
Go.,—
(mg/fl
NiCkOL ._____________
0 .44
d. Cases
P076—Nitric oxide
P078—Nitrogen dioxide
1.1115—Ethylene oxide
These wastes are typically found as
gaseous materials when existing at high
concentrations. The Agency Is -‘
promulgating thermal or chemical
treatment as a method of treatment for
these wastes In contrast to the proposed
standard of recovery as a method of
treatment The Agency acknowledges
that these wastes are unlikely to exist In
any forms amenable to isposal but
is promulgating these stAi .4in the
interest of completenessJ
In the proposed rule. t cy
solicited information on these
wastes are actually bein Thfidd1sposed.
how such land disposal takes place.
whether anyone intends to land dispose
of these wastes in the future and any
treatability data that may lead to
appropriate numerical laud-disposal
standards for these wastes.
In soliciting comments on appropriate
land-disposal standards for wastes In
the gaseous form. EPA wanted
information about the physical forms
other than empty containers these gases
take when dIscarded. 40 CFR
261.7(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 281.7(a)(2) state
that “a contaIner that has held
hazardous waste that Is a compressed
gas is empty when the pressure In the
container approaches atmospheric
[ pressure)” and “any hazardous waste
remaining In an empty container • is
not subject to regulation under
part 268.”
Since cylinders depressurized to
atmospheric pressure are explicitly
defined as non-hazardous waste
(assuimnp the cylinder itself is not
hazardous when disposed), the two
physical forms in which these three
wastes will most likely pose land-
disposal problems are damaged
cylinders unacceptable for recycling or
reuse and rinsewater used to clean such
cylinders. Commenters reported that
damaged cylinders pose significant rIsk
of explosion and thus are very
dangerous to store and handle;
furthermore most cylinder-handling
firms refuse to take damaged cylinders.
Therefore, commenters report they have
been expeditiously treating their
damaged cylinders on-site on their own
Initiative and these commenters strongly
urged EPA to set as the treatment
standard the chemical and thermal
treatment currently being used. EPA
agrees. Such activities will require
permits under subpartX (Miscellaneous
Units) of 40 CFR part 264.
One commenter submitted
Information about an oxidation process
that had been used to treat wastewaters
high In ethylene oxide. Although the
commenter did not provide rigorous
enough documentation of his treatment
process design and operation and about
his analylical procedures for EPA to use
his data to calculate concentration-
based standards for ethylene oxide, his
data nevertheless support EPA’s claim
that oxidation processes are BOAT for
ethylene oxide wastewaters and
nonwastewatere.
U115 (ethylene oxide) can be oxidized
to carbon dioxide and water so EPA can
specify chemical or thermal oxidation
for U115 nonwastewatera and
Incineration or chemical oxidation plus
carbon absorption or biological
treatment plus carbon absorption for
UiiS wastewaters.
However. In choosing appropriate
treatment methods for the other two
gases. EPA confronts the fact that
oxidation Is Inappropriate for P076
(nitric oxide, NO) and P078 (nitrogen
dioxide. NO 1 ) because the resulting
oxidation product is the undesirable
NO equilibrium mixture. Consequently,
EPA Is promulgaling as treatment
standards for P076 and P078 a method
suggested by one of the cornmenters
venting into a reducing solution. EPA
leaves the means of venting to the
treatment facility and requires only that
the effluent, gas or washwater.
ultimately be sent through a reducing
solution to transform NO and NO, to N,
and 0,.
EPA Is promulgating “Venting Into a
Reducing Medium as the Method of
Treatment (ADGAS)” for P076 and P078.
nonwastewaters and wastewaters
“Thermal or Chemical Oxidation
(INCIN, CHOXD) as a Method of
Treatment’ for nonwastewater forms of
U115 and “Incineration (INCIN) of
Chemical (CHOXD) or Wet-Air
Oxidation (WETOX) Followed by
Carbon Adsorption (CARBN)as
Methods of Treatment” for U 115
wastewaters.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR P076
AND P078
(Wastewater, and Nonwastawaters)
Venting mID a redecmg medün (ADGAS) as a
of
- T.
t
BOAT TREAn Ewr STANDARDS FOR UI 15
(Nonwastewateis]
Them I ci d enical midatlon (INaN. 040X0) as a
method of Deatment
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR UI 15
Inck.erallon (1NON) or chemical (QIOXD) or wet aw
n atw (WETOX) lo0owed by carbon abscipSon
(CARBN) as a method of tmatmeni
e. U and P Cyanogena
Pb al--Cyanogen
P033-Cyanogen chloride
UZ48—Cyanogen bromide
Today’s rule promulgates “Chemical
Oxidation (CHOXD) (such as alkaline
chlorination), Wet Air Oxidation
(WETOX), or Incineration (INCIN) as a
Method of Treatment” for amenable and
total cyanides for P031. P033, and U248.
For these wastes, the Agency Is
promulgating technology-based
standards rather than concentration-
based standards because of the high
toxicity of these Wastes. The Agency
received no comments on the use of the
above methods of treatment for these
wastes.

-------
Federal Register I. VoL 5 . No. 100 I FrIday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
fl619
BOAT TREATMENt STA?4DAJ S FOR P031.
P03 46 -
Oum csI de& . . (cHo) wet * cidMbon
(WETOX), I, ietssion(tNQN) a ms iod
& Development of Treatment’Stana’ards
for Muiti-Souxce Leczchote
a. Background
has decided to adopt the second
approach, which had. almost unanimous
support In the public coinnienta:ln
today’s final rule, therefore. the Agency
Is establishing a separate treatabifity
group for multi-source leachate and it
giving it the Hazardous Waste No. F039.
The Agency Is also adopting one set of
________ wastewater and nonwastewater
treatment standards consisting of
approximately 200 constItuents. (As
explained in sectIon (4) below, however,
the permit writer has the disa etlon to
narrow the number of constituents that
must be regularly analyzed and to
determine the freq iency of testing.) The
following sections dIscuss In greater
detail the Agency’s final approach for
regulating multi-source leachate.
(1) DefiraiPion of Multi-source
Leochote. Leachate Is defined In 40 CFR
280.10 as any liquid. Including any
suspended components In the liquid.
that has percolated through or drained
from hazardous waste. Leachate that is
derived from the treatment, storage, or
disposal of listed hazardous wastes Is
classified as a hazardous waste by
virtue of the “derived-from” rule In 40
CFR 26t3(c)(2). Multi-source leathate Is
leachate that Is derived fromthe
treatment, storage or disposal of more
than one listed bazazdous waste (54 FR.
8204.Febrary 27-. 1989). -
The Agency solicited comment on
whether multi-source leachate should be
defined as being derived from more than
one treatability group Instead of from
more than one listed hazardous waste 4
A number of comnienters favored the -.
Idea of a definition based on more than
one treatability group, stating that If the
leachatewas derived from onlyafew.
similar wastes, it would be burdensome
to analyze, fop constituents that would
not be present In theorigjnnthzg listed
waste. Other commenters, howeve
statetithat such a definition would be-
unnecessary and confusing to’
Implement. EPA agreeswith those
commentam-that a definition based
UpOfltrlitygrOUp$WOuIAjie- r
difficuitto Implement Inthis finairule.
There Is not suffirth’nt thee to develop
all potentiaLtreatability groups, norto .
provide public notice necessary to
implemeob the Ireatability group concept
within the time constraints of thi.flnal
rule, The Agency believes, moreover.
that compliance with the multi .source
leachata atanclards neednot be overly -
burdensome due to thefleiciWlity-
allowed the permit writer4ln the
facility’s waste-analysis plant top-.
deto nine -cwtstituenta to,nionltnr and to
decide testing frsquenty(soe secthm 4)- -
below The.Agency. therefazu, Is
defl ing wulli-aqurce leachate as
In the preamble to the proposed rule
(54 FR 48481-48489), EPA summarized -
its efforts to develop a regime for
managing, under the land disposal
restrictions program, leachate derived
from the disposal of hazardous wastes,
and treatment residues derived from
treating such leachate. Reiterating
briefly, EPA reconsidered the approach
It adopted in the First Third final rule for
such leachate (53 FR 31148-31150) due to
concerns about available treatment
capacity and (to a lesser extent)
treatability. As a result, on March 7,
1989, EPA changed certain rules -
pertaining to the modification of permits
(54 FR 9590). The-was followed on May -
2,1989 by a final rule that rescheduled- -
the prohibition date for most multi-
source leachate to that of the Third
ThIrd (54 FR 18838). Throughout these
changes, however. EPA adhered (and
continues to adhere) to the principle that
leachate derived from a listed hazardous
waste Is a hazardous Waste, no matter
when the listed waste was Initially
disposed. if such listed waste Is a lIsted
solvent, dioxin, or RCRA section 3004(g)
waste, the leachate Is itself prohibited h
from land disposal no later than MayO -
1990. These principles have been upheld’
by the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit In Cheznk& Wbste
Management v. ?2d 1520, 153O
1538-37 (D.C. dr. 1 ’
b. Final Approach f WatlngMqltI! .
Source Leachete -
In developing treath nt etandardi for
multi-source leachate and iesf dues from
treatIng such leachata (referred to - -
collectively as “multi-source leachate”
throughout this preamble), EPA solicited
comment on two options: whether to -.
apply to the multi-source leachate the’
treatment standards for the wastes from
which theleachate Is derived or - -
wbethert6 designate euchmult1- ourcè. -
leachate as a separate tmatabllit group’
with a separate treatment stan Iard EPA’
leachate that Is derived from more than
one listed waste.
There Is one definitional clarification
to be made pertaining to leachate
derived from more than one listed
dioxin-containing waste. The Agency
requested comments specifically on
whether to consider leachate derived
exclusIvely from F020-F023 and R)28- .
F028 dioxin-containing wastes to be
single-source leachate. The majority of
commenters supported such a
classification, therefore, the Agency Is
adopting this classification In today’s
rule. These wastes are acute hazardous
dioxin wastes (with the exception of
F028) subject to special management
standards and (as practical matter)
special and appropriate public and
regulatory scrutiny. The leachate
derived from only these hazardous
wastes most often will have the same
attributes as the underlying wastes (see
54 FR 48482), and thus would require the
same scrutiny and should be subject to
the same management standards.
Therefore, leachate derived exclusively
from F020-F023 and F028-F028, and no
other listed hazardous wastes is single-
source leachate that is class d as, and
must meet the treatment stanajrds for,
the underlying waste codes, F 0-F0Z3
and F026-F02& Further discussion of
this classification is found in section d.
below, -
(2) Single Waste Code for Multi-
source Leachate. EPA has decided to
establish a separate treatabillty group
for multi-source leachate, and to
designate such leachate by its own
waste code. Hazardous Waste No.
F039. 3 It should be noted. therefore, that
when today’s rule is effective, a
generator does not have the option to
continue classifying their multi-source
leadiate (under the waste code carry-
through) as eli the listed wastes from
which It Is derived; multi-source
leachate must be classified as F039.
Although there were some
commenters who urged the Agency to
retain the waste code carry’-through
approach for multi-source leachate, the
Agency Is persuaded that if multi-source
leachate is to be considered a distInct
treatability group (a virtual consensu8 In
the comments), then multi-source
leachate should have a separate waste
code and separate treatment standards.
Not.only doe. this appear to be the only
logical result of creating a separate
‘Aaw .aenedlnthepropoeedruje. thkdoea
not mean that suthwute I. aewly Identified or
Hated For pwpo.es ol RCRA hammers, or other
RCRA pi .es such a. .tIg bthty fse Interim atazes.
Rather, the Agency Is making a bookkeepIng change
In the way It dssI netes a type of wait, that aLready
I . liat d and ld ntthed.’
See f 26&42, Te e I Ii todays nie for a
detated desa tton of the tectviofoqy standstd re-
ferTed by the free letter tedliciogy oode hi the

-------
FJsI AReglstoe I-Vol. No. 100 I P lday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
treatability onp . bet the rules will be
easier to implement and esk If there
Is a single treatment siniwI rd for multi-
source leachate rather than dss lai e
number of potential treatmi -4 standards
(depending on the number of e
from which the leachate is ived). the
re8ult of using the alternative waste
code carry-through approach. In
addition, it would be harder and mere
confusing to evaluate situations where
multi-source leachate also exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic under
the waste code carry-through approach
(see 54 FR 48464). A further advantage
of establishing a separate waste code
and separate treatment standards Is that
It assures treatment of all hazardous
constituents that may be present In the
multi-source leachate, a result less
certain w der the waste code cony-
through approach. Thus. A sees the
treatment standards adopted today as
somewhat more protective than those
that would apply under a waste e
carry-through approach.
The Agency is proinulguting a
b ’eah f *ndard for rn-source
leachate t I ncludes con tmtion-
based standards hr vlrteally the enthe
list of BDA ’ constituent.. Becousa
multl -eouroa lAfichAte derjves potentially
fromanyaizi all of the hstedhazercious
waste, the treatment standard must
account for this possibthty, and must
conseqnontly 1ncth all of the potential
conatituenti that may be x cut (See
I 288.41(a) where the Agency adopted
the same approach foe FOOl—FOOS an
well as treatment standards
promulgated in this rule hr oe6
wastes.) - -
The Agency is not sayseg that all
multi-source I. wh te thihtfs eli of
BDAT list cocstitnanta obviously. . ‘
leachntes do aoL The A. cy
that It I . i ce. ary and wa of t ’
monitor ii.lituenth that e not -
presenL Working out whlth cous1t
to monitor is a site-epem& _____
datezzninathm. howe e -____
today promulgating an ______
8cheme to account foe
determinations. This L ntat1
8chelne Is similar to th i )b EPA . -
Effluent Ceidellees pzo c . ‘ihlth
requires an initial aos1y s that may
include all toxic orga s . followed b
subsequent analyses hr only those
po1Iutant which would reasonehiybe
expected to be present. lids
implementation scheme is discussed in.
greater detail In section (4 below.
(3) Sepornte Wosta wi
Source Le.tha As we. ahee
mentioned. ‘A th ulll4emco
Isachate by a separate wute coda.
Hazardous Waite No. F0 -
Commentum sepported this decision on
the grounds that imiltl-.owce Iew 4 uute Is
a distinct type of waste different from
the underlying wastes from which It I.
derived. In addition, they asserted that
they will face fcwvt admInistrative
obstacles. particularly with respect to
permit modifications, If multi-source
leachate and Its treatment residues have
a separate waste e. This raises
certain issues relating to state
authorization and ( R(1A reportable
quantifies t are discussed below.
‘A requested and received comment
on whether designating multi-source
leachate by a single waste code should
be considered a HSWA regulation -
immediately effective In authorized
States. A number of commentere stated
that the rule should be considered to be
adopted pursuant to HSWA. and thus be
effective immediately In all states
(RCRA section 3006(g)). EPA agrees with
these comments, and has cooclmied that
the designation of multi-source leadiate
IsaHSWAregulaIino. inthatft
effectuat the requlrementa of RCRA
section 306 1 (m) to set treatment
standards hr prohibited wastes. As was
disonseed at 54 FR 9606(Marth 7,1968),
Class OirougliTbi’ee permit
modificotion procedures are appropriate-
andwlflbeuedbyEPAtu linpimuent
such HSWA requfremeats In authorized
and imauthurized States. Since EPA will
hi modifying the R A permit in order
to inqilement these I WA -
reqinruments. a state may seed to
take any actide to recognize the
effediveness of the modI tlos.
The — has determined that
l ii gmdtieu le .th t . ass
separate e code is ed more
sfr t — the wajto e
carryth. . uh .4ndpaIbecausm(1)
Dethig t1-wmce isathatie use
separ was onde r es the
rnow hul and 1r tmeit of more )AT
constituents dma would be r q ilior1
under the wa .cade cerry thzei
approach to rngalallng zndd-.owce
‘ . leachatetoed. (2) . urth for dim
and__- thnmI1Hcorce h . r .ha
wa . are more snt than those.
thatheiw wahe the wa t.-cod.
cony __
AU rdona wastes listed p ssd
to A iediau30O1.aswellseauy -
solid wte that t.aas or e of
the diara ..l ”4st1ca eta R(2A ba.rd.as
wait. (as . 4a,fin L21- , - -
26124). sth ,ti 5 U
defined Ser44’ .Wt(t4)oI the - - - ‘
Comprehensive
of ( Q.A),
are
liste&et C R3I .4 slang with they
Reportable Quantities (RQ,). CLA
sectIon 103(a) requIres that persona in
charge of vessels or facilities from
which a hazardoua substance has been
released in a quantity that Is equal to or
greater than Ito RQ immediately notify
the National Response Center at (800)
424—8802 or at (202) 428—2875. In
addition. section 304 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1968 (SARA) requires the owner or
operator of a facility to report the
release of a CERCLA hazardous
substance or an extremely hazardous
substance to the appropriate Slate
Emergency Response Commission
(SERC) or Local Emergency Planning
CoiaIiittee (LEPC) when the amount
released equals or exceeds the RQ for
the substance or one pound where no
RQ has been set.
Under section 102(b) of CLA . all
hazardous wastes newly designated
under RCRA will have a statutorily
imposed RQ of one pound unless and
until adjusted by regulation under
CEPU..A. luorder to coordinate the
- .RcRA and ER LA il ms Ling vith
respect to new waste listings. th s . .-
Agency today Is making final re tory
amendments under C R .A aut ity
in connection with the listing of
Hazardous Waste No. P039. The Agency
will designate EPA Hazardous Waste
No. P030 as a hazardous substance
under Section i02 (b of CZRQ.A and
estabLish the RQ for EPA Hazardous
Waste No. P069 at one pound.
The RQ for this waste stream I. based
on the RQs of the hazardous
000atitnAflM of concern Idantifled under
R( A for the waste stream (50 FR
13458. April 4. 1985). Thus. If a newly
listed hazardous waste has only one
constihient of coacern the wait. will
have an RQ th t Is the same as the RQ
forthe constituent. If, as La this case, the
hazardous waste has more than
conatitmnt of concern, the lowest RQ
a gi” .4to any of the constituents will
be the RQ for the hazardous waste. RQ.
are set-at 1; 1 l0t 1000 and 500G
pounds . EPA Hazardous waste No. P039
Contains ,rvorel wu,Uteents that have
RQe of onepound (e.g..
rltsklrjn , vinyl chloride. etc. therefore,
the RQ of this waste Is also one pound.
The list of hazardous ceaslitunata for
this w aMemaybofo at40 &
2U843(a , Table CCW. The definition of
multi-source leadiata. a may be
founds aR26a .s1
(4 rm PXA ned
thp1ementa dw’se U would -
appear thatU.ting audd-.oerce
aiu.uIIzg many Ap nslta that do
not already Include s.aarative- -

-------
Federal Register V L’ 5 No . 106/ Friday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and’ Regth ibns
description for multl-som ’ce leachate
and multi-source leachate treatment
residues. EPA has-allo Concluded that
this designation as a-single waste coda
may require some mod cation to
existing permits in ordi to treat, store,
or dispose of the new waste code, and
that such modifications are
appropriately achieved through the
procedures In 40 CFR 270.42(g). 4 These
procedures require the submission of a
Class 1 modification by the date on
which the waste becomes subject to the
new requIrements (August 8, 1990). The
regulations further specify a subsequent
submission of a Class 2 or 3-permit
modification request. if appropriate.
EPA believe. that a Class I submission
Is all that Is required when a permit is
simply being changed b i substituting the
F039 waste code for the multiple waste
codes that are carned through with the
leachate. (If a facility wants to make
additional operation changes or -
introduce the leachate into units not
previously permitted to manage the
waste, then the appropriate modification
procedures would apply before the
activity can commence.)
A. described more fully in section
IILG. of this preamble, it will take aome
time for permit writers to lncorpçrnte
specific land disposal restriction
procedures into waste analysis plans
(WAPs) at all facilities. For facilities
that already have a permit, a permit
modification will be required to -
Incorporate new procedures In the WAP.
Some commenters suggested that any. -
changes to the WAP should be treated.
as a Class L modification. Using the
existing permit modification regulations
in 40 CFR 270.42, one could question
whether It Is most appropriate to apply
the Class 1 procedures (Intended for
WAP changes to conform with Agency
guidance or regulations, as epecifed lii ,
item B(2)(a) of appendix 1), o1 1 whether
the Class 2 process shouldbaused seä’
item B(2)(b)). Presented with this
questfon. and respç to cemnieñter
who desired an ex a wa to
address the appro 39 waste
analysis procedure Agency Is’ - -
today establlshIng 1aee-iperrn1t -
modification (with prior approval for -‘
this purpose. (See Item B(1)(b) In -
appendix Ito 40 CFR 270.42.) EPA
believes that this classification strikes
the proper balance between a
streamlined mechanism for upgrading
EPA reiteystes thet the designation of the new
wszt code foe mnitl-.onrna teadiete doe, not thesn
thee suth waits Is newly 1i4.nEB 4 a,
ERA. R .thet. b sn . saasp sntha.ai .y a r ot
managem it to specified waite code, or typea 01
welles. Ute rIst. to teat inch toodificatloor
is If they newly listed waste. a. iS. we,t.
code be.. been newly chs t
the WAP for P039, while maintaining
Agency oversight and approval of the
proposal change. All persona on the
facility mailing list will also be provided
with notice that the facility has
requested a change to its WAP (see 40
CFR 270.42(a)).
A few commenters suggested that the
Initial list of constitutents to be
analyzed should not be the entire BDAT
list, but rather, it should be a list of all
the constituents associated with all the
hazardous wastes that has been
disposed of In the land disposal unit
Commentera suggested this approach Is
particularly appropriate for non-
commercial facilities that have stable
and well-defined waste streams that are
land disposed. Indeed, such an approach
Is basically a case of a generator
developing waste characterization
Information based on his knowledge of
how the waste—in this case, leachate—
was generated. The Agency believes
this is a generally valid pproach, and
may be considered on a site-specific
basis. As discussed In more detail In
preamble section LILG., however, In
most cases there is still a need for
corroborative testing. -
The Agency believes that In order tti
assure compilénce with the land
disposal restrictions, the following
procedures should be followed by
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. FIrst, obtain an Initial analysis
of all regulated constituents In P039.
Based on the results of this analysls,-and
any other information that should be-
considered, develop a list of
constituents to be analyzed on a regular
frequency. This testing scheme should
be supplemented with perhaps less
frequent, broader analyses to make sure
that changes hi the composition of the
leachate are detected.
This approach Is suggested pending a
opporlunity fox the Agency to prescribe.
the appropriate constituents far analysis
and testing frequency for the facility. It
is therefore recommended that interim.
status facile. IncOrporate such a
approach Into the WAP. that they
maintain pursuant to 40 CFR 285.13, -
Forboth permitted and Interim status
facilities, the Agency retains Its
authority (particularly where a revised
WAP has not been Agency-approved) to
determine-that, based on an Inspection
or other information, the testing
frequencies and/or protocols are
inadequate at a particular facility. In
such cases, EPA (or an authorized State)
may take a number of actions, fncludlng,
but not limited to, modifying a facllftre -
permit or pur uIng an enforcement -
action. -
(5) Treatment standards for multi-
source leodiote. The P039 treatment
standard being promulgated today is
based on the data used In the
development of the proposed standards,
as will as on treatability data received
just prior to publication of the proposed
rule (see 54 FR 84863, referencing these
data). Today’s promulgated treatment
standard regulates the entire BOAT list
of constituents. More Information on
how the standards for each constituent
were developed can be found in the
Final BDAT Background Document for
Organic U and P Wastes and Multi-
Source Leachates (F039), available in
the RCRA docket.
As was discussed earlier in 8ection
(1), some comnmenters suggested that
multi-source leachate constituent
standards should be based on
treatability groups, so as not to trigger
analysis of the whole BDAT list if the
leachate was derived from only a few
similar wastes. Other commenters
suggested that multi-source leachate
standards should be facility’ pedflc.
The Agency believes there Itsome merit
to the concept of treatabili roups foi
multi-source leachate, and
acknowledges the need for I -speciflc
considerations in implementing the
treatment standard. However, the
Agency believes that one set of
wastewater and nonwastewater
standards based on the BDAT list.
implemented as stated above (with
determination of constituents and
frequency of monitoring left to the
judgement of the permit writer) Is a
reasonable and appropriate way to
regulate multi-source leachate.
Under the BOAT methodology for
determining treatment standards, when
the Agency does not have data for a
constituent, data may be transferred
from a structurally similar compound
that is harder to treat and likely to be
treated by the same technology. Such
transfers use as a starting point
constituents within the same treatability
- group. Frequently within a particular
treatability group, constituents that can
not be adequately analyzed (and for
which methods of treatment are
established-as the treatment standard)
are Included In addition to those
constituents for which numerical
treatment standards are set.. The
constituent from which data are
transferred to the other constituents In
the treatability group Is the surrogate for
any constituents In that treatabulity
group that cannot be analyzed. It is
EPA’. conclusion In the case of multi-
source leachate, however, that
establishing numerical treatment
standards for each BOAT list

-------
F LusJ Registar / VoL 55. No. 108 / FrIday, June 1, 1990 / Rnles and Regulations
constituent obviates the need to specify
methods of treatment for any
constituent In other words, -the
constituents on the BDAT liatierve as
surrogates for those constituents that
may be present in the multi-source
leachate that cannot be adequately
analyzed. Several comments were
received that agreed with this decision.
Most of the multi-source leachats
nonwastewater treatment standards are
based on a direct transferof U and P
nonwastewater treatment standards.
The remaining organic and metal
constituent treatment standards for
multi-source leachate are based on
treatment performance data transferred
from 0, F. and K wastes. For the most
part. these treatment standards were
confirmed as being achievable by
performance data on the treatment of
multi-source leachate that were received
just prior to proposal (that were placed
in the record for the proposed rule).
These data were analyzed by EPA
during the comment period, and were
available for public comment and reply
comment. The majority of these data
show no difficulty in achieving the
proposed multi-source leachate -
nonwaslewatar standards, most of
which were based oninclnerationu
BDAT.
There were other data for a small
number of constituents, however, that
showed difficulty In meeting the
proposed standards. For example. the
Agency received data just prior to
proposal on the treatment of
nonwastewatar forms of multi-source
leachate by sludge drying of a treatment
residue from biological treatment Many
of these data supported the proposed
standards; however, detection limits
reported for some constituents In
nonwastewater leachate indicated that
treatment standards based on detection
limit data from an Incinerator ash
matrix may not be routinely achievable,
Therefore, data from ana )yalsof the
leachete matrix were us ’ kulate
todays revised nnnwaEt
constituent treatment ataMar for
disulfo too. famphur. par “ phorate
and methyl parathion..
Most of the wastewater constituent
treatment standards were transferred
from treatment data developed for
various other EPA regalatory programs.
and are based on data from numerous
sources. (These data apply to the
development of treatment standards for
other wastawatera besides multi-source
leachate. Further discussion of these
data Is presented In preamble section
mA.5.) Addiiional data were reviewed
during the cnmm nt period. including
data from a recently completed EPA
study of waetewatar treatment by wet
air oxidation followed by PACT or
activated carbon, as well as additional
performance data from the treatment of
multi-source leachate wastewaters
which were received just prior to
publication of the proposed rule. (These
data were placed in the record for the
proposed rule for public comment.)
Commenters stated that wastewater
standards should not be based on wet
air oxidation followed by PACT nor on
scrubber water constituent
concentrations. The commenters
recommended that the Agency base the
wastewater constituent standards on
biological treatment performance data.
The Agency agrees with the commenters
that tree tment standards normally
should be based on wastewater
treatment data rather than constituent
concentrations In Incinerator scrubber
water. Therefore whenever the
biological treatment performance date
demonstrated substantial treatment and
met BOAT QA/QC reqeirements. they
were used to set today’s revised
wast.ewa constituent treatment
standards.
Generally, data on wet air oxidation
followed by PACT supported the.
proposed wastewater coasti t
treatment standards. In addition, meat
of the treatment data on multi-source
leachate wastewaters show no problems
achieving the proposed standards. -
Whenever multi-source leachete
trea al data showed difficulty
meeting the proposed sf2ndsLrd , while at
the same time showed substantial
treatment of a constituent by a
th .mnnstrated. available t rlanology,
these data were used Lu developing
today’s revised numerical standards.
(Details on the development or fr n fr
of these wastewatar standards per
constituent can be found in the Final
BDAT Background Document for
Organic U and P Wastes and Multi-
Source Leackates (F039). available In
the RCRA docket)
c. Multi-Source Leachate ThatExhibits a
Characteristic of Hazardous Waste
EPA in net promulgating separate
standards for multi-source loachate that
exhibits a thaiacteristic of hezazdoim
wastes. By proposing standards for all
of the UDAT list constituents. all of the
conetiteente and properties that chifhue
any particular characteristic will be
addressed. This in a,nsintent with the
Agency’s resolution of situations where
prohibited listed wastes also o chihita
thar teris*ic the speci c treat
standard for the listed waste controin
because it is more .peci c. and In the
case of-the standard (or multi-source
leachate, addresses the constituent that
causes the waste ihil ft the
chaz istie, S 1d multi-source
leachate or Its treah * residues
exhibit a characteristic at the point of
dlspos..I, however. It must be treated to
meet the tieatmant standard for that
characteristic. FinaHy. if mulli-source
leachate simply extubita a characteristic
of hazardous waste without being
derived from a listed waste, It Is subject
to the treatment standard for that
characteristic.
d. Multi-Source Leachate Containing
Dioxins and Furans
EPA proposed that the waste code
carry-through principle should not apply
to multi-source leachate derived, In part.
from the disposal of listed dioxin-
containing wastes. Consequently, the
dioxin land disposal prohibition in
RCRA section 3004(e) would not apply
to auth multi-source leechate (albeit the
leachate remains within the ambit, at
least. of the statutory hard )uimmer In
RCBA section 3(E4(gfl. and application
of the management standards for acute
hazardous wastes would not appiyio
multi-source leathate. R8ther. EP 4
proposed to establish treatment
standards fur dioxine and furans spart
of the standards for multi-source
leachate (see 54 FR 48404—48465). This
proposed app ach was based primarily
on analytical data demonstrating either
non-detectable or very low levels of
these constituents are present In the
Ieachate (using analytical methods
capable of analyzing orders of
magnitude below the standard Limit of
detection of lppb).Id.
All of the comments agreed with the
Agency that multi-source leachate
should not be classified under a listed
dioxin waste code or prohibition. EPA Is
adopting this position In the final rule
for the reasons stated in the proposal. In
addition, the Agency notes that by
classifying leachate that is derived from
the listed dioxin waste codes. and no
other hazardous waste, as single source
léachate. the Agency is r tnining the
dioxin clas8iflcatmon for the type of
leachate most likely to be sufficiently
contaminated with dioxins and furans to
warrant the specisi status and scrutiny
required for these wastes.
The final Issue presented at proposal
was whether the treatment standards
for giulti-soerca 4oe hate should include
a treatment standard for dioxins and
furans. or whether a surrogate
constituent could 1nt1b’zit treatment of
theseconetitatents. The Ag y
examined all available multi-source
leathste data and was unable to
develop an adequate surrogate fur
dioxin (the Agency’s e rts are

-------
PAthkè RegIster / VoL 55, No. 1001 FrIday. June, 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
documented fully In the Response to
BDAT-Related Comments Background
Document). The Agency, therefore. Is
promulgating freethient ’s ndards for
dioxins and f’uzwu , in both the
waetewater and nonwastawater forms
of multi-source leachate.
a. Status of Multi-source Leachate that Is
Mixed with Other Prohibited Wastes
EPA reiterates that If another
prohibited waste Is mixed with multi-
source leachate, that waste must still
meet the treatment standard applicable
to that waste. Thus, once the treatment
standards for multi-source leachate
become effective. If the treatment
standard fc any constituent In the
prohibited waste Is stricter than the
standard for that constituent In multi-
source leachate, then the entire mixture
would have to meet that stricter
standard (see I 268.41(b)). (Conversely,.
if the standard for multi-source leachate
Is stricter than for the non-leachata
prohibited waste, the mixture would
havb to meet the standard for multi-
source leachate.) Id. EPA Is not
reopening thIs 1986 regulation for
review, but Is restating that rule here hi
order to make sure that the regulated
community realize. that § 1268.41 (b)
and 286.43(b) apply.
A number of commenters stated that
they would like to combine leachate
from various parts of their plant In order’
to facilitate treatment As stated in the
preamble to the proposed rule (54 FR -
48462 ) , sIngle-source leachate (I .e.,
teachate derived-from only one waste
code such as might be expected from a
monofill) cannot be combined to create
multi-source leachate. and single-source
leadiate from separate facilities nsm t
be combined to create multi-source
leachate (this I. analogous to the
principle that one ordinarily cannot -
dilute to create a new treatability
group). The Agency agrees, howevez -
that It Is permissible to combine varizia,
multi-source leachate streams at cue
facility in order to f ate fr nt
(so long as the treat l e. net
constitute land d1spdsaI3.
It should benote tM’leastfórthe
short term, the stat j lures of
multi-source leachate and First Third
prohibited wastes Is controlled by a stay’
order entered by a panel of the Dl,b4ct
of Colombia Circuit Court of Appeals.
The order states that “as to anything
contaminated both by leachata and by
other first-third prohibited weates. the
other wastes must, to the exteitt
- technically feasible, be treated to the-
applicable treatment standards..
Prohth*te4 waatas intentionally mixed -
with leachate for the purpose of’
avoiding applicable treatment standards.
remain subject to allof theFiret Third
standards.” Order of April 2 1989 in
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA.
No. 88-1581.
As explained at 54 FR 26602 (June 23,
1989), EPA views any mixing of
prohibited First Third wastes with
leachate that occurs after the date of the
stay order to be intentional mixing for
the purpose of avording a First Third
rule treatment standard. Certainly, any
such mixing that occurs now—over 18
months after adopting the First Third
rule—could be avoided and should not
insulate the First Third waste from
meetIng tha treatment standards. EPA in
fact intends to move jointly with the
petitioners In the case to lift this portion
of the stay order. Until the order is
lifted, however. EPA reiterates that any
First Third prohibited waste mixed with
multi-source leachate after the date of
the stay order remains subject to the
First Third treatment standards,
A final Issue relating to mixtures Is
the status of groundwater that Is
contaminated with multi-source
leachate. As EPA stated at proposaL
such gn undwater/multl-svurc Ieachate
mixture Is a hazardous waste so long as
the rualli-smirce leachate Is contained hi
the uandwater (54 FR 48482). (See
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA.
869 F. 2d at 1539-40, upholding the -
contained.ln principle as a reasonable
cons tlon of the mixture and derived-
from reles.) Thus, so long as the multi-
source leachate is contained In the
multi-source leachate/groundwater
mixture, the mixture ordinarily would be
prohibited from land disposal until
treated to meet the treatment standards
applicable (a multi-source leachate.
(During the perlodof a notional capacity
variance, the multi-source leachate/
groundwater mixture would have to be
_____In surface Impoundments that
satisfy the minimum technology
standards If the mixture is managed In
an tmpowidnient (see § 258.5(h)(2fl.)
BOAT T Am Etr STANDARDS FOR
MULTt-SOURcE LEAcHATE
(N wat sr s]
-.
Rs
,..
ogw en
-.
—

m
.
—
-
N
A
M r - .
Manmtwn for
nqIe
Reg ed — ss et
—
(mg/kg)
c io
bw-(2oeth 1 etho’__________
Dc
pDth *
2. Od*xoedurie
1,1 th aeth 1eno
2 .4-O XhaM
12o n ,ø srie
f .I _________________
BDAT TeEA err SmisoARos FOR
MUImSOURcE LEAO4ATE-C d
Amdor 1018..
koclor 1221.
kocfor 1232
Modor 1242..
Asodor 1248.
Aiodor 1254.
A or iao.
-C-
beta-8HC.
d -8HC.
Baron ($
Beion fkaoranthene_____
Boron ftuorandieno_____
Boiuo (g, ii. i) per leno
Boron p iene
mum — br o )
— — e __
d l bsu 4 Ø t tn
2-e oc-8iM I..4.O.. iencL........._..
r.......
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
092
1. 5
1.8
o om
0 . 008
0.008
0.008
08
8.2
34
3.4
1.5
8.2
1 5
15
‘S
15
2.6
i.e
2.5
155
0.13
16
5.7
is
as
7.2
72
58
72
14
5.8
5 .7
28
8.2
as
3.2
- Is
15
15
10
0.087
0.007
0.087
0.081
0.007
0057
0.2
8.2
62
62
72
7.2
7.2
14
14
10
16
18
0.13
28
14
28
Ousoi n. or p. enmei )
1, 2-Oa ro .o-3.O roproçor e —
1, 2.O ronoothane ( E1 1lor* dero-
m e)
ac .
108
- -
4.0
i s a-
84 - -.
0. 508 -
14
4 .

-------
Federal Register I VOL P55. No 100 / Friday , June 1. 1990 f Rules and Regulations
D$-n.butyt phthalate -
l, O obe n zene
4,6-Di i ocreaoi
-
2.4-Osn itrotoluene
2 .6-D i n drototuene _______
-n-oc4phthatate..... ._
OH p opylnitroaoa,mne
1.4-D i oxane
Disutfoton
EndOStifani
Endosu fan II _________
Endosutfan St4fate....... . .. ______
Endnn...................__ —.
Endnn Aldetiyde —
Ethyl acetate ____________
Ethyl eth ______ ______
b,s-(2-Ethythexyf) phthalate.............. ..
Ethyl methwylate -
Famptlur__ ——
Fluorantheno —
Ruo r _______________
hexathtomcydo ene .
Hexactdorod benzo4urans______
Hexacorod benzo .p-d io,d
H ac oweUw _-
Hexachiorgropene..._.._._
Indeno (1.2.3,-c,d ) pyrene
lcdomethane____
-_-
lsodrm _ . —
Isosafrote ...._. —_
Kegone...__
aorylonrfruo
Me1 apØene
Meth
3Meylcholanthrene
44-Methylene-Bts -(2-diloroarataie)......
Methylene cNonde
Methyl ethyl ketone___
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacvytate ._.._ —
Methyl Perathion......_.... . ____
riapflthalene
pNi t roarutkto . . . . . -____
Nrtrobenzene.._ . . . .......... ..
o u e . —- --__
4-N ltrogl lenot..__. . .__.._
N-Nitrosod*thytamine ....... -.- fr -
N-Nxtroso-d l-n-øutylasTsne,
I .LP4trosometh ylethytamme -
N -N trosomorphotha.
N-Nrtroaop ipendine
N-Nib osoOyrvoLóna.
Parathion
PemacNoroUenzene .. —.
Pentacfllo rodtbenzo-fwana.
Pe 1tacflIo rodibenzo -p.dox ns
PeNoronityo eezene . .. .. ... — -
PenlacPHo rophenol
Phenanthrane. -
Phorate . . -________
Prooaneqwet te ______
Saves (2 .4,5-TP) — _________
— —
1.2.4.5-Tat achla robenzene
Tetrachl o rcóbenzo- turane__________
TeacNorod iberao-p- eo s
1.1.1.2-TetracNoroethane__ . . . ._. ..
I.12.2-Tetrachlo roetha ne
Tetrach loroethy lene
2.3.4,6 .Te t rac l ao iophencL
Totueno
Toxaphene_.. — — -
1.2,4-Tncfliorobonzene
1.1.1-T tlcflloroethane. .______
1.12 -Trtcfl loroethane ..______
Tnct tlo roethy lene_.
2 .4 .5-Trtch lo roplieno l
2 ,4 ,6 -T n roplieno l
1 ,2.3 -Tncfl lo rop ropane........
1,1,2-Tnchc ro .1 ,2 .2ffkjoroothano_
chtonde____
Xylene(s)
Cyanidee (ToteS)
Bantmi.
__-_
chromium (Tote -
Lead -.__
S&e wn
S8vor
‘Ma,dmum for any single grab saniple TCLP
(mg/I)
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MuLTi-SouRcE LEACHATE
(Wastewatersj
Ma wnum for
Regula
.
ted organ Ic and inorganic
cene Wente
24 Pr.
compo
---
on
(mg/I)
Acetene
thWene __
0 _ _ ___
etophen o ne
2 -Ac atylaminosuorene
Abin... . ..... ..... _______
Ani0ne._ -—__
Mthraoene. _-
Aroc lor 1016 ________ ______
Aroclor lfl1____
Amdor l23L.
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248 ___________________
Aroclor 1254____.
Aroc lor 1260 __
alo 8HC_
gamma .BHC
Benzene__
Benz (a) anhlTacene.________
Beruo (a)
Benzo (b) fbicrantheno.... _____
Benzo (gAS)
Berizo (k) fluoranthene
Bromod ,ct ilor ometha ne_______
Bromomethane -__— .
4-Bromoghen y lphen y lether_ _
n .Butyt alcohol
Bistyl benzyl phthalate ._ ..
2-eec Buty l -4 ,6 n ifrophenoL... . . . .._
C on toVacfl too__
Carbon uthde___
ne ___
,_Meroat lno. . .__.
c o robenzene.
ch rcb ate_______
ch f o r othbmmotnethane__-
cN o roethane___
bis-(2 -O oroethoxy) melPiane_ .__
b, 2 oeth ethgr —
2-’ hloroethyl W yl ether............_____
ch onn__
bis -(2-chloroiscçwopyl)
frC fl e3 o t
cteo ome ne (methyl chionde)
2-O t lcronapl,thalene
2 - No r oghenol.
o r oc r opene
Oeaøl (m. and p. Isomers)
Cydoheeanone
12-O lb i’omo .3 -cfl lorogropane
12- romoothane _____
D omomethane ___
24-Olchloroghenoxyacebc acid
0$-COO
p,p’-OO O. .
o.o’-DOE____ _______
-
o.p’-COT __. . _.. .. ... -
p $-ODT
Dlbenzo (a.h) andvedene
n ct orobenzene
o-Oscf i lorobenzene
D i ctUorodifluoromethene. -.
I .1-O(c t eoroethane.._. . . .__. —
t.2.OlchSoroethane__ . . . . ..
1 .1- o r oothyl en e -
b ’ane-12 -DcNoroelhene__.
2 ,4 -Osct itoropheno l ..
2.8-OscNoroç h ond . ... ...... ... . --
12-Osooli lorog ropane .... .
d s -1. chfo r ogrcpeno -___
Diemyt phthalato -
Dimethobenzene.. ..
2 .4-Dimethyl phenol
Oumethyl pflthalate..
t.4 -Dm obe n zene
4,6 -Om itrocresd__. .________
L4-O ,n I1ioghertoL
2.4- r frotoIjeme. _ .._. -
2 .8-Oestroto jone
Ol-n-octyl phthaiate
0017
14
059
061
.055
0055
059
35
11
.055
56
017
066
057
014
0033
46
057
10
057
27
36
018
19
055
044
038
059
11
.71
38
.11
028
11
72
023
023
031
031
0039
0039
055
036
088
090
23
059
.21
025
054
044
044
85
.038
036
017
20
13
038
047
057
32
28
55
017
•40
(Nonwestewaters3
BDAT TREAmIEPIT STANDARDS FOR BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTi-SOURCE LEAd-tATE—-Continued MULTi-SOURCE LEACHATE—COntinUed
Ma,amwn for
any single
Regulated organic cons*ients
grab pIe,
cemgca
(mg/kg)
(Norrwaetewaters]
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE—COntiflUed
(Wastawat e rsj
Ma oniwn for
any single
Regulated organIc conetituents
W & O
ce on
(mg/kg)
IMawT xm i f o r
Regulated organic and inorgarac
any 24 Pr.
composite,
const ituente
total
com
(mg/I)
— —---
HexacNorobenzene ___________
l -lesactWorobutaotene _______*
82
16
22
79
79
19
0001
0.001
42
42
58
37
28
13
19
6,8
56
58
37
31
28
28
33
29
18
‘023
I 5Q (EP)
‘52
* 0.068
I 52
‘051-
‘0.025
‘032
‘5.7
‘0072
5 1 5
28
2.3
160
160
140
28
29
14
110
82
0.068
013
0.13
0.13
0.13
33
60
160
28
160
15
02
40
33,
0 _ : _
0 -_
31
29
48
0001
0001
28
28
8 .2
65
170
o _ - -
2.6
0.13
84
15
0 18
15
35
33
35
33
160
46
3.1
28
14
28
29
28
17
2 3
2.3
35
35
48
37
0001
0001
48
74
to
31
62
48
360
IS
p.
028
059
059
17
010
.069
24
021
13
81
069
013
014
.013
017
013
014
014
00014
.00014
023

-------
Fad I Regista’ / VoL 55 No. 106 / FrIday. June 1.1990 / Rules and Regulations
Me me
— me O tO
— P ion_____
BDAT T tue4T Swso aos FOA
MULTh URcE Ac ATE-
tWastewatari]
Re jgo
In 10 1
24 Ii.
cords.
—
(
1.2 ,4 ,5.T sct orceerusns.... . . ..__
Tetrach1orod ei 4urane
TeVacNcro enm .pdo th
—-
1.1.1 ,2 .T oroeth$nS
1.122 -Tetr acft1omethBS
Teeact euethene____________
.065
.O 063
A O€3
.000063
.057
.057
.068
.03 5
.0 50
.0086
63
056
.064
.064
.064
.020
.1S
.035
.86
057
.2?
.
86
14
1.8
&O
12
£2
.20
.37
1 3

.15
35


.042
1.0
2 .3 ,4 ,6-T ,.NO .u ti1 &d ......L_
To ieno___________________
Toxapflene
Tr*xosiomethane (b umo401m). .. ——
12 ,4-Tflc 1 orobe 1 zene
1,1.1.Triaewie_ —
1 ,1 ,2.Tnth lomethane_
TqicNomethene_.._____________
rna ommonoeuo.omesw*.........___.
2 .4 .5 -TncNorcvhen
2 ,4,6-T.uhIo rcQhenoI
1.2 ,3 -Tr Norogrogens..
1,1,2-TjIdl-122-k ’oe6ians_
V.i 4 di $de
Xytene(s)
Auc
e . 5 _____________________
ultmcn
‘.
-
8er t t em
Ca m________
chronusn(ToW)__
Cocoer
Is I4
Merc*r
at__________
Sate _________
se
Vina jm_________________
ZI.c
7. Apphicabilityof Tmatwiant&andwth
toSilaad ’Debzis . .. -
Soil and debris that are es ainlnated
with prohibited wastes are subfrct to
the land disposal restrictions and iz
meet the frea*mas t standard fn the
contaminating waste prior to laM -
disposal. The Agency reahzes, however.
that there are certain probI s
associated with regulating hazardoes
wastes In soil and debris matrices, it
may be difficult to obtain a
representative i ipis of the waste-in -
order to determins the level ef
- co ntaminant ‘tialioos in soil and
debris. MdItksial)j, there are a wide
variety of soil types, and wastee t-
may be dassthed as debris that may:
range in wm fr05nclar-elsed paiticles to
large ce ted taeks and bni i1iage.
Becasse olenth ’pcoblems. th.A Is
p ie t ’
treatability groups. however.
promulgated treatment standards apply.
(The Agency is establishing certain
debris subcategories in this final rule.
See the discussion of treatment
standards for certain characteristic
metal wastes in section IILA.3.a.)
11 the contaminated soil and debris
cannot be treated to meet the
promulgated treatment standards,
alternative treatment standards can be
established under a site-specific
variance from the treatment standards
(see 53 FR 31221. August 17, 1988) or a
full..cale varIance (40 CFR 288.44).
Categorizing such contaminated sod and
debris according to type, volume, form.
and contaminant concentration poses
several problems best resolved on a
site-specific basis. In order to be granted
a site-specific variance from the
treatment standard, the petitioner must
demonstrate to the Agency that because
the physical (or chemical) properties of
the waste differs sigulficantly from the
waste analyzed in developing the
treatment standard, the waste cannot be
treated to specified levels or by the
specified methods (see 40 CFIç288.44).
At proposal. EPA sollcite&mment
on the appropriate treatment - andard
for scrap metal destined for W 1
disposal that Is unavoidably
contaminated with a listed hazardous
waste (54 FR 48469). The problem
potentially arises because scrap metal
can itself contain the same metallic
constituteats present in a listed waste,
The Agency proposed that such scrap
metal.would not have to meet the
treatment standard for the listed
hazardous waste if It was unavoidably
contaminated and the listed waste had
been removed by rinsing or other
demonstrated d con1amInRtlon
techniques. The Agency also noted the
Imprecision of these teams and the
difficulties In developing an
Lmple mnntable approach. id.
Most coninipnters supported the
Agency’s proposal. and some
coTT fl flte$ urged the Agency to extend
‘the same concept to other types of
debris mixtures. Commenters were not
able, howevm, to find satisfactory
answers for the problems that EPA
raised at proposaL it also appears that
there axe only isolated Instances of
scrap metal destined for land disposal
being con ninated unavoidably with
H pohibited aanrdous wastes. EPA
conseqeat &yes.that the best way
to&ththis.altuat$on at the present
time is onan Individualized bame
throu hJb I 844 treetability
verl retherAbsn in. a general rule.
(The-Ageucy believe. that one approaca
- varisnm applkm ts to consider
BOAT Tt ATh tT STANDARDs FOR -
P JLT1-SOURcE ArE—Conth Ued
Uasm,jn b r
- -
Regidatad o gw1c d
con n
W%y24frL
colT oUa .
u
—
mg/5
I,2-0ipflen,lh *a e -.... -.— .—
1.4 .0bxans - - - -
Endosi * H
Endosids II
EnOin.
End —
EH 4
Eth l be uene
Eth 4 cyw ’de
Eth 4 ethor __________________
bsi-(2-E y1hoxy phthabeto
Ethyl rneCi ryiats. . .... . .. .— -———
Et
P
H
eno(12 ,3.-c . p Yenb -
.087
.12
017
.020
.029
002 5
025
34
24
.12
2 5
- .14
.12
.017
.063
.059
.0212
.01 5-
.065
065
.051
. 066
0055
.19
51
.021
0011
24
.25
30
-Os,
-2S
.14
.14
.01 5
063
.017 -
.066’
. 000063
.051.
‘-.me’
-.0 55-
—
Med ybne J
Mo eC Ø
5NOo .o4oU ne
N-N oso pefldb ’e
N -N s a xop I
- . -
-
-
Sfrota._
S*.ex I2 .4
24.S ’t
4reatm IiMad$’forContIi1Sd -
soil aMd izUatll ,tami ted -eell
anidebris can be better Ised - -

-------
2 2ff
Federal Register f Vol. 55 , No. 106 I Friday. June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
would be a demonatrati on that all’ of the
BOAT constitutenta not common to both
the scrap metal and the Hated prohibited
waste meet the treatment etaj darda. In
addition, it may be possible to remove
common constituents to the level found
in unadulterated scrap metal. In this
way, the applicant could show
compliance with as much of the
treatment standard for the listed waste
as Is readily demonstrable.) As the
Agency studies the whole Issue of
treatment standards for debris further. it
may prove that such situations can be
dealt with by rule, rather than on a case-
by .case basis. At present, however. EPA
believes that an individualized approach
is preferable.
8. Radioactive Mixed Waste
Radioactive mixed wastes are those
wastes that satisfy the defluiitionnf
radioactive waste subject to the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA) that also contain
waste that Is either listed as a
hazardous waste in subpart D of 40 CFR
part 261, or that exhibits any of the
hazardous waste characteristics
identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part
261. On July 3, 1986 (51 FR 4504), EPA
determined that the hazardous portions
of mixed wastes are subject to the
RCRA regulations. This created a dual
regulatory framework for mixed waste,
because the hazardous component is
regulated under RCRA, and the
radioactive component is regulated
under the AEA.
Statutorily and administratively,
management of the radioactive
component of mixed wastes differs from
that of the RCRA hazardous component.
Although EPA may develop ambient
health and environmental standards for
the RCRA hazardous component, the
specific standards for radioactive
material management developed under
the AEA are administered by the
Department of Energy (DOE) for
government owned facilities, and by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
for commercially owned ttj s.
Since the hazardous ptfii of the
mixed waste are subjectt6 ’R A, the
land disposal restriction I to such
waste. This means that t RCRA
hazardous portion of all mixed waste
must meet the appropriate treatment
standards for all applicable waste codes
before land disposal.
There are a number of potential
problems presented by applying the land
disposal restrictions to mixed waste
relating to technical achievability of all
of the proposed standards, as well as to
whether treatment standards can be
achieved consistently with requirements
imposed pursuant to the AEA. These
problems may be resolved by
establishing specific treatment
standards for certain mixed waste, as
the Agency has done in this final rule. In
addition. site-specific variances from the
treatment standard (40 CFR 268.44) may
be used to resolve such problems. lithe
treatment technologies determined to
represent BOAT (and used to establish
the treatment standards) are
“Inapproprlate’ due to the radioactive
hazard of a mixed waste (i.e., requiring
a different technology design), a
demonstration may be made o this
effect in a petition to the Agency for a
site-specific variance from the
promulgated treatment standard. If such
a variance is granted, alternative
treatment standards would be
established (for the mixed waste at the
site) that must be met prior to land
disposal.
a; Characterization and Industries
Affected
Based on information provided by
generators of mixed wastes, the majority
of mixed wastes can be divided into
three categories based on the
radioactive component of the waste: (1)
Low-level wastes, (2) transuranlc (TRU)
wastes, and (3) high-level wastes. Low-
level wastes include radioactive waste
that Is not classified as spent fuel from
commercial nuclear power plants, or
defense high.levei radioactive waste
from producing weapons. TRU wastes
are those wastes containing elements
with atomic numbers greater than 9Z
the atomic number for uranium. These
wastes generally pose greater
radioactivity hazards than the low-level
wastes because they contain long-lived
alpha radiation emitters. High-level
radioactive wastes are defined as spent
fuel from commercial nuclear power
plants, and defense high-level
radioactive waste from the production
of weapons.
Mixed low-level wastes may be
generated In several ways. For example,
medical diagnostic procedures use
scintillation fluids that contain-small
amounts of radioactivity in toxic organic
solvents (e.g., xylene and toluene).
These solvents generally pose a greater
chemical hazard than doe. the low-level
ra&oactivity The principal generators
of low-level mixed wastes are nuclear
power plants, DOE, academic, and
medical institutions.
One commenter submitted a list of
substances generated at commercial
nuclear power plants that maybe
classified as low-level mixed wastes.
This Included a wide variety of liquid
organic wastes such as spent solvents
containing suspended or dissolved
radioriudildes, scintillation cockta1l ,
spent freon used for cleaning protective
garments, acetone or solvents used for
cleaning pipes or other equipment. and
still bottoms from the distillation of
freon. Also, the list included a wide
variety of solid matenals such as spent
ion-exchange reams (contaminated with
various metals), filters used In
reclaiming freon. adsorbents, residues
from the cleanup of spills, lead shields,
lead-lined containers, welding rods, and
batteries.
Military weapons production involves
the generation of large amounts of
wastes that can fall into the low-level
and TRU categories of mixed wa8te.
These wastes are similar In form, but
TRU waste is considered by government
regulators to be more dangerous
because of the alpha radiation emitters.
High-level mixed wastes are
extremely dangerous to handle due to
their high level of radioactivity. The
DOE is responsible for the storage and
disposal of all the nation’s high-level
mixed wastes. High-level wastes are
defined as the waste resulting from the
reprocessing of irradiated fuel rods from
commercial and military nuclear .
reactors. This reprocessing Invol the
handling of materials that are ex nely -
hot both thermally and radiologl .
One of the reprocessing steps Involves
dissolving the fuel rods In a nitric acid
bath so that plutonium-239 and tritlum
can be recovered. It Is the high-level
waste generated from this reprocessing
that is considered mixed waste and
which requires treatment DOE has
indicated that this high-level waste is
EP-to dc for several metals, including
lead (1)008), silver (Doll), chromium
(D007), barium (1)005), and mercury
(1 )009), and may also exhibit the
characteristic of corrosivlty (1)002).
b. Applicable Technologies
The Agency believes that for
treatment of metals In low-level mixed
wastes and for some TRU mixed wastes
containing low radioactive components,
chemical precipitation will remove the
metals In wastewaters, and stabilization
technologies will reduce the leachabthty
of the metal constituents in
nonwastewater matrices. These are the
same technologies that are applicable to
nonradioactlve wastes containing
metals.
DOE submitted data demonstrating
the applicability of stabilization as a
treatment technology for the low-level
waste fractions that are separated from
the high-level waste generated during
the reprocessing of fuel rods. As used by
one particular facility, a stabilization’
process called grout stabilization
involves blending commercially
produced cement-based reagents with

-------
fi’ Vol 55, Na. 106 1990 1 Rules and fte ulafion
22627
the liquid low- le el vaete ’fract1 n. The -
material sets tip as a sa &masa,
immobilizing the waste.’I1 e
performance data Indicate that
stabilization provides lm bilizatlon of
the characteristic metal constituents and
radioactive contaminants for this low-
level radioactive waste, and that it is
possible to stabilize the RCRA
hazardous portions to meet the
treatment levels for the characteristic
metals.
For organic low-level mixed wastes,
the Agency believes that incineration is
an applicable technology for organic
compounds in both wastewater and
nonwastewater matrices, and that
technologies such as carbon dsorpt1on
can achieve removal of or anics In
wastewaters where incineration is not
practical. DOE has submitted
information indicating that plans are in
place to begin Incineration of a 1)001
ignitable liquid mixed waste containing
benzene. Incineration is also an
applicable technology for DOOl Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory nonradiloactive
wastes, Therefore, this particular mixed
waste, if incinerated, would meet the
treatment standard for DOOl Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory.
ForTRU mixed wastes with
considerable radioactive components,
and for high-level wastes. EPA believes
that vitrification Is an applicable
technology for treatment of both organic
and inorganic constituentsi DOE’
provided information to support that
vitrification Is an applicable technology
for their high-level wastes generated
from the reprocessing of fuel rods,
Treatment can be accomplished by
using either direct vitrification or s more.
complex treatment procesa whith
includes a series of chemica} steps that
separate the low-level radioactive v(aste.
fractions from the high.level radioactive
waste. The high-level radioactive ,
portion i then vitrified. When u lp
separation technologl b as, -
precipitation follow4W tling or
filtration, the bulk of dloactlvlty -,
can be incorporated I )lgh-level
liquid waste contaInii 99’percent
of the radioactivity of the bziginal ; ’
irradiated fuel rods. By separating high-
level and low-level mixed wastes. the
amount of high-level waste that may
require vitrification treatment cai be
reduced.
DOE submitted specific data on how
vitrification will be used to treat high-
level mixed waste. As u edln the
facility design. the vitrification process
will Incorporéte the high-level mixed
waste into a glass matrix, achieving a
reduction In the mobility of Its RCRA
hazardous and radioactive constituents.
The waste will enter the vitrification’
system as a. slurry (I.e.. a blend of solid
particles irta liquid base). The mixture
will be pumped Into a glass melter and
heated so that the water is evaporated
and the solid glass and waste particles
melt and blend. After the mixtur has
been converted into molten glass, it will
be poured Into protective stainless steel
canisters, where it will harden to form
•borostllcate glass. The canisters will
then be capped and decontaminated and
a second cap will be welded into place.
forming an additional seaL
c. Determination of BDAT for Certain
Mixed Wastes
In many cases, current practice or
planned treatment will achieve the
promulgated treatment standards for the
RCRA hazardous wastes. For example.
DOE generates radioactive zirconium
fines that are pyrophoric under 40 CFR
281 .21 (a)(2) (i.e. that cause fire through
friction). Consequently, the RCRA
hazardous portion of this mixed waste Is
considered a characteristic Ignitable
waste Included under the DOOl ReactIve-
Ignitable Subcategory by EPA. The
Agency ii promulgating “Deactivation
as a Method of Treatmentw as the ‘, ‘
treatment standard for 1)001 Ignitable
Reactives Subcategory. The DOE
submitted data which Indicate that this
wasta can be stabilized to remove the
tharacteristfc thereby, achieving the’
treatment standard.
(1) 7)eatment Stondordà for Mixed
Wastes Not Otherwise SubcntegorizecL
The Agency Is reiterating that as of the
effective date of today’s rule, all
promulgated treatment standards for
RCRA listed añd’characterist1cwaste
apply to the RCRA hazardous portioir of
mixed radioacti’ e (higli-Ievel, TRU. and
low-level) wastes unle s EPA has
specifically estabH hed a separate’
treatability group for’a specific category
of mixeè waste In other words, unless
specifically noted In f 288.41, .Z88.42, or
288.43 o today’s rule, the standards -
located In these sections apply to all
-mixed wastes. (All alternative standards
that ale specifically di eusted later in
this section of the preamble that apply
only to specific mixed wastes are
Identified In f 26&42 Table 3 of today’s
rule.) All handling requirements for’
radioactive materials set forth by the’
Nuclear Regulatory Commission must’
also be met.
(2) Treatment Standwvfs for Specific
High-Level Was€e& For moat
characteristic metal wastes, the Agency
has datermlned’that conventional
stabilization IaBDAT, and has
developed treatment standards using
stabilization performance data. The
Agency does not believe, however, that
stabilization using cementitious binders
is an-appzoyrlate treatment for high-
level radioactive mixed wastes’
generated specifically during the
reprocessing of fuel rods. Such mixed
wastes exhibit the characteristic of
toxicity for certain RCRA hazardous
metals (lead, chromium, barium,
mercury. and silver). While stabilization
would reduce the leaching potential of
the characteristic me,tals, It would not
provide treatment of the high-level
radioactive portion of the mixed waste.
The Agency provided notice in the
proposed rule (54 FR 48492) that DOE
was providing to the Agency treatment
data for mixed waste. These data were
received and placed in the docket for
the proposed rule and were available
during the comment period for notice
and public comment The Agency
analyzed these data and performed a
subsequent Bite visit to the vitrification
unit to assess the treatment process.
Based upon these data and the site visit.
the Agency has concluded that
vitrification will provide effeci e
immobilization of the inorganid$ ,.
constituents (I ,e., both radioac , le and
RCRA hazardous) in high-lev Ixe&
waste generated during the reprocessing
of fuel rods. The Agency Is hereby
specifying that vitrification Is BDAT for
these wastes.
The Agency lacks. however.
performance data upon which to base a
concentration-based standard for this
mixed waste. Additionally, the Agency
believes that the potential hazards
associated with-exposure to
radioactivity during analysis of this
high-level.mixed. waste preclude setting
a concentratlon’.based treatment
8tandard. For these reasons, the Agency
Is promulgating.”Vitriflcatlon of High
Level Radioactive Waste as a Method.of
Treatment” as the treatment standard
for the high-level fraction of the mixed’
waste generated during the reprocessing’
of fuel rods exhibiting the
characteristics of corrosivity (1)002) and
toxicity for metals (0004-Doll). tSee
288.42 TabEe I In today’s rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code in the parentheses.)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
D002, 00 04 ,,0005,0006,D007, 0008,
0009, 0010, AND, 0011’
(R&Boe do N eveI wastes uu ud ós ng the
l Iocesamg 0 luel ro si at9yuAy)
V .I tw c l i.leye _ c ve waste (HLVfl)
us maUl o seesnem

-------
Federal Re ister/ VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, Junel, i O LRtlles and Regulations
(3) Troutmenj Stoizdaa1efo ’ 9
Radioothve Lead Solide ,.The Agency
proposed to develop a subontegory
within the 0008 wastes and to establish
separate treatment standardsfor
specific radioactive lead-sulida (54 FR
48439). These lead solids were proposed
to include, but not be limited to, all
forms of lead shielding, lead “pigs”, and
other elemental forms of lead. The
proposed treatment standard for these
wastes was “Surface Deactivation or
Removal of Radioactive Lead Portions
Followed by Encapsulation; or Direct
Encapsulation as Methods of
Trea tznent,”
The Agency received comments
requesting that the Agency clarify what
would be included in”l ad solids’ for
purposes of meeting this treatment
standard. To clarify this point, today’s
treatment standard applies to all forms
of radioactive mixed waste containing
elemental lead (including discarded
equipment containing elemental lead
that served a personnel- or eqwpment-
shielding purpose prior to becoming a
RCRA hazardous waste), These lead
solids do not include treatment residuals
such as hydroxide sludges, other
wa8tewater treatment residuals, or
incinerator ash that can undergo
conventional pozzolanic stabilization,
nor do they include organo-leaci
materials that can be incinerated and
then stabilized as ash.
One commenter challenged the
Agency’s proposed approach, stating
that the proposed method that included
Surface Deactivation” was not based
on a demonstrated, available
technology. The Agency has information
indicating that the lead surface of a
shield can be decozitanunated using a
number of commercially available
processes. The Agency agrees. however.
that these processes have not been
adequately investigated to determine
which may be considered...._
“demonstrated” or “bes Agency.
therefore, is dropping ‘1I a
Deactivation” from the I eatment
standard,
The Agency Is today promulgating a
treatment standard expressed as a
required method of treatment for the
radioactive lead solids treatability
group: “Macroencapsulation as a
Method of Treatment” (MACRO). See
§ 268,42 Table i in today’s rule for a
detailed description of the technology
standard referred to by the five letter
technology code in the parentheses,)
Pretreatment practices such as surface
decontamination are not precluded by
this final rule, Following pretreatment.
any nonradioactive lead is subject to the
treatment standard for characteristic
lead wastes, 5,0 mg/L
For low-level radioactive wastes
containing lead, conventional
stabilization technologies generally
should not be ailected by the presence
of radioactive versus nonradioactive
lead. As a result, the Agency is not
including mixed wastes such as
wastewater treatment residues and
incinerator ash containing radioactive
lead in a separate treatability group,
except for the purpose of determining
availability of treatment capacity (i.e..
stabilization processes for radioactive
materials should employ special safety
precautions due to the radioactivity).
BDAT TRE mi rr SmswARos EOR
(Radioactive Lead Soads’ Subcategoey]
Mancapsulation (f .1ACRO) of m 5oadive lead
aside as a method of ueaunei
Thea. lead soSde inctude elemental I cane of
lead These lead aside do not .,ciale eatinerfl
re deala sich as h) .de 5ede udgea, other
wastewater eau wa reeduals, or incmerator ashes
that can undergo conventional pozzoIan c stabàriza-
ion, nor do thor mci ds organe4eed nulanala thal
can be unotierated e then s&ab 5zed as ash.
(4) Treatment Standards for Mixed
Waste Containing Elemental Mercwy
Elemental mercury is typically found in
vacuum pumps and related manometers.
In the nuclear industry, this form of
mercury has been contaminated with
radioactive tritium (a radio-isotope of
hydrogen), These wastes are identified
as D009 or U151 mixed wastes,
The Agency proposed a treatment
standard for radioactive wastes
containing elementary mercury
expressed as a method of treatment,
“Amalgamation with Zinc as a Method
of Treatment” (54 FR 48442-48443). A
separate treatability group was
established because the proposed
treatment standard for nonradioactive
wastes of this type was “Roasting or
Retorting as a Method of Treatment”,
and the Agency had rio information
indicating that these processes could
separate the mercury from the
radioactive material (La., tritium). The
Agency based its proposed treatment
standard for radioactive wastes
containing elemental mercury on data
involving the application of elemental
zinc powder dampened with dilute
sulfuric add (5—10%) to form a mercury
amalgam.
The Agency is promulgating this
treatment standard as proposed. The -
Agency is convinced that amalgamation
provides significant reduction in the air
emissions of mercury, as weU as
provides a change in mobility from
liquid mercury to a paste-like solid, and
potentially reduces leachability. in
response to comments stating that in
addition to zinc, other inorganic
reagents such as copper, nickel, gold,
and sulfur were effective in forming
mercury amalgamations, the required
method, “Amalgamation” (AMLGM),
may be accomplished using any of these
reagents. (See S 288.42 Table I in
today’s rule for a detailed description of
the technology standard referred to by
the five letter technology code in the
parentheses.) Roasting, retorting, or
other recovery processes are not
precluded from use by this standard as
long as all residuals from these recovery
processes comply with the
amalgamation treatment standard prior
to land disposal.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 0009
o U151
(Radioactive elemental mercisy ei xs1egoryJ
Amelgamason (AM .GM) as a method of i satmer*
(5) Treatment Standards for Mercwy-
Containing Hydraulic Oil Contain/noted
with Rothoactive Materiols. The Agency
proposed a treatment standard of
“Incineration as a Method of Treatment
with Incinerator Residues Meeting 0.2
mg/I” for 0009 hydraulic oil
contaminated with radioactive materials
(54 FR 48443). This treatment standard
was based on EPA’s determination that
a technology applicable to
nonradioactive mercury wastes that
contain high levels of organics was
incineration. No comments were
received on the proposed treatment
standard. Upon reexamination of the
proposed standard, however, the
Agency is dropping the requirements
that the treatment residues meet a
specified leveL This Is consistent with
the general land disposal restrictions
policy that treatment residues resulting
from the use of a required method of
treatment are not required to also meet
a concentration-based standard (see
section L1LA.1.b), Today’s final
treatment standard for 0009 hydraulic
oil contaftiinated with radioactive
materials is “Incineration as a Method
of Treatment” (INCIN). (See 5 288.42
table 1 in today’s rule for a detailed
description of the technology standard
referred to by the five letter technology
code in the parentheses.)

-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 I Friday , June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22629
BOAT T mlErir STANDARDS FOR 0009
CM __ etth
tn 1eratpcn (IPICIN) a method of 5-eatment
--
9. Alternate Treatment Standards for
Lab Packs
a. Background
The Agency received several
comments In response to the Second
Third proposed rule (54 FR 1056, January
11, 1989) on the regulatory status of Lab
packs. The commenters stated that lab
packs are typically used by industry to
dispose of small quantities of
commercial chemical products (U and P
wastes) and residues from analytical
samples. These lab packs may contain
hundreds of restricted wastes, and the
applicable treatment standards must be
achieved for each waste code contained
In the lab pack. The comment rs stated
that these requirements pose an
administrative burden that Is
incommensurate with the amount of
waste being land disposed In the
Second Third final rule (54 FR 26594).
the Agency restated its position that all
restricted wastes placed in lab packs
and land disposed must comply with the
land disposal restrictions. However, the
Agency solicited comments, data and
8peciflc suggestions to support treatment
options for lab packs. As a result, the
Agency proposed alternate treatment
standards in the Third Third proposed
rule (54 FR 48372, November 22, 1989),
which generators would have the option
of utilizing In managing “organic” and
“inorganic” lab packs. The Agency
received numerous comments 1n
response to the proposal, and is today.
promulgating the alternate treatment
standards with some revisions. -.
b. Alternate Treatment Standards.
Many commen tera su gcate I that EPA .,
expand the universee allowed in
organic and nor anic cks. The
Agency agrees with s oj the
information and sugg i previdedT..
by the commenters. anTd’19 Promulgating
revisions to the alternate treatment
standards for lab packs in response to
these comments. In order to facilitate
implementation of the lab pack
standards, the Agency is expanding the
proposed list of waste codes in
appendix IV to part 288 to include
certain inorganic and organometallic
hazardous wastes. The revised appendix
IV includes the following hazardous
wastes:
(1) Inorganic
(2) Organometallic;
(3) Organic;
(4) 0003 reactlves; and
(5) D002 corrosives.
The Agency Is promulgating an alternate
treatment standard of incineration as a
specified method followed by a
requirement to meet the treatment
standards for the EP toxic metals
included In appendix IV (i.e.. 0004—
D008. and 0010—Doll; mercury wastes
may not be included In appendix IV lab
packs). Such lab packs are hereafter
referred to as appendix IV lab packs.
The Agency is also revising the
proposed appendix V to part 268, which
now Identifies organic hazardous
wastes that can be effectively destroyed.,
by incineration. The Agency Is
promulgating an alternate standard of
incineration for lab packs containing
organic hazardous wastes Identified in
appendix V to part 268, hereafter
referred to as appendix V labpacks.
Generators may commingle
unregulated (nonha.zardous) waste In
both appendix IV and appendix V lab
packs. Generators may also commingle
hazardous wastes that already meet the
treatment standards in the appropriate
appendix LVnrVlabpack.
The Agency believes that the.
alternate approach being promulgated in
today’s final rule is broader in scope.
than the proposed approach and -
provides substantial administrative
relief. It simplifies the management
system for these wastes because
ownersioperators will not be required to
analyze the treatment residue for
• compliance with individual treatment
standards, except for the EP toxic metal
constituents of organometallic,
inorganic,J)002 corrosive, and 0003
reactive wastes ,where the waste codes
are identified in appendix I11, As
explained below, these waste streams
must continue to meet all applicable
treatment standards for the EP toxic —
metal constituents.
Geaerator who wish to use the
alternate treatment standards for lab
packs must notify the treatment facility
in writing of the EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s) for each hazardous waste
contained therein. Generators must
submit such notices- with each shipment
of waste. Appendix V organic lab packs
treated by the specified technology may
be disposed of in subtitle C facilities.
without further testing or analysis for
compliance with part 288. (The Agency
reiterates, however, that ownersl.
operators are responsible for -
determining whether all treatment
residuals exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste
before land disposal, either by waste
analysis or knowledge of the waste.)
The Agency notes that the alternate
treatment standard is not mandatory.
and does not preempt the requirements
for lab packs in 40 CFR 284.316 and
285.316. Generators may continue to
ship regulated waste that meets all
applicable treatment standards to land
disposal facilities in accordance with
the provisions of these sections.
Generators of lab packs who wish to
comply with the current implementation
of the land disposal restrictions
regulatory framework (i.e.. waste code
carry through) as It applies to lab packs
are free to do so. Lab packs containing
hazardous wastes other than those
specified in appendices IV and V are not
eligible for the alternate treatment
standards, and must meet the applicable
treatment standard for each waste
contained in the lab pack.
c. Agency Response To Major
Comments
The Agency received numerous public
comments on the proposed standards fot
lab packs. In general. commenters
agreed with the proposed appi ch;
however, they provided
recommendations far further I f from
the a4n inistrative and technical
requirements for lab packs. The issues
raised by cominen tars are addressed in
the preamble and background document
to today’s final rule.
(1) Inorganic and Qrganometaliic Lab
Packs. The Agency proposed an
alternate treatment standard of
stabilization with Portland cement in a
20 percent binder-to-waste ratio (by
weight) for lab packs containing certain
EP toxic metals. As proposed, the
alternate treatment standard was
narrowly defined to include only
barium, cadmium, thvalentchrornjuni,
lead, and silver, therefore, the alternate
treatment stardards were applicable
primarily to those EP toxic characteristic
wastes. Several conimenters suggested
that the Agency allow disposal of all
• hazardous and unregulated organic
• waste amenable to stabilization in
inorganic lab packs. Several
commenters suggested that EPA
establish an alternate treatment
tandard of incineration followed by
étabiization for organometallic wastes
(including F and K waste codes for
which EPA has promulgated treatment
standards for metal constituents). The
commenlers stated that the organic
constituents in these wastes are
effectively destroyed by incineration,
and stabilization of the remaining ash
effectively reduces metals’ leachability.
The Agency agrees with the commenters

-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 1 Frf day, June 1, 1990 1 Rules and Regulations
who Mated that the alternate standard
for inorganic hazardous waste disposed
of in lab packs should be expanded.
sand that the treatment train propo8ed
by the commenters may e cth,ely treat
certain organometallic wa3tes. The
Agency believes that a more eff ctive
approach to managing inorganic and
organometallic wastes would allow
conuningling of these wastes in an
“organometaffic” or “appendix IV lab
pack.” The alternate treatment standard
of incineration followed by treatment to
achieve the treatment standards for the
EP toxic metals Included in appendix IV
will effectively destroy the organics and
imniobilize the metal constituents. The
Agency, therefore. Is not promulgating
the alternate treatment standard for
“inorganic lab packs” as proposed, but
rather is promulgating an alternate
standard for “organometallic” or
“appendix IV lab packs.”
The Agency is departing from its
proposed approach for inorganic
hazardous waste based on concern with
specifying stabilization as a treatment
standard for metallic waste streams
with varyh treatability with no
requirement for verifying that
stabilization of the hazardous
constituents was effective. The Agency
is also concerned that the proposed
standard would create risks to worker
health and safety due to the need for
removal of Inorganic waste front inner
containers prior to stabilization with
Portland cement. Several commenters
claimed that such practices result In
unnecessary exposure of treatment
personnel, and increase the risk of
accidents and resulting environmental
exposure. The Agency was unaware of
these safety and environmental
concerns, and does not wish to increase
the risks associated wit. treatment of
these wastes.
Several commenters su ested that
the Agency allow corrosIve (0002) and
reactive (0003) wastes n ganIc lab
packs, while others reqatEd*at they
be allowed in inorganicá
organometallic lab pack
commenters stated that te li
experience with these wasteS indicate.
that they can be effectively treated by
incineration, and that recovery is not a
cost-effective or practical method of
treating these wastes. The Agency
agrees in part with the commenters.
Although Agency data show that some
corrosive wastes can be Inrinerated
effectiveLy (54 FR 48422), many of these
wastes contain metal constituents that
may require further treatment. The
Agency is concerned that incineration of
metal-bearing wastes without
verifIcatiim may not be protective of
human health and the environment.
(Where the Agency specifies a
technology as the treatment standard.
treatment using the specified technology
satisfies the land disposal restriction
requirements, and analysis of the
treatment residues is not required for
purposes of complying with part 268.)
The Agency, therefore, is prohibiting
0002 corrosive and D003 reactive
wastes from appendix V tab packs.
Rather, the Agency believes that the
alternate treatment standard for
Appendix IV organometallic lab packs.
which requires Incinceratlon and
treatment to meet certain El ’ toxic metal
treatment standards, is more
appropriate for 0002 and D003 wastes
because It requires Incineration of
organic constituents that may Interfere
with stabilization and verification that
treatment of metals has occurred. The
Agency, therefore, Is Including these
waste codes in appendix IV to part 268.
Generators may dispose of 0002 and
0003 wastes in an appendix N
(organometallic) lab pack along with
other wastes identified in appendix N,
provided that the compatibility
standards In if 264.318 and 285.316 are
met.
The Agency wishes to clarify that
where an appendix N lab pack contains
listed hazardous waste with waste code-
specific treatment standards for
inorganic constituents that are also EP
toxic metals ( 281.24) (within the same
lab pack], the waste must be treated, at
a minimum, to meet the El toxic metal
treatment standard. For example, an
appendix IV lab peck may contain
analytical samples of )06 waste
(wastewuter treatment sludges from
electroplating operations) which has
waste code-specific treatment standards
for cadmium, cln omium. lead and silver.
These constituents are also EP toxic
metals. in comparing the F006 treatment
standards with the EP toxic metal
treatment standards for these
constituents, the F006 treatment
standards for cadmium, load, and silver
are lower than their respective F l ’ toxic
metal treatment standards, while the
F006 treatment standard for chromiwn Is
higher. l’bE applicable alternate
treatment standards for all of the metal
constituents in this hypothetical analytic
sample, at a minirnnm, would be the
treatment standards for the EP toxic
metals.
The Agency further wishes to clarify
that where lab packs are combined with
other non4ab peck hazardous wastes
prior to or during treatment (e.g., prior to
incineration), if 288.41 and 268.43(b)
require that the entire mixture must be
treated to meet the most stringent
treatment standards applicable to the
wastes included in the mixture. For
example, ash residue resulting from the
Incineration of a lab pack containing an
EP toxic characteristic lead waste
together with non-lab pack 1 (001
nonwastewaters (bottom sediment
sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving
processes that use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol), would have
overlapping treatment standards for
lead: 0.51 mgJl for the 1(001
nonwastewater, and 5.0 mgjl for the
characteristic waste, In this case, the
more stringent treatment standard
would apply, based on the mixture of
the KOOl waste with the lab pack
containing an EP toxic metal
constituent.
(2) Urireguiated (No.nhazardous)
Wast& In the proposed rule, the Agency
stated Its concern with the effect of
unregulated inorganic wastes on
treatment of lab pack wastes. Specific
data on the type and quantity of
unregulated inorganic. destined f
disposal in “organic” and “inorgan c”
lab packs were not available: th hore,
the Agency was reluctant to aIlo
disposal of these wastes In lab paCll5
where analysis of the treatment
residuals was not required.
The Agency received several
comments stating that unregulated
waste such as glassware is typically
disposed of and inninerated with
hazardous waste generated by
laboratories. The commenters also
stated that protective clothing and gear.
such as goggles, gloves, aprons,
respirator cartridges, and pesticide
products are also disposed of in lab
packs. The commenters argued that
these unregulated wastes should also be
allowed in lab packs because thur
presence does not affect the
performance of incineration of
hazardous waste.
The Agency also received comments
indicating that the excessive cost of lab
j ack disposal discoureges commingling
of hazardous and unregulated wastes.
Thus, in most cases, disposal of
unregulated waste in lab packs is
limited to smell quantities. The Agency
believes that these small quantities can
be effectively treated under the
alternate treatment standard, and is
revising its proposed approach to allow
generators to dispose of unregulated
waste in appendix IV tab packs.
(3) Organic Lab hicks. The Agency
proposed to limit the applicability of the
alternate treatment standard to organic
wastes that have a treatment standard
based on the performance of
incineration or thermal destruction, or

-------
F— ” } V&*JJJ / Vd 55, No.- lOS / Pr day. June 1, 1990/ Rules and Regulations
where IuLctn.- oa only Is upiffled
the treatment standard. -
Some c ..- .ters . ta1j d that there Is
no soand basm far exris ag waste
codes that already mesU treatment
standards from dIapoea In their
respective lab p*i The A y ii ont
opposed to nct nding the alternate
standards to such waste. tad was
smaware that generators disposed of
treated waste or waste that in itially
meets the treatm t standard) in this
ma . N ro n .m.rn nter9 have
expressed a desire to crmtinea this
practi thereforei the Agency Is
revising tim inng,uige in ) CFR
26&42(c 1) so that prohibited waste that
meets the applirihli . treatment
standards is not prechaled from disposal
utalivfrng the alternate freatinent
standards. provided that each waste
code(s) Is listed In appendix IV or
appendix V. and the waste Is disposed
of in the appropriate lab path.
Several eaters staled that -
Incinezatlon (or thathar by
nnneration) of small quantities of
read e L I and Pwast eshilabpadcslo
pruom tabs safe and effecthv .Tbe
commenters fmt point to the fact that
EPA p upuucd deadivaikar,
flcoerutOn. or II TThAi tr tfl 1t im
several U andPwaate . .Ai th J are
potentially reactive wnstes but failed to
include the applicable wants codes to
appendix IV. The Agency a ees with
the cc nmpnter, that smell quantities of
reactive U and P waste codes as
specified in the proposed ruin (5i FR
48427—48428) con be safely packaged
and incmereted to a lab pack .uvded
that the requirements for ipatible
waste in f26&31O and 2 3i8 are met.
The Agency I. tbereiuroa img-
appendiomlV andY to ,4w1 several
additional U and P wastes axis..
Ageacy also Is Indivitog CaW het’
PC& and &o,dn-coa w ’ -
(F020-F023, F0 6-F0 to the lab pack
tieatability grisap bat
reiterates that tye** i *h i wastes
requires mere _________________
standards than w 4iIad in part
208 appendIces IV
must Ieve a dee* cth mut aI
effi nq, of 9jj999 itIfld ”.
mast meet the t ,J &s rdin .
CFR 70L703. Where gemrators -ctheo.a to
co r n or both of these wastes
with Q 1IL1ab path wastes listed to
appendices IV arid V. thee lab psdv
must be in ated to meet the e
stringent standard . The faflowing
examples are pruakiued dv* tlom
(a) A lab path cI a iahng diaxin’ -
containing waste. California list PC
and appendix V wastemesthe
iec,nesatnd sdlngto the
steertards of u i R 791.7 1 ) and the
applicable requirements cf-parts 284,
268, and 288 (Indedlng all applicable
performance standards for dicxin,-
containing waste).
(b) A tab pack that contains only
dioxin-containing waste (FU )—Z3 and
FO -Z8) or a mixture of dioxin-
containing waste and organic hazardous
waste codes listed in appendix V to part
288 must be Incinerated according to the
pro Vi8ious in part 284 or 285 subpart 0
(including the applicable performance
standards for di iu ntainix waste).
According to the prov’.’ ’na of todays
final rule, generators may utilize the
alternate treatment standards if their la
packs contain those wastes summarized
below:
(4 “Appendix IV organonietaltlc tab
packs” may contain the following
hazardous waste identified in appendix
IV:
(1) Organometalllc:
(2 )hiorgan lc: -
(37 OrganI c : -‘
(4) D002 corrosives; and -
(5) t IO3 reactives.
(b) “Appendix ur in1 , lab packs ”
may contain only those organic
hazardous wastes Identified In appendix
V. .
Lab packs which contain any hazardous
waste other than wastes listed In
Appendix V are not appendix V organic
lab packs. and may not use the alternate
treatment standard.
d. OtI Reqnieamnts
EPA proposed that gtu 1dturs or
ownersf operators who dispose of lab
packs ai . urdhig to the alternate
treatment standard ares? also meet the
requirements for tab patks specified In
40 CPR 4 .310 and 5.3t8. Sovera)
commeflters es.eduamevn with the’-
provision that require, metal outer ’
containers ( 284.316(b)) and
* 288.316(b)), amlpohited out I . -
oulgiast Intent of these regulations was
to enmee adequate costahenent for tab
pack wa that ware beh land
disposed wither without poor
trea ’t , The commenters ferther
stated that lab packs destined for
Indner ttrm are generally put in flbei
packs that meet the Departmentof
Transportation (DOT) requirements (W
CFR 173.12) mid are nrbtbL , fa -
incineration. The co n reqeeMed
that the A y allow the continned use
of fiber p. k t meet . .ypIi DOT -
re uirment& The A cy does not wich
to disrupt the aseol fib pucks, and Is
amending .31 b ) arid 286316(bJ to-
allow thei c.. .th.inud use..
The Agency Is promulgating its
proposed approach with regard ted
generator notification requir ts and
Is requiring generators to List each EPA
Hazardous Ws te Code on a notification
form and Identify the applicable lab
pack entegories. Several onmunenters
stated that ths notffication provision as
proposed I. burdensome. The Agency
believe., however, that notification is
necessary In order for owners/operators
to verify that they are accepting for
treatment only those waste code.
covered under their permit. The Agency
reiterates that the provisions
promulgated In today’s final rule do not
supersede permit requirements under
the RCRA hazardous waste pro axn.
Generators or owners/operators who
intend to utilize the applicable alternate
treatment standard for hazardous waste
codes listed in appendix IV and
appendix V to part 288 must comply
with the notification, certification, and
recordkeeprng requirements of 40 CFR
268.7(a) (7) and (81. They mast also
comply with the provisions In sections
(a)(1), (aX5 ) . (a )L0). (b)(2) arid (ç). The
Agency is requiringgeneratorenfihi2ing
the alternate treatment $tRTw4Ri 8
state whether the lab pack b
appendix IV or appendix V la ack.
and certify that hazardous wastk
Inofuded therein axe H$ed in the
applicable appendix. The Agency
emphasizes that lab packs containing
hazardous wastes other than those
listed In appendix IV and appendix V to
part 288 are excluded from the alternate
treatment standards for lab packs.
ffl.B ’Capaclty Determinations -
1. Determination of ALternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for
Surface-Disposed Wastes. Between May
&, ,1990, wheathis rule wassigried. an&
the date of its publicaflion in the Federal
Register, ‘A discovered and corrected
several discrepancies between the
capacity variances discussed In the
preamble and those Included in the
regulatory language. For details on those
corrections, please contact those listed
in the additional Information section at
the beginning of the preamble.
a. Total QuantIty of Land-Disposed
Wastes. The copootty armlyaes for
waste. er which EPA is today finalizing
treetment standards were conducted
using the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Treatment Storage. Disposal.
and Recycling Facilities (the i ua.
Survey). EPA conducted the TSDR
vey du n n 6 1987 and early 1989 to
obtain rehen . ve data on the -
nation s capacity for managing
hazardous waste and on the volun of
hazardous wastabeing disposed of In or
on the Land in 1988 (Le . land disposal).

-------
Federal Register /- M. 55; No. 106’/ Prldäy lime 1 ig o j RuleS and Regulations
Survey data are part of the record for
this final nile.
Other major sources ofdata include
the National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Generators, conducted by EPA
during 1988 and 1989. This survey
includes data on waste generation.
waste characterization, and hazardous
waste treatment capacity in units
exempt from RCRA permitting. These
data are also part of the record for this-
final rule.
For mixed RCRA/radloactlve wastes,
EPA used data supplied by the U.S.
Department of Energy. Low-level
radioactive waste survey data from
individual states and State compacts
were also used, as were data summaries
In several overview reports on mixed
radioactive waste.
The various land disposal methods
used In 1980 and the quantities of waste
they handled (excluding mixed
radioactive wastes) are presented in
Table IILB.1.(a). The data Indicate about
5.7 billion gallons of the wastes for
which standards are being finalized
today were disposed of in or on the
land. This esthnate includes 77 millIon
gallons that were stored In waste piles
for short-term storage purposes. These
stored wastes will eventually be treated.
recycled, or permanently disposed of in
other units. To avoid double counting,
the volumes of wastes reported as being
stored in waste piles have not been
Included In the volumes of wastes
requiring alternative treatmenL
EPA estimates that about 22 million
gallons of treatment residuals from
minimum technology impoundments or
from impoundments that were replaced
by a tank (e.g.. standard cement, steel.
tanks) will require alternative treatment.
EPA assumes that these wastes are now
being sent off-site for treatment. -
Consequently, this amount is included
as treatment capacitj’ required in
today’s rule.
TABLE llI.8.1.(a)—VOLuM WAsms BY
LAND DIsPos Al. METHOX WHICH
STANDARDS ARE B ZED
(niiibons of gallons/year]
Land W method
TABLE lll.B.1.(a)—VOWME OF WASTES BY
LAND DssPos Ai. MEmOD FOR Wwai
STANDARDS ARE Btip o Flp uzED—
Continued
(nanons of gaflons/yearJ
Land sposai method VoI ane
Total 5,701
In addition, 30 millIon gallons of
wastes were treated In waste piles. 52
million gallons were disposed of In
surface impoundments, 430 million
gallons were disposed of in land
treatment units or landfills, and 5.1
billion gallons were Injected
underground. All of these wastes will
require alternative treatment capacity.
EPA notes, however, that the TSDR
Survey may overstate demand for
treatment capclty for wastewaters that
were treated or disposed of in surface
Impoundments at the time of the survey
(1987 and early 1988). ThIs
overstatement Is due to the requirement
that impoundments receiving most
hazardous wastes must now be
retrofitted to meet minimum technology
requirements, or taj(en out of service, as
a result of RCRA section 3005(j). If an
impoundment continues to operate after
being retrofitted. It becomes a section
3005(j)(11) impoundment, provided that
the wastewaters are treated and
residues are removed annually.
Wastewaters that are not treated or
disposed of in surface disposal units, or
that are treated In section 3005(j)(11)
Impoundments, do not create any
demand for alternative commercial
treatment capacity.
EPA solicited comments on those
wastewaters currently disposed of In
surface units that require alternative
commercial treatment capacity. One
commenter mentioned that EPA did not
include volumes associated with surface
impoundments awaiting closure. No
commenter provided information on the
volumes associated with these
impoundments. Based on EPA’s data.
approximately ten percent of the surface
impoundments that have submitted
closure plans are awaiting cloaure plan
approvals. EPA believes that most of
these impoundments removed liquid
hazardous wastes on or about
November 8. 1988, EPA believes that the
re naining volume of wastewatere In
surface disposal units awaiting closure
Is smalL Consequently. EPA did not
Include In the capacity analysis
additional volumes associated with
surface impoundments awaiting closure.
(This discussion does not apply to —
VoU mo
wastewaters destined for deepwell
disposal.)
EPA also requested comments on the
quantity of RCRA P and U waste codes
currently being disposed of in
deepweils. The TSDR Survey data
include some large-volume waste
streams containing P and U RCRA
codes. However, P and U wastes by
definition are discarded off-specification
products or residues and are usually
generated in small volumes. Facilities
disposing of these large-volume waste
streams in deepwells have indicated
that small volumes of P and U wastes
were mixed with large volumes of other
wastes, but the facilities were not able
to provide a specific volume for the
deepwell-dlsposed P and U wastes.
Since the facilities generally described
the volume of P and U wastes deepwell-
disposed as “very small,” EPA has
assumed for the analysis of alternative
treatment capacity that the national
volume of P and U wastes needing
alternative capacity Is less than 100,000
gallons. EPA also requested comments
on the assumption that the volumes of P
and U wastes being deepwell-d ,sed
are less than 100,000 gallons.
EPA received several commeM
concerning deepweil-Injected P and U
wastes. One cominenter submitted data
Indicating that their facility dlspo8ed of
20,456 gallons of U wastes by deepweil
Injection in 1989. However, this
couimenter has received a no-migration
petition approval and no alternative
capacity is needed. One commenter
indicated that EPA’s methodology for
determining actual P and U volumes
was flawed, resulting In artificially low
estimates, and believed that the true
volume of these wastes was large
enough to warrant a national capacity
variance (3.3 million gallons at the
commenter’s facility alone). EPA has
reviewed these data and agrees that the
P and U volume at the second
comznenter’s facility Is-much larger than
previously assigned under the P and U
methodology of 100,000 gallons.
However, this volume has been
determined to belong to a stream that Is
not a hazardous waste under Section
281.3(a)(2)(iv). The large volume of the
stream does not reflect the volume of P
and U wastes In the stream—which
resulted from de minim/s losses—but
rather the total waatewater volume. This
volume, therefore, does not require
alternative treatment capacity.
Consequently, EPA Is not changing Its P
and U waste methodology and Is not
granting a national capacity variance to
these wastes.
The following sections provide a
summary of the cépacity analysis for the
Storage.
Waste psles..._
ce en
Treatment
Waste p 8 e s
S ace
Landfifts _
Land Veath — -
S ace ne
— —
a
349
81
52
5,088

-------
FS Ra I t f: VoI 56r? WOj! i?r y laio’1 1990 Rules and Regulations
12
-
<0.1
04
‘a

— -
C-

f C!
&
-
w
0.2
<01
05
<0.I
< 0 .I
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<01
< 01
<0.1
<0.1
-------
22834
Federal Register / Vol.55. No. 106 / Friday , June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
11238 --
U249_.____ . . .__ . . ..___._.__
S..’cond TlWd Code
1(105
P002_ ______
P003. . .__
P006..
P067 ._ ______
U002 .. _ __ .
U003. . .
11005 ______
11008 _--
(.1014 __________
1 (021
U 032. . . . . . .._. . ._
11047 ...._._. -.
U013.
Uo ao—- -.----.---.
U083
11093
U1O1.. . ._
-—
11109 _________
(.1114
11119
Ul27 - -
U131
U140
U142
(.1144. ___
U146
11149 ________
11161
U185..._. ___. .. _____
11196
11208 ‘
11213 _ . . . . . ....... _... .__________
U214 . .._ ......_.. -_________
11217 .__.
11218 ________

U244..
Third Third Code
0C03.__.. . .
0006
0010
D011. . . . .. . ... __
0012 .. _..
0013.... .
0014.......
0015 .
0018 ...
0017
F039I._ ——
1(002 ____________
1(005.
1(006 ____________
1(083.... .
P0O&______
P024 .__. . .... —
P028.____
P047 ______ _______________
P05I
P079_____. ...
POT?
P088.
P093.
P119
11001
U°04,
1m17,
U030
1J039,
11052.
U055 .
U058
U071_
11072..
11075
11076.
U079 .
11081.
11062.
U112.
11117..
U118 .
11120.
11_
23.
11125.
11126.
i 11A8,
U156._ .._ .. _______
______-
11181
U182_ . .. .._..
11201 . . ....... ______
11204 _.._._..._.. — _._ —
11225
11234
II 4O _.
TA8LE llLB.1.(b)—R autRED ALTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMEWr/REcv-
CIJNG CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED WASTES—Continued
(n i8on gasonsiyearr
TABLE lII.B.1.(b)—REOUIRED ftLTERNA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT/REC ’f-
CUNG CAPACITY FOR SURFACE-DIS-
POSED W*ST€S—Continued
Waste code
c
L
—
wa s t a s
Waste code
0.4
46.6
0.2
02
0.1
02
<01
<01
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<01
<0.1
02
<0.1
<01
02
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.?
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<01
<0.1
<01
<01
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<01
<01
<01
<01
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<01
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
2.7
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<01
<01
<01
<01
<01
<0.1
01
<0.1
<01
<01
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<01
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<01
<0.1
<0.1
02
<01
196
25 6
92
12.8
16.4
16.3
116.4
730
4.0
2.0
2.5
0.6
04
19
<0.1
02
of capacity that is available at
commercial facilities In each case Is also
presented. Available capacity was
calculated using the TSDR Survey and
other capacity data. Available capacity
is equal to the specific treatment
system’s maximum capacity minus the
amount used in 1986. In addition, the
available capacity presented in this
section was adjusted to account for
wastes previously restricted from land
disposal by subtracting the capacity
required for land-disposed solvent
wastes. First Third wastes, and Second
Third wastes.
In general. Table IJIB.1.(c) indicates
that there is Inadequate capacity for
certain technologies: combustion of
sludges and solids, mercuryretorting.
acid leaching followed by chemical
precipitation, thermal recovery, and
vitrification.
For combustion of sludges and solids,
there Is inadequate capacity for sludges
and solids derived from treating multi-
source leachate. for 1(048 through 1(052
nonwastewaters (temporarily), and soil
and debris. (See section 111.8.3 fota
more detailed discussion.) Howir,
there is adequate capacity for a1t ther
wastes needing combustion of s ic es
and solids. For mercury retorting, there
is inadequate capacity for high mercury
D009. K106, and 1J151 nonwastewaters.
However there Is adequate capacity for
other wastes needing this technology.
For acid leaching and chemical
precipitation, there is insufficient
capacity to treat low-mercury D009,
K106. P065. P092, and U151
nonwastewaters. For thermal recovery,
EPA has determined that there is
insufficient capacity for P087
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. For
vitrification. there is inadequate
capacity for arsenic nonwastewaters.
It is important to note that some of the
wastes, because of their actual physical
form, cannot be treated to meet
standards simply by using the
eckmology identified as BDAT. These
wastes must be treated through several
steps, called a “treatment tram.” EPA
assumes that the resultant residuals will
also need to be treated using alternative
technologies before land disposal;
therefore, the total vohinies reported
were assigned to appropriate
technologies.
The following sections dIsmiss the
results of the individual capacity
analyses and effective dates for each
waste code included In today’s final
rule. Table m.B.1.(d ) summarizes all the
surface-disposed wastes for which EPA
is granting a two-year variance. The
detailed basis for EPA’s conclusions can
be found in the capacity back ound
document for this final rule.
U” 11247 _.__ —.
‘MuItI.sci,ce Ieacflate
c. Capacity Currently Available and
Effective Dates. Table IILB.1.(c) presents
an estimate for each treatment
technology of the volumes of wastes
that will require alternative treatment
before land disposal to comply with the
standards finalized today. The amount
-------
Federal Register I V . 5&- No. 196 f Pridey, lune 1. 1990 4 Rules and RegulatiOns
TA8LE IlEB.t(c)—AvA La&E *no REQUIRED ALTviItl ’nvE COMIIIERCIM. TRE*Th4ENT (INCWOINO RECYCUNG CAPACSrI’ FOR
SURVACE..C SPOSED WASTES’ -
(n Ions a &yY t
TABLE IILB.1.(d)—SUMMARY oc NATIONAl.
C PAcirr VARIANCES FOR SURFACE-
DisPosED WAS1tS’
Requred alternative
eseenem tectmoiogy
Waste codelPhysicat
form
TAaLE III.B.1.(d)—SUMItARv OF NATIONAl.
C p*cirv VAJu cEs FOR SURFACE- -
DISPOSED WASTES ‘—Continued
Requied ernave
beabnent cflnoiogy
Waste e/Phyvcal
fOn!
POlO Non ssts ator.
POll Noneassewatar
P012 N0n ’ Luwstir
P036 Nonwastewa .
P038 Nonwastawa
U138 Noewutewater.
‘EPA ‘antng thssa tes a two-year nation
c iecity t ce , except f K048-K052 non.
This table does not’ h,cfode etced
mt 5oectlv. tes, VscI we recaMnq a national
vwtanoo for at applicable beasnønt tech-
tFor K048-1C052 peuoieumcoaimg nOn-
. s tOrs , EPA is grantmg orWy a 6 month ran-
(1) Ignitable. Corrosivs. Reactive, and. .,
El’ Toxic Hoiogenoted Pesticide
Characteristic Wastes. This group
inc1udes Ignitable characteristic wastes
(0001), corrosive characteristic wastes
(1)002). reactive characteristic wastes
(1)003). and EP toxic helogenated
pesticides (1)012.1)013. 0014, D015,
Dolo, and 0017).
(a) Ignitable Characteristic Wastes
(0001). EPA hasidentifled four -
subcategories for 0001 wastes: ignitable
liquids, ignitable reactives, oxidizers,
and Ignitable compressed gases. EPA
has determined that the 1)001 ignitable
liquids subcategory should be divided.
into three trea Lability groups: (l O01
ignitable liquid nonwastewater lth a
TOC content greater or equal t n
percent, (2) 0001 Igniteble lIquid
nonwastewaters with a TOC content
greater than one percent but less than
ten percent. and (3) 0001 ignitable liquid
wastewaters. EPA is promulgating
deactivation as the method of treatment
for ignitable liquids nonwastewatera
with a TOC content less than ten
percent For Ignitable liquids
nonwastewaters with a TOC content
greater than or equal to 10 percent. EPA
is promulgating Incineration, fuel
substitution, or recovery as methods of
treatment EPA Is promulgating
deactivation as the method of treatment
for Dool Ignitable liquids wastewaters.
For capacity analysis purposes, EPA
asstgned volumes of these wastes to
incineration. Sufficient treatment
capacity exists for the 0001 Ignitable
liquids wastes destined for surface
disposal: therefore, no capacity variance
is being granted for them.
EPA requested comments on
availability of capacity for lncinerabon
of 0001 liquids mixed with sludges and
solids. Several commenters stated that
adequate capacity exists to treat DOOl
liquids mixed with sludges and solids,
and therefore, that no capacity variance
should be granted to these wastes.
Based on the review of available
sludges and solids treatment capacity
T
ec
Acid leaching followed by chentt precipitation I , • , • , — .. - .. -
Alkaline chionnatlon — .. —
Alkaline chIonnabon followed by chemical pixcapitabon . - . ..._ .. - .... . - ...---.
6.ological SeaSnent - —.. - ... — . ..._.. .
Bdogical treatment followed by chemical precipitation... .- . - ...
Chemical o ation followed by chemical precipitation — ._.._.__ ...... . .
0
7
6
47
14
26
2
3
6
2
<1
<1
7
2
Yes
NO
No
No
No
No
No
Chemical oxidation followed by olvcnw.aii redi n and chemical piecipitadon ._.. ..._..._ .. ... .. ..
Chemical prn.._.. __.____ .. . . . —.
Chromuim reduction tcllowod by chemical precipitation .___. ... —
Combustion 01 Iiq ids - ._ .. . .. . . .__. .. ....
Combustion of sli,jges/sotds — — - -—. ..- ... . -—
Nercuy reto nq..._.. . . - ._ .. . .. — --_________ . . . ... ... ... .. -
Neutratzation_._._......_....... ..........
g
96
237
41
<1
36
37
478
0
<1
0
85
16
213
3
22
2
158
<1
<1 ’
22
pa
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
NO
No
Yes
No
Yes
Secondary g ng —.- ..
Stattdaanori. ... . .. . .._ —. ._. .. .. -
..
Thervnalrecoveiyetcadmairnbattenea.__._. ._. ..._
VtUiflcation. ._.. .._ .__.___.._.___ ._ ...____.____.__._..__ . . . , . ._._...____
I ThIs table does not wiclude intred rnctoactve wastes, which are recaiwing a national capacity variance for at apçillcable treatment tectvlologies.
‘EPA ha, maufficierd data to thfforeimata between low and high mercury nonwastawaters. Consequently, EPA conducted a worst-case analyse and assigned at
ncrwesteaater votimes to t)oth the high concentration and low concentration technologies (Le. merciry retorting end acid teething followed by chemical
precipitation. repectively) EPA Pied no data on comercial acid leaching and chemical precç.tation capacity end believes there is insufficient capacity to Seat these
low mercisy nonwastewate
‘ExduXg secondary emen g of lead wastea
‘F gthor ciariticalion of Usa number, see the dacussion on KD4B-K052.
Acid teaching and
chemical —
Comtxatior of skidgel
cetobeg.. -
Secondary 5nwlta.
storage area
Them ce -
Vitrification
0009 Low merowy
l m iBWst&
KIOG Low mercisy
nonwaste*at e r
P065 Low nwroay
nonw e st$wat Sr.
P092 Low merusy
noneastewa .
U151 Low mercisy
norceastawater.
F0 • Nonwss watar
K048’ Non aweter..
1(Q49i
1(050 $ No- .
1(061 I ’ Nol, ewater .
K052 Nomeasteai
0000 I merciay
ner law .

_merciry
mens,y
0000
be —.
P087 NorT tewato’l
wastewater.
0004 Norarastewater
1(031 Noewastewatar.
1(064 Norwestewater
KiOt Noewast ter.
1(102 Nonwastawater.
-------
- ---I
Fiidiuâl gist I Vol. 55, No. 100 / Fi day, Jui 1, 1990 I Rules and REgulations
data for lncineratloo and cement kilos,
EPA has determined that adequate
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
DOOl liquids wastes. Therefore, EPA Is
not granting a national capacity
variance for these wastes.
EPA Is promulgating deactivation as
the method of treatment for 0001
ignitable reactives and oxidizers. EPA
has determined that sufficient capacity
exists for these wastes; therefore. EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
For DOOl ignitable compressed gases.
EPA is promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment. EPA has
determined that adequate capacity
exists for these wastes; therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
(b) Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
(1)002). EPA has identified three
treatability groups for D002 wastes:
acids. alkalines, and other corrosives.
EPA is promulgating deactivation, which
includes neutralization, as the method of
treatment for the D002 acid and alkaline
subcategories. In addition, recovery of
acids or bases is included as en option
for these standards. By definition.
wastes in these subcategories are
liquids; therefore based on the limited
number of surface impoundments that
meet minimum technology requirements
and the ban on liquids in landfills. EPA
believes that few, If any, of these wastes
are surface-disposed. For the capacity
analysis. EPA assigned all 1)002 wastes
to neutralization. EPA has determined
that sufficient ne itraIizaUon capacity
does exist for acid and alkaline D002
wastes that are surface-disposed;
t ierefore. EPA is not granting a national
cipacity variance for them.
For the 13002 other corrosives
category. EPA is promulgating
deactivation as the method of tzestmenL
These wastes can be deactivated using
chemical reagents or by other means. In
addition. EPA believes that these wastes
are generated in low volumes.
Therefore. EPA is not gsantiaga
national capacity variaãc fpr them,
(c) Reactive Characfedstk Wastes
(0003). For 0003 w has
identified five treata -
reactive cyamdes. explosives, water
reactives, reactive sulfldes, and other
reactives. For D003 cyanidea. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on alkaline chlorination, wet-air
oxidation, or electrolytic oxidation.
Although reactive cyanides account for
the majority of 1)003 generated wastes.
EPA believes that most are already
restricted from landfifls by existing
regulations (40 CFR Part 264.312.
265.3121. EPA believes that sufficient
capacity doe8 exist for th volume of
sorfaos-disposed D003 cyanide reactive
wastes; thurafore. EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for then.
For 1)003 reactive aulfldes, EPA is
promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment, which includes
chemical oxidation. EPA believes
sufficient capacity does exist for the
volume of surface-disposed 0003 suffide
wastes: therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For 0003 explosive wastes, EPA is
promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment Because most of
these wastes are already restricted from
land disposal by existing regulations
and are commonly burned and/or
detonated. EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For 1)003 water-reactive wastes, EPA
is promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment. EPA believes that
these wastes are generated sporadically
and in low volumes and are not
typically land-disposed. Therefore, EPA
is not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
For other reactive 1)003 wastes. EPA
promulgating deactivution as the
method of treatment. EPA believes these
wastes could be incinerated or
detonated openly-and that there is
adequate capacity for treating the snail
volumes that are surface-disposed.
Therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(d) EPToxic Halogenated Pesticide
Wastes.
DO1Z—Charactensttc of EP Toxic for Endrin
DOIS—Charactenstic of EP Toxic far Lmdane
D014—Charactenstlc ofEPTo,dc for
Methorychier
Efli5—Charact lstic of EP Toxic f
Toxaphene
DOiO—Charactenstic of F2 Toxic for 2.4-0
DOl2—Chsrac*ens c of EP Toxic r 2.4.5 —TP
For these EP toxic halogenated
pesticide nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. For D012 and
Dm5 wastewaters, EPA Is promulgating
incineration or biological treatment as
methods of treatment for Dm3
wastewaters, EPA has set incineration
or carbon adsorption as methods of
treatment. for 0014 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating incineration or wet-air-
oxidation as methods of treatment for
Dm6 and 13017 wastewaters, EPA has
set incineration or chemical oxidation as
methods of treatment. EPA has also set
biodegradation as an alternate method
of treatment for 0018 nonwastewaters.
EPA has deteimined that sufficient
treatment capacity exists for these
wastes: therefore. EPA is not granting
EP toxic pesticide wastewaters and
nonwastewaters a national capacity
variance.
(2) Metal Wastes. This group includes
arsenic, barium, cadmium,, chromium.
lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium,
and vanadium wastes.
(a) Arsenic Wastes
D004—D’ Toxic for arsenic
K031—By-product salts genrated in the
prediction of MSMA and cocodylic acid
K084—Wastewater treatment sludges
generated during the production of
vetennary pharmaceuticals from arsenic
or organo.arsenic compounds
1(101—Distillation tar residues from the
distillation of aniline-based compounds
in the production of verterinary
pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organo-
arsenic compounds
1(102—Residues from the use of activated
carbon for decolorizatlon in the
production alveterinary pharmaceuticals
from arsenic or organo-arsenic
compounds
P010—Arsen ic acid
Rfll—Arsenic (V) oxide
P012—Arsenic (hf) oxide
P038—thchlorvphenyiarstne
P038—Diethylarsine
U138—Cacodyhc acid
For arsenic nonwastewaters A is
promulgating concentration standards
based on vitrification. EPA has
determined that for some arsenic
nonwastewaters the standards can be
met with chemical or thermal oxidation
to the arsenate form followed by
chemical precipitation with iron salts
followed by arsenic stabilization of the
precipitate. This technology may be
inappropriate for all &sen c
nonwastewaters because organics are
known to interfere with the stabilization
process. EPA believes vitrification will
work for all forms of arsenic
nonwastewaters, because high
temperatures are expected to destroy
the organo-inetallic bonds, and
therefore, its performance is not limited
by the presence of organics. Thus, EPA
has assigned arsenic nonwastewaters to
vitrification fo r the capacity analysis.
The TSDR Survey Indicates that no
commercial vitrification capacity e usts
EPA requested information on
commercial vitrification capacity, but
received no cuiiuuents demonstrat:ng
that this type of capacity exists.
Therfore. EPA is granting a two-year
capacity variance to the surface-
disposed arsenic nonwastewaters listed
above.
For arsenic wastewaters, EPA is
promalgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. The
TSDR Survey and other capacity data
indicate that adequate chemical
precipitation capacity exists- therefore,
-------
Federal RegiMer IVoL 55g. No 1O / Friday; June 1.1990 I Rules and Regulaliona
8$7
EPA is not granting arsenic wastewaters
a capacity variance.
(b) Barium Wastes. For 1)005 and P013
wastewaters, EPA Is promulgating’
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation: fârDOO5 and
P013 (except as indicated below)
nonwastewaters, EPA. Ii promulgating
concentration standards based on
stabilization.
For P013 nonwastewaters with high
levels of organics. EPA Is requiring that
these wastes be incinerated prior to
stabilization. Sufficient capacity exists
to treat surface-disposed D005 and P013
wastes. Therefore. EPA Is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(c) Cadmium Wastes. For 1)006
wastes. EPA Is promulgating treatment
standards for three categorl?s:
wastewaters. nonwastewaters, and
cadmium batteries.
For 1)006 wastewaters, EPA Is -
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. For
1)006 nonwastewaters, EPA Is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization or metal
recovery. EPA believes that sufficient
capacity exists to treat surface-disposed
cadmium nonwastewaters and
wastewaters. Therefore. EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
For 0006 cadmIum batteries, EPA I,
promulgating thermal recovery an the
method of treatment In the propesed
rule. EPA proposed granting 1)006
cadmium batteries a national capacity
variance due to a lack of Identified
recovery capacity. During the public
comment perind. two commenters -
identified available commercial
cadmium battery recovery capacity
(these comments were available for
reply comments). EPA contacted these’
commenters to verify their capadty
Based on these contacts, EPA received
additional information and determined
that adequate capacity for treating
surface-disposed cadmium batterIa .
exists. Therefore. EPA Is not grantifig
D000 cadmium batterj , aeatioiial.
capacity variance. ‘. ‘
(d) Chromium Wad J frD00 ‘
chromium and U03 c pm chromate)
wastewaters, EPA is- 6iiulgating
concentration standarda.based on
chromium reduction followed by-.
chemical precipitation: for 1)007 and
Uo32 nonwastewaters. EPA Is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chromium reduction followed
by stabilization. EPA believes sufficient
treatment capacity exists for The volume
of these wastes. Therefore. EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(e) Lead Wastes.
Do0 .-EP toxic for lead.
PiiO—Tetraathyl lead . -
11144—Lead acetate
Ui45—Lead phosphate
11148—Lead subacetate
K089—Emlulslon control dust/sludge from
secondary lead smelting
1(100—Waste leaching solution from acid
leaching of emission control dus*/ sludge
from secondary lead smelting
For 1)008 wastes. EPA Is promulgating
standards for three categories: -
nonwastewaters, wastewaters, and
lead-acid batteries. For 0008
nonwastewater lead wastes, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization, except whej e the
waste contains significant
concentrations of organics. In this case,
the8e wastes may need to be incinerated
prior to stabilization. For 0008
wastewaters, EPA Is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. EPA believes
sufficient capacity exists for surface-
disposed 1)008 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Therefore. EPA Is not
granting a national capacity variance for
1)008 wastewatere and nonwastewaters.
with the exceptions noted below.
EPA Is promulgating thermal recovery
as the method of treatment for lead a ,cld
battpries. Secondary lead smelters have
stated that they stare these wastes in
piles prior to recovery, EPA has
indicated in a previous’rujemaldng that
the shells surrounding ‘ead-acid -
batteries are considered to be storage
containers (see 47 FR 1Z118 and 40 CFR
284.314(f)(3)). Therefore. to the extent
that lead-acid battery storage meets all
the requirements of th LDR storage
prohibitions at 40 CFR 26&5 such
storage Is permissible.
In the proposed rule, EPA solicited
comments on the management of other
0008 lead material at secondary
smelters. EPA also indicated that
storage of lead materials in waste piles
prior to smelting Is a form of land
disposal, and as such these staging
areas are subject to the statutory
prohibitions. During the public comment
period. EPA received several cotoments
from the secondary lead smelting
industry regarding the storage of battery
parts prior to smelting. Several
commenters expressed concern that
EPA’s determination that staging piles
are a form of land-disposal could force
them to close or operate out of
compliance while staging piles are
replaced by tanks (assuming tank
storage is viable).. As a result of these
comments. EPA contacted several -
secondary smelters to asses the
potential capacity impact of required
staging area reconstruction. Because of
the large volume of batteries currently
processed at smelting facilities whose
continued storage operation remains In
question. EPA Is granting a two-year
national capacity variance t allow
storage of the batteries preceding
smelting. EPA Is also reconsidering
whether certain forms of battery parts
storage meet the meaning of ‘land
disposal” under section 3004(k). In
particular. if battery parts (or other
wastes) are stored In 3-sided tank-like
devices on concrete inside buildings (the
present storage method of some
secondary lead smelters) the Agency is
not certain that the language and
policies underlying section 3004(k)
warrant designating such practice as
“land disposal.” Given the two-year
national capacity variance In this rule.
however, the Agency need not make a
final decisIon on this point In this
rulemaking.
For P110, U 144, U145. and 11148
wastes. EPA Is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation for wastewaters,
and stabilization for nonwastewaters.
P110, U144, U145, and U148 -
nonwastewaters contsulnlng sig ificant
concentrations of organks ma equire
incineration ror to stabilization. EPA
believes sufficient capâáity exMt.s for
the small volume of these wastes that
are surface-disposedi therefore. EPA Is
not granlipja national capacity
variance for them.
EPA Is revoking the no land disposal
standard based on recycling standard
promulgated In the First Third rule for
the non-calcium sulfate subcategory for
1(069 nonwastewaters. For 1(069 calcium
sulfate nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization. For 1(069 non-
calcium sulfate nonwastewaters, EPA Is
promulgating recycling as the method of
treatmenL For 1(069 wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on chemical precipitation. EPA
believes adequate capacity exists to
treat the volume of surface-disposed
1(069 wastewaters and nonwastewaters;
therefore. EPA is ilot granting a capacity
variance for them.
For 1(100 nonwastewaters. EPA is
revoking the no land disposal standard
based on the “no generation standards”
promulgated in the First Third rule.
Today. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
stabilization for the nonwastewaters
and chemical precipitation for the
wastewaters . EPA believes adequate
capacity-exists to treat the volume of
surface-dIsposed 1(100 wastes.
Therefore, EPA Is not granting a
capacity variance for them.
-------
F dnral Regi . V . 5S No. 1 / Pffday, Ju 1,1990 1 Rules and Regulations
fJ M ry Wastes.
DO09- tede kir m uay -
K071—&ine p fl 1 th, muds um the .
mercwy cell proc s In dthtIne
prodaction, where separatdy repunfled -
brine Is not used
K106—Wastewater treatment sludges from
the mercury cell process In dianne
production
P065 .—Mezimry fubninate
P093—Phenylmercenc acetate
U151—Mercuzy
For D009, K1o6 and U151
wastewaters, EPA 18 promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. For P065 and
P092 wastewaters, EPA is prernulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical oxidation followed by
chmnical precipitation. 1 (071 wastewater
standards were promulgated in the First
Third rule and remain unchanged. it
should be noted that mercwy-bearhig
wastewaters containing bexavalent
chromium may require chromium
reduction prior to treatment-of the
mercury. Likewise, wasiewaters
containing OfQAfliGS may require
chemical oxidation prior to treatment of
the mercury.
For mercury nonwastewa tars, EPA is
establishing low mercury arid high
mercury s&thcategories. For the high
mercury sukcategory (Weater than or
equal to 280 maJkgj. EPA is
promulgating roasting or retorting as
methods of treatment for 0009, K106,
and 1J151 nonwastewaters. For the high
mercury subcategory of P065 and P062
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
incineration followed by roasting or
retorting as the method of treatment For
the low mercury subcategory of D009,
K106 . P065, P092. and U151
nonwastewaters. EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on acid
leaching and chemicai precipitation.
Treatment standards for 1(071
nonwastewaters were originally
promulgated in the First Third rule. In
the proposed Third Third rule, EPA
proposed to revise the standards for
1 (07 1 nonwastewaters wtt -a high
mercury content For thb bIRJ mercury
subcategory. EPA propu droasthig or
retorting as methodaot I% t. For
the final rule, EPA is no1 öj5llng the
proposed revisions to K071 wastes. and
the promulgated First Third BOAT
remains unchanged.
EPA behevas sufficient capacity
exists to treat the volume of all surfa-
disposed mercury wastewatem.
Therefore. EPA is not grunting a
national capadty variance for them.
Because current data do not provide
sufficient infomiaton on the vohane ol
1 onwa8tewatma that contain high and
low concentratimis of mercury. EPA
conducted a worst-case analysis and
assigned all volumes of surface sposed
mercury flonwastewaters to both
mercury retorting and acid leaching
followed by thezziicai precipitation. EPA
has Identified a amafl amount of
commercial mercury retorting capacity
(18,000 galloiis . Them is insufficient
mercury retorting capacity for 0000,
K108, and 1 )151 nonwastewuters. Due to
the sporadic generation rate of P westee
from year to year and the small amount
of available commercial mercury
retorting capacity, EPA Is granting all
high mercury nonwastewatera a two-
year national capacity variance. EPA
has also determined that there is
insufficient commercial capacity fur acid
leaching followed by chemical
precipitafion therefore. EPA Is runthig
low mercury 0009,1(106, P066 P092. and
U151 nonwastewaters a national
capacity variance.
(g) Selenium wastes.
DOlO—EP Toxic for selenium
P103—S a
P114—Thaflaim selenits
1J204—Selenlous add
U30$—Seisnium drealfide
For seleniwn nonwastewatein, EPA Is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization. EPA has also
determined that vitrification or recovery
may be used to reach the standards. The
TSDR Survey and other capacity data
indicate that ade qnnb stabilization
capacity exists. Therefore, EPA is not
granting selenium nonwastewaters a
national capacity variance.
For selenium waslewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentmtian standards
based on thaniscal precipitation. The
TSDR Survey and other capacity data
indicate that adequate chemical
precipitation capacity exisls therefore,
EPA is not granting selenium
wastewatere a national capacity
varianca .
(h) Silver Wastes.
DOti—EP toxic for silver
P059—Potassium silver cyanide
P104—Silver cyanide
Treatment standards for P099 and
P104 nonwastewatem were promulgated
in the Second Third final rule. For P099
and P104 wastewaters. EPA is
promulgating cancentration standards
based on chemical precipitation.. For
Doll, EPA is priiniulgating ouncentration
standards based on themicak -
precipitation for wastewatera, and
recovery or a ablation f
nonwastewaters. EPA believes adequate
capacity crusts to treat eurface.dispceed
Doll, P099, and P104 wastewaters and
0011 noerwastewaters. Therefore, EPA La
not granting a capacity variance for
them.
(I) ThaDium Wastes.
P113—Thallic oxide
P114—Thallium selenita
P115—Thallium (I) sulfate
U214—Thnlltum {I) acetate
U215—Thathimi fi) carbonate
U216.—Thslhum (I) chlonde
U217—Thalhuna (1) rutrate
For P113. P115, U214 . U215, U216, and
U2l7. EPA is promulgating thermal
recovery or stabilization as methods of
treatment for nonwastewaters, and
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation for wastewaters.
For P114, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
stabilization, vitrification, recovery for
nonwastewaters, and chemical
precipitation for wastewaters. Basad on
the TSDR Survey and other capacity
data, adequate capacity exists for
surfaca ’dispoaed thallium wastewatci-s
and nonwasiewatera. Therefore, EPA is
not ranting a national capacity
variance for them.
(i) Vanadium Wastes.
P119—Ammonlum vunadate
P120—Vana&um pentuxide
For P119 and P120, EPA is
promulgating stabilization as the method
of treatment for nonwastewaters, and
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation for wastewa tees.
Because ade uaM capacity exists for
chemical preaipitation and stabilization,
EPA is not granting PliO and P120
wastewaters and nonwastewaters a
national capacity variance.
(3) Treatment Standards for
RemaàthigFwu!K Wastes and UCt51.
These groupa Include curtain Fool and
P005 wastes; P066 woelewaters and
F(fl9 F0Z F025 1(001 and Uosi; wastes
from pigment production 11(002 through
KO08 KOn. K0 13, KOit 1(015; 1(017 and
1(073; K ; K022 1(025.1(028. 1(035. and
1(083; 1(028,1(0*1(085. and K086 K032,
1(033.1(034.1(041. K097, and 1(006
,wastes 1(038 and Ko87 1(042,1(085. and
Kids wastes; 1(044, K045, 1(046.1(047:
K048 through l(052 K080 1(061
wastewaters; and 1(086.
(a) Additloisal Treatment Standards
for FOOl arid P006 Wastes. Treatment
standards for P002 and P065 were
promulgated In the Solvents and Dloxrns
rule. Today, EPA is revising the
treatment standards Fool and F
to aocowit for four newly listed FOOl
and P006 cimstitueots. Waztewater
concentration standards for
containIng 14.2-Trichlcroethaaie and
P003 contauting beezene are based arc
biological treatment, or steam stripping.
or carbon adsorption, or liquid
-------
1 A oL 5& D . to k FM , IQ I Riifrs a
concentratIw —fII,lkfos t x
solvente. aes Yea
F005 cootaLnlng2 EtIiox ethano}. EPAJa
prnmtirg Iib irñ .iw tha ae the method
of treatment for P oseIIia 3..an
incnera oi op biedea a&
methods of e e fer we a ’ 4 .
For F005 wastewaters
nitropvapane EP1 i pma1 el
incmceratfoa or wet-air a etfon
followed by c& a sorpt on . or
chemiesi wMo b baa
adsorption a nth.deofitaostsnent Far
FOGS ne waotewatem oi ainia
opropane..EPe Is. c psms.
incine e the niethod o€ eotmenh
EPA behe es a ei paiefre knen
capacitY essi&a foe these wostest.
therefsce na eaal
capacity vam e ferthelR.
(b) F006 a FWa oe FeeF
wostewateim EP Ia pcc uI*g
coneenfra a dard .heaed em
alkaline ch1erfne o fo c jantd s.
ch mlum, i ductiaa. fe owed h
chemic peecipitafioft Inetala .. EPA
capedt e ista
for thern voted oeifadiopoeedEO(
wastewaters. Therefore EPA Ia neè
granting a na&l a1 sa aal&y s nes far
them.
EPA Iapremn eso atl a
standwda fer.EOoewe rs baoe
on ca m eIilbriaet em fee’ eyoeià
and thrommm ise folk*oed.b j
chemisali peeápfte oa r uhs . ha
the propos . rule; Pa ccp sed
treatm ik s ndar fmramenab aed
total cyanide im F9 5 iwastt .ateis
based on w afroxiOfiemDut to
insafficiei we .als ea a Me, ca aait
EP psopooed . a s.alfonal eapeeii
varlancefetthesewaat . th.fiosL
rule. EPMa peoniu et1n F
nonwastewat€ comn atfeniM da
based on alkah eh osiaa m&ni
cyanides. and etabdizatio Lan
chronii Be auoeø n tm
capaclty’enMts. tetrea*theF
wa nwet wul n8em % VUaI7IL*JP
is not aatia & __________
varneafaa th. .
(c)j FO j WfleMa. aunnlgpted
conc tea4ias
wastewatars and aos s. i
Seana4Thtrd - bae.4 a
incineration las tha ecgaca tf &anto
in noasenetewat _anil.ostIr ’ kth
inginsegijan foe etc ñn tn
follow h m AnJ . pi itat om w
met coeetftaenta mwowatans .
Toda EP si .se t0€ these
standards. and Ia I .lMI ng.
concenteatlosi t ’i dardabased.oa.
F0a4nw.atawotersr. Th
method f th &waato ns,das tosema ie
obstacl occeptaasa.poeidu
crs.aMd h tl e il sti .i foe -
dioxins and fue Several eo enMro
responded toEP re ee for
jr C !!Rl . ken iadMntLn that
treatment facilktlea wera i ascaptlng
the woetes. di to the diexift aLid foran,
standard. Tc re aionste the;
tre n* s ndaeds. ar&enpeetad to
ensniethal apaai 1s
avoilahie to ea F 2*. and. tha& all
wastea it niin d ins and furnon
w U be incinerated. th qeesanm
ef&e ve benlrnent0€tlnise eans k nta
EPA has determined that adequate
capacity exata to treat these
wastewaters an&nonwasinwaters;.
therefore., EPA. Is. an& n&a na ina
ca cIs ariannefe.
(d) F025 Was . O D embert
1989 (54 FI EP amended thr
listing for F weseon*n ec ffg f
ends, spent ifiters t rai and
spent d sfccanf wastes from the
prodi .i fi m oL Tt2f I cWnrfr .a1e
allphatia4.Tk liaUaa l e . m.e 0 ffduii L
on June 11, 1990. Most generatosa
afread traat F02 aai&áwe
hazardous, and fncilttiea
coni JeFO2&and FOIeda EPA.
f pfing ,coaeentzatlen ataridaada
for aLl c&t pziea oLFO2S.wastawaters
and nonwaatawaten& base on.
inciz1 .ara±lon EP .kre.dotarminQd tb .a
no arta=a xe o w p it [ a
nooded. fan FQ25 .waates . Therefore ,, EPA.
is not granting these wastes a nationaL
capacity varnanca.. skia&ig, land
disposal. an at 1.990..
(e) KOOl and UQ5 Waatan EPA ía
pranaeI &i rer . .ds ons ta the;
concentraflon -basaiitre eet
standoede for K 1 es ania&dan to a
mathematicab ewanthat waa made ur tha
cI 1atian . of tha e n h tendsrde .i&
the FisstThisd , . Sinee the trea ea&
standarda a U l . wastes ’ tars and
nonwastew .at - baead.on. a. _____
of the pesfosmanca eLK 0 the
concenfratfen . beeod standard. for U05&
aIsaroQeotthi&chaa .Fertha os n1s&
In KO aad4J 1 aaatewatem . and
nonwastewa en . , ZPA onudg in&
concentration standard.. based.
indnerati EPA aals 1inIag
conasn at$on.staadae;l& fan lo&Lln K1)
and U based on. stabilization. Los
. ..‘.A .4 .
precl itat fQa wa twntezs. ,Su ulenA
ca acil i ks .f eatssan* .eLbath ,.L
these wastes; therefore, EPA Is not
g&anat of a. oei ani ea f
them..
f WeMe s ,froosloe s nie;P l anV
Produc* . K 4 CQ
KO06 KQe . and I 9Q8 EPA Is endin
then. land deopeea1 standaedp.evieoel
pi .iani¼,I d. and
1(008 nonwastew . * is
promuflcRn aüoAsLandaXd&
baoe oachronilnm i’ 4k .rii falinwed
by chmniaof pe pi tnmfanVNT . K
1(004. K waa waters, and
alkaline chJ aati fnkwed. b
chiumirada&fallawed h.y
chemicak precipitation. for K00 ned
1(007 waste a z Soc rionwantewatar
forms of thasawostes ..EPA in.
promuI tlng ncen at1 mi atzidarda
based oe &tabiHza an. . EPA.believes.
that en e eat capnc ty ’ exists for
surfaee-diapoaed XOoa.. Ka* 1(001..
K0 K Kl) idK00 wastewaterss
and n natew n Therefore,. EPA is.
not granting a ea .eit variance km
thean.,.
(g)KC11, arid 01 Wnatee;.
Treatment nde . .fec the sarfana
disposal of nonwn ate foanmef
1(011,1(013, and 814mexu p rnl n ss
in thw c Thrd flank eak FarKt X ..
1(013. and KIwastvwat rs A in.
promeZ a ng cencaufru gn st ndardm
baea i wet-air a. dad en . -Th. 1SDR
Sta’vey ind ew a n1 pacity
exists thwval et d re.r ie
disposed K9 11 K 3 en P 01 . -
wastewatersi YVv . zeL ’ ers , EPA ía jiut
gran e satfoaaJ ca aity’var evce fee’
them.
(h?K 5 Wk,t aEP iv rev ing th
no lanthflsirasnf baanf on nc ’generaffnrr
standard. prevlonsi ” promul, 5 k l for
1(015 ( t yibri • flfa
wastes)! uuuw rwacrsbeL-du . .e- of the
reported generatlon.of ash containin j
this waste. Cuu gu . ntl orK ff
nanwa8t waters, EPA Is wz uI u rxg
concenlrdlluH sran Iar f& forfive organic
and two metaF cmatthirnta eased on
Incineration feWowed y’ staM1zat ion.
Suf&fi iiccvpactty ’edats trevtt!uv
wast thsrefbret EP Is nnt ’grsntfnga
national’ varIance- fer-IW 5
nonwastewaters.
(i) Ui7an K!11 .Wasto&
KO _M,De ( frlkiseomr frnin the
pur1 isolunm thpnidncflon.o
eplch1oroh d .
KO7—ChldFujdrocarbon waata ifom.
the purlffcaffon etep oft5e dfap agm cefl
process uslnggraphite anodes in. chlorine-
product! air
In today’s rule.EPA.is promulgjiting
finaf treatment ithnd arffq f 3p fl7 and
1(073 wastewaters and nonwartawatera.
CW .sm atdurdk far the
was eran& n warr io
of these wae4eraw e dors
Incineration. S fent ’ cepecft r e,ds
to treat these was s. ’TheitI .,re,.EPA Is
not granting a natIonal ’ capaclI
variance lot 1(017 and 1(073 wastes.
the option c inii n.a&testtrwa
I1(12 . Wastes..
-------
Federal Register I Vol.. 55, No. 106 I Friday , Jtme 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
1(021—Aqueous spent antimony catalyst from
fluoromethane production -
Concentration standards are being
promulgated today for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of 1(021 based on
Incineration. EPA is also promulgating
concentration standards for antimony
nonwastewatera based on stabilization
and antimony wastewatere based on
chemical precipitation. Sufficient
capacity exists to treat these wastes.
Therefore, EPA Is not grantIng 1(021
wastes a national capacity variance.
(k) K022 , 1(025,1(025.1(035, and 1(083
Wastes. EPA Is promulgating treatment
standards for 1(022 wastewaters and all
forms of K025 , 1(025.1(035, and 1(083
wastes. Treatment standards being
promulgated today for 1(025 and 1(083
would replace current treatment
standards of “No Land Disposal Based
on No Generation’ that were
promulgated in prior rules.
For organics contained In 1(022.1(035.
and 1(083 wastewaters, EPA Is
promulgating concentration standards
based on: biological treatment or steam
stripping, or carbon adsorption, or liquid
extraction. Concentra tion standards
promulgated for metals in 1(022 and
K063 wastewaters are based on
chemical precipitation. For organics in
K035 and K083 nonwastewatere. EPA Is
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. For metals In
1(083 nonwastewatere, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization of Incinerator
ashes.
For 1(025 and 1(028. EPA Is
promulgating incineration as the method
of treatment for wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. In addition. EPA is
also promulgating liquid-liquid
extraction followed by steam stripping
followed by carbon adsorption as an
alternative method of treatment for 1(025
wastewaters.
EPA has determined that adequate
capacity exists for 1(022 Wastewaters,
and the wastewater and onwastewater
forms of 1(025.1(028. 1(0* slid 1(083.
Therefore, EPA Is not grealbig a
national capacity varj bese
wastes.
(I) 1(028 ,1(029, K095. and 1(090
Wastes.
K028—Spent catalyst from hydrochloilnator
reactor In the production of 1,1,1-
tr lchloroethane
1(029—Waste from the product steam stripper
In the production of 1,1,1-frichioroethane
1(095—Distillation bottoms from the
production of 1.1,1-thchloroethane
1(096—Heavy ends from the heavy ends
column from the production of 11.1-
tnchlorethane
Treatment standards based on
incineration were promulgated for 1(028
wastewaters and nonwastewatere and
the nonwastewaters forms of 1(029,
1(095, and 1(O9Oin the SecondThlrd rule.
Today, EPA 1. promulgating
concentration standards for organica In
1(029,1(095 and 1(090 wastewaters based
on Incineration. EPA Is also
promulgating concentration standards
for metal constituents in 1(028
nonwastewaters based on stabilization.
Sufficient capacity exists to treat these
wastes. Therefore, EPA Is not granting a
national capacity variance for 1(028.
1(029,1(095 and 1(096.
(m) 1(032,1(033,1(034,1(041.1(097, and
1(098 Wastes.
K032—Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of chiordane
K033—Waatewater treatment 8crubber water
from the chlorination of cydopentadlene In
the production of chlordane
1(034—Filter solids from filtration of
hexachiorocydopentadiene In the
production of chlordane
K041—Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of toxaphene
1(097—Vacuum stripper discharge from the
chlordane chlorinator In the production of
chlordane
1(098—Untreated process wastewater from
the production of toxaphene
For 1(032,1(033, K034, K041, 1(097, and
1(098 wastewaters and nonwastewaters,
EPA Is promulgating concentration
standards based on incineration.
Sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of these wastes: therefore, EPA Is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(n) K036 and 1(037 Wastes. EPA
promulgated a treatment standard of
“no land disposal based on no
generation” for 1(038 nonwastewaters In
the First Third rule. EPA also
promulgated concentration standards
based on Incineration for 1(037
wastewaters and nonwastewaters in the
First Third rule. Today, EPA Is revising
these treatment standards for the
nonwastewater form of K038 (still
bottoms from toluene reclamation
distillation In the production of
disulfoton) and the wastewater form of
1(037 (wastewater treatment sludges
from the production of disulfoton).
Today, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards for 1(036
nonwastewaters based on Incineration.
EPA believes that adequate capacity
exists for these surface-disposed 1(030
nonwastewatere. Therefore. EPA Is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
For 1(037 wastewaters, EPA Is revIsing
the concentration standard from one
based on rotary kiln Incineration to one
based on biological treatment. EPA
believes that adequate capacity exists
for surface-disposed 1(037 wastewaters
therefore, EPA Is not granting a national
capacity variance for them.
(0)1(042,1(085, and 1(105 Wastes.
1(042—Heavy ends or distillation-residues
from the distillation of tefrachlorobenzene
In the production of 2.4.5-T
K085—Dlstillatlon of fractionation column
bottoms from the production of
chlorobenrenes
1(105—Separated aqueous stream from the
reactor product washing step in the
production of chlorobenzenes
For 1(042,1(085, and 1(105 wastewaters
and nonwastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration. Sufficient
capacity exists for treatment of these
wastes therefore, EPA Is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(p) 1(044.1(045.1(046.1(047 Wastes.
For 1(044,1(045, and 1(047. EPA is
revoking the “no land disposal”
standard promulgated in the First Third
rule. EPA is promulgating deactivation
as the method of treatment for
wastewaters and nonwastewatere. EPA
has determined adequate capacity:
exists to treat these wastes; therefbre,
EPA Is not granting a national c city
variance for them.
Today, EPA is promulgating -
concentration standards for 1(048
reactive noawastewaters based on
deactivation followed by stabilization.
For 1(046 reactive wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
based on deactivation and chemical
precipitation. Deactivation Includes
chemical reduction or detonation. In the
First Third rule, EPA promulgated
treatment standards based on
stabilization for 1(048 nonreactive
nonwastewaters. For 1(046 nonreactIve
wastewaters, EPA Is promulgating
concentration standards based on
deactivation followed by chemical
precipitation. EPA has determined that
adequate capacity exists for these
wastes. Therefore, EPA is not granting
them a national capacity variance.
(q) Petroleum Refining Wastes (1(048-
1(052). EPA Is promulgating treatment
standards for organic constituents and
cyanides in K048—K052 based on data
from Incineration, solvent extraction.
For the metals in 1(048-1(052. EPA is
promulgating treatment standards based
on stabilization and chemical
precipitation. EPA Is not revising the
promulgated BDAT treatment standards
for organic or metal constituents in
1(048—1(052 wastewaters, nor for cyanide
In nonwastewaters. In addition. today’s
rule deletes the treatment standards
proposed for arsenic and selenium In
nonwastewater forms of 1(048—1(052
based on stabilization. Today’s rule also
promulgates revised treatment
-------
VL 54 l R.g t ft V 5 . ?i o .. 11j J m 1,. ! 9e/ Rules - Regjsre€ s
UI flOfll r!,? 1 01

842,000 tang aLKOS&-Kfl52 wiJLraq aira
treatmnntca athL
dispfar cI om . land dMpssth an& Ui
requ t tabann . A
how et that this ixth,rmatiwa da
and tG this uek .toobt i . a,
cuewi t ant assasemeiet OFd emaftd 1 far
tree eef capeeiIy es poesib e:
B ee oitinf rme1’coat ct wi tfr the-
petroleenr mdi try trarie assocfa on .iL
appears that the nCflIStr ma be ab1 n to
maaa a oxmaLal three iteas.c
these wastes thee As &at 19 .
in W 8 Rat yap adith ,sab
(p eriI m.beas a ca .ime-ast
fuel. o ii J n Th figur ,i
based on arv Lnferi I survey efS3’ R
member companfe an assumes’ that
none of the pending no migration
petitinna . foe aa1 ntuni & vdkhe
granze& Liowa er.. thia est1maLa-d i
not account theu ces$au aed
tirningoi -
permi a far on-aitadispesa1 trea meM
facilities.J There! ,aseun iin bga ease
(i.e.. oa-aiLe.capacit avaiIa I4, this.
reselLs in appriixikna 1 t 181 , 1 lana per
year aiwestes thatwil reajurs
alternative treatment capacitM..
EPA estimated that 100,000 tons of
capacity fou eeanmvo(Xt -. tJ52’
wia8tU , .i aste h, fo d sol1
incineralian capeaityanâ .fueL
subsfity ’ e woates a
suitabis far- uae aa.akeenatia. fuels
izidus is4 fuanacea provided thai they
are dewafel!ed flpstJ. 11 ere Fe rlI,ttl
commecciaP ,olvent esdThctien capadtr
preseriti on-line (EPa laiow afauum
smaiF vuFwne mob il ’s ol ex t exnuc on
units bethgu 1lizadiu.Cal emj&. bu .
these unitaprantde iitethtehim i e.
reauen&aapay. Thus broth ji -
th ’re
sha Jl. a pr ima1 L ga teae ag
of May& ’
However. EPA is aware ofoRelgr e
commerciaL in rnRr1aMX
come on line after Ma &1 kcOO1dI
provide additional subst3ztIal volumes
of capaciPy’ (66 M0 t bew ammak
capaci1 rFe adtflhfoit the1UZ XTtcina..
of exiszingcapac y fàzt KU4&-
wastes. This facility is prentkj ekisg
‘It wayni the baaf otthjs ana1 ’et thar ’ .
8C iiiOP ii .u fflvconthd -th at
one-year natI mFia , a.Iae J1rbr

communicated to all In ervated.partieasr l.tt r l L
in April. a py of wh wa,aOabM ürthe docicut
flue waaI a ia5.flR&
EPA continued to monuto, ’th,.tuadoa, et
deterinianton in the final rule reflecte more
.uforndtlon than wee .,aiIa6l ta 4a 4e ’thiir
c’f its tentative determin a.
a -Migration varfanee om ‘A
regarthng -d1spcsu1 efacrubherwat r
(n a dee; ixx(im anweLIZ tk pa 1 n
Is g ant .. th . fàmflLy waz&(d ovi a.
su sfenpa.aiay te- odat
tre&nm dea earf osed hTaleemi
wa s.. A th de cmth ee-
mi ad prU cm Fee p withia the
neid si,i woekst , fllar&aeuld s ll be
shet4-t ,ue lo stIc dIE cel ëwaeeo at d
wgetTh gwaateeto , the fàx lflrij-and
the fucil1 coinf gan-flna thaLceu
prevent’ fmmed ata. iiIlft nffon.efthie
capacity, however.]
EP a4 ereeetlrbeeameaware
(wi ffi Fa eweef l renep
sr&fs ’ ñ naraEu,v an ei u which. is
presently avei bl thewea&lprctvide
s 6ae4 ‘ eo neut ea eWy’
for petroletanweeleat T s t chnofbgy ,.
however ya qtij as’
spcx e aeddeerng ’pcefr ment’
step. The treatment company presen
has mmliI ’ trzzg-pasDteelmeat
units and (acgt eaz1mate4
cam ath ’
every
of prel enteqüpmsether.im.
approximately 190 peDals efu01i es
to be ser1ced couleata&tem rary.
treatmeut bottfan i use the.
Incineration capacify. (‘This fnfazinatfoe
appears to have been presenterito the
pe.DMJ dbatayi5y tk liee ea
corn yFet 1xr1989m set af EPA dce
noIsu naff rnu rn [ prcthluma
vls ’a-vfa thz petroleum, lndtistr E
rel üt omthe iafarma fa this
nilemak i s
th ls1 iuti ETh% h
decided Lai thn a
capom% e verlsfi - foe these weeley
lasth gue Nevem er7,. 90t Ih a
effctiveFyaxtemis thtiaJiznii- ’k
pro titm ccmglfrnne dhtatbraer
firsti thfr eiua1in KP F liavea
that by th18 date, there wilkha eq ate
pretreatment capacity as well as
Inc nerrtfon Mid fuel’ euhs t on
capacl(y -!ese sFy ’demaiid There ’almi
may el nr esdrdcth,u capacity
at efdate althrmgh there-
are sharplyc flfcth eathnateaàr tht
record of how quickly solvent xthn.t1urr
capacity e e ree Vo llhet EPA
wo& be’ta $oot(flëd oweves. Ii,
exta dk thena aEca roi y
variaiw roUlselveat e,c effee
capacit il.eval e. e i
284 imkiCM 1 sM 1WfWI’nef
could be a1 ved’tb eaeffe
wastes di poesdof in .onatherwl’se’
prohibited mwoM?-sofel ’ yEndMg’
itselLto ueh a w es’neI
been cevro*ueted when.an.
‘alteara*e-tec iele ’ Mei ’ie-
opera ’at’ l sr their mm imum
capacity, the- R hfrfraturabou4t
deter ne -tha aJ e f ’e- capacity ‘
available ‘ “ Thri* EPA g’d is iuu
toda& Fe on i besteu,ffiiiutes of
when treatment peci y of any’ type
wilF be- ava ’ffaôt to’ accommodate these
wastes.
EPA recogmzes that these db.ta are
not the moat precise, In some cases. D i
additiorz EP’A is cancerned with usfn .
data thatlrobtnins artfie very end of
the nmaIn&famaksuthciecjsfons
(afl eit theaed ’ata t nd!o.corroborata
other exisffng.Fntormatfoa regarding.
amounts of solids combuati ’en capacit t
coiningon-ilne), Therefore,haaetion
further infonnation provüiet to EP&
EPAmay amend.the capacity eMension.
in auie ( throngb uae,of
appropriate rurAmapN u .
(r) K060 ’Wasteg. Tada ,ç EPA.ia
revoking th& ’ue lenS dispaaaJ ’ based.
on a no geanration atandardi
promulgated faa KQ60.noni aatewatana
in tha.EiratThi dipuIejnatga4. far 1(000.
nanwastewatera, EPA. Ia . also
p mul ating.concen tlon. ALa dai.ds
based oaincinaraUoa..EPAIa
establi*lsqg canean tiasgtandaM n’ for
1(060 waatewa baeion bi &iajcaL
freatmanLEP believes that. ad quata-
capacl -exis foe the. vakima aL
sur co-diapoaadK0 .wastaweters and 5
nonwastewat a req iian fr a1ment
Therefore .ERA .
national capi -it troiaane -foa thear..
(a) 1(061 Wastes. Toda EPA In -
promHJgcencetra ii en stm idardh.
based o lme .seel . ee n oefollnwed
by chemsnsaL pzecip*tstioa fat 1CO6i
waatei* atera ,
capacAy exists fee th velearee1
surface-dispased.K00& was watera ,
Thesdero .,EP ia eetg mehnga
varian foe- them .
(t) Rev an O6& astsa.. £P
promec1gpta L
for K08 aoLesn
Third rule erand.
stabilization of ash for naa ’ rote tera ,
reanet fuUowed
precipitation’ b waaIei,n . -..
promulgadagatttised ann n an
stand sfee alL vas f u
of these wastanbhielagfc
free kdluweL
by carbon adsorpti orth.ve. ei
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption for a anfcs, chxomfuxn.
reductiorr foffac md’by chemicar
precipitation far met , ant a1 .nflw,
chlorination fbr cyanid’es. For
nonwastewaters, EPA is promurgating
concentral a s eduwI hsm# on’
inoñrei ’a qn fore gamce telIbwe y
stabrI net1oiy ?ormetab. As a worst-
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55,,- No. 106 / Friday , June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
case” analysis, EPA Included In the
capacity analysis conducted for First
Third wastes all of the K096 wastes
Identified In the TSDR Survey.
Consequently, no additlonarcapacity
will be required by today’s rule, and no
capacity variance is being granted for
K088 wastes,
(4) Treatment Standards for U and P
Wastes. Today’s rule promulgates
treatment standards and capacity
determinations for wastewater and
nonwaBtewater forms of U and P wastes
(as defined in 40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (0).
Treatment standards and capacity
determinations for other U and P wastes
that are listed specifically as metal salts
or organo-metalllcs are discussed in
previous sections of today’s rule. This
section also Includes a discussion of U
and P wastes that have been Identified
as potentially reactive, primarily as
gases. or as cyanogens
In the proposed rule. EPA grouped all
of the U and P wastes into various
treatability groups based on (1)
similarities In elemental composition
(s.g., carbon, halogens, and metals); and
[ 2) the presence of key functional groups
(e.g., phenolice, esters, and amlnee)
within the-structure of the Individual
chemical represented. EPA has also
accountedior physical and chemical
factors that are known to affect the
selection of treatment alternatives and
to affect the performance of the
treatment, such as volatility and
solubility, when developing these
treatability groups.
While EPA presented the proposed
treatment standards and capacity
determinations for U and P wastes
according to these treatability groups,
the promulgated treatment standards
and capacity determinations are
presented as follows: (a) Concentration-
based standards for wastewaters: (b)
concentration-based standards for
nonwastewaters; (c) technology-based
standards for wastewat6rs: and (d)
technology-based standards for
nonwastewaters.
(a) Concentration-Based Standards for
Specific Organic U and PW9stewaters.
EPA is promulgating I4 4t1on-
based standards for tbose spe ffic
constituents for which the U or P waste
is listed. For various reasons, EPA is
regulating additional constituents for
several U and P wastes.
U and P Wastewaters with
Concentration Standards Based on
Biological Treatnientor Wet-Air
Oxidation Followed by Carbon
Adsorption
P004. P020, P022, P024. P037. P047 (4.8.
Dtm(roaesoi), P048. P050, P051. P059, P060,
P077, P082, P101. P123.11002,11003,11004,
11005,11009, U012. 11018.11019,11022. U024.
11023,11027, U029, L1030, U031, 11038.11037.
11038.11039. U0 3, 11044.11045 11047.11048.
11050, U051, 11052,11067, U060, 11061,11063.
11068.11067,11068.11070.11071.11072.11075.
11076, U077, 11078,11079, U080, 11081.11082.
11083.11084, UiOi. Ulos, Uioa, 11108. 11111.
11112, U117. 11118, U120, 11121, 11127, 11128,
11129,11131, U137, 11138,11140.11141, Ul42,
11152, U155, U157, U158, 11159. 11161, 11162.
11165,11168.11169, U170. 11172, 11174, 11179.
11180. UlOi, 11183,11185, U187. 11188,11192.
11196,11203, U207, 11208,11209. U210. 11211,
11220, U225 , U226. 11227, 11228, 11229, 11240,
(2,4-D acetic acId), 11243, and 11247
For these U and P wastewaters, EPA
Is promulgating concentration standards
based on biological treatment, or wet air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption. EPA has Identified sufficient
capacity for treatment of these
wastewaters; therefore, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them.
(b) Concentration-Based Standards
for Specific Organic U and P
Nonwastewaters, EPA Is promulgating
nonwastewater concentration-based
standards for the following U and P
wastes, as proposed.
U and P Nonwastewaters with
Concentration Stapdards Based on
ladneration
P004. P020, P024, P037. P047. P048. P050. P051.
P059, P080, P077, P101, P123,11002.11004,
U0o5, 11009,11012, U018. 11019. U022.. 11024,
U025, 11027,11029. U030, 11031, U038 , 11037,,
11039. U043. U044, U045 , 11047,11048.11050.
11051,11052,11060, U081, U063, 11066. U087.
11068,11070, U071, U072, 11075,11078.11077,
U078 . U079. 11080.11081.11082, U083, 11084.
UlOl, 11105, U 106, U100 . Ulli, U112, U117,
11118.11120.11121, U127, U12& 11129, U131.
11137. U138. 11140,11141. U142. U152. 11155.
11157, U158. 111.59,11181. U182. 11185. U169,
U178. U172, U174. 11179,11180, UlOl. U183,
U185. 11187,11188,11192, U190 , U203 , 11207.
U208. U209, 11210,1 )211.11220. U225, U228 ,
U227, U228 . U239, UZ40f2.4-D acetic acid),
11243, and U147
For all of these specific organic U and
P nonwastewaters, EPA has identified
sufficient incineration capacity to treat
these nnnwastewaters therefo . EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for them. -
(c) Technology-Based Standardefor -
Specific Organic U and PWaatewaters. -
EPA Is promulgating technology-based-.
treatment standards (La., methods of -
treatment) rather than concentration-
based constituent specific standards for
these wastes. EPA Is promulgating wet-
air oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption or chemical oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption or
incineration as methods of treatment.
Organic U and P wastes technology-
based standards are Indicated below:
U and P Wastewaters With (Wet-Air
Oxidation, or Chemical O ddation),
Followed By Carbon Adsorpfion or
Incineration as Methods of Treatment
P001, P002. P003. P005, P007. P008. P014. P018.
P017, P018, P023, P028. P027, P028. P034,
P042. P045, P048, P047 (4.6—dHn16 ocresol
salts). P 049. P054, P057. P058. P064, P068
P067, P069, P070, P072, P075, P084, P088,
P093, P095, P102, P108, P116, P118, U0O1,
U006. 11007, 11008. -11010, 11011.11014.11015.
U018 ,11017.11020,U021, U028, 11033.11034,
11035, 11041. 11042, 11046, U049, 11053,11055.
U056. 11059. 11062. 11064. 11073, 11074. 11085.
U089 , U090, 13091,11092, U093, U094, 11095.
11097, UflO, 13113.11114, U116, 11119,11122.
U123,U124,U125 ,U128.11130,1J 132. U 143.
U147, U148, 11149,11150, U153, 11154. U156 .
11183, U104. 11166. U107, U171, 11173, U176,
U177, U178, 11182.11184.U188.11191. U193.
U194 , U197, 11200. U201. 11202.11208.11213.
U218. 11219,11222,11234. U238. U237. U238.
11240(2.4-fl salts and esters). U244. and
11248.
EPA has identified sufficIent capacity
for these organic U and Pwastewaters.
Therefore. EPA Ia not granting a
national capacity variance for the n.
(d) Technology-Based Standai s for
Specific Organic U and P
Nonwastewaters. EPA Is promi4 tixig
the proposed technology-based-
standards for the following organic U
and P wastes.
U and P Nonwastewatars With
£ndneration as the Method of Treatment
P002, P007, P008 P014, P018, P017, P018. P022,
P023, P028, P027. P028. P034. P042. P045,
P046, P047 (4,6-dinlfrocresol salts), P049,
P054, P057, P058, P064. P068. P067. P089.
P070, P072, P075, P082, P084, P093, P095.
P108, P116, P118.11003,11008. U007. 11010,
11011.11014.11015.11017,11020.11021,11028.
11033,11034.11035, U038. 11041.11042,11048.
U049. U057. 11059.11062.11073.11074.11091.
U092. U093. 11095.11097, UllO, 11114.11119.
11119, UlSO, 11132,11143.11148,11149, U150.
11153,11156, U163, U164, 11187,11168, U171,
11173, U176 , 11177, U178 , 11184.11191.11193.
11194, U200, UZO2. U208 . 112*11219,11222.
11234,11236,11237,11238,11240 (Salts acid
esters), U244
Incineration or Fuel Substitution as
Methods of Treatment
P001. P003. P005, P068, P102.11001.11008.
11018. UO53, U055, 11058,11064.11085, U080,
U090 , U004, 11113,U122,11125. U124. 11125.
11120, U147, U154: 11166,11182,11188, U197.
13201, U213. 11248- -
EPA has identified sufficient capacity
for all of these U and P nonwastewaters.
Therefore, EPA Is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
(5) Pot enilally Reactive P and U
Wastes. This subgroup Includes the
following waste codes:
P008—Aluminum phoaphide
P009—Ammonlumpicrata
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 5L No. 106 1 Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
P015—Beryffium dust
P058—Fluorine
P068.—Methyl hydraxine -
P073—Nickel carbonyl
P081—Nitroglycerin
P087—Osmium tetroxide
P098—Phosphine
P105—Sodium azida
P112—Tetrajutromethane
P122—Zinc phosphide (<10%)
U023—Benzotrichloride
U088—N.N-Dlethylhydrazlne
U090—a,a.Dlmethyl benzyi hydroperoxide
U098—1,1 .Dimethylhydrazine
U099—1 ,2-Dlmethylhydrazlne
U103—Dimethyl 8uifate
U109—12-Diphenylhydrazine
U133—Hydrazlne
U134—Hydrofluoric acid
U135—Hydrogen sulfide
U160—Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
U189—Phosphorus sulfide
1.1249—Zinc phosphide (<10%)
These wastes either are highly
reactive or explosive or are polymers
that also tend to be highly reactive. For
the purpose of BOAT determinations,
EPA has identified four subcategories:
incinerable reactive organics and
hydrazine derivatives (P009, P068, P081,
P105, P112, U023, U08 U098, U098,
U099, U103, U109, U133, and U160);
Incinerable Inorganlcs (P008, P098, P122,
U135, U189, and 1J249); fluorine
compounds (P058 and U134); and
recoverable metallic compounds (P015,
P073. and P087). For incinerable reactive
organics and hydrazine derivatives, EPA
Is promulgating incineration, fuel
substitution. chemical oxidation, or
chemical reduction as methods of
treatment for nonwastewaters, and
incineration. chemical oxidation,
chemical reduction, carbon adsorption,
or biodegradation as methods of
treatment for wastewaters. Because
EPA has determined that sufficient
treatment capacity exists for the small
volume of surface-disposed Incinerable
reactive organic hydrazine derivates
(P009, P068, P081, P105, P112. U023 , UO8G,
U098, U09 U099, U103, U109, U133,
U160, and U186), EPA Is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For all Incinerabl ’lno anic
nonwastewaters, Ispromulgating
Incineration, chemlcéloxidation, or
chemical reduction as methods of
treatment. For wastewaters, EPA Is
promulgating incineration, chemical
oxidation, or chemical reduction as
methods of treatment EPA has
determined that sufficient treatment
capacity exists for the small volume of
surface-disposed incinerable inorganic
wastes; therefore, EPA is not granting a
national capacity variance for them.
For fluorine compounds
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
adsorption followed by neutralization as
the method of treatment for P058
nonwastewaters, and neutralization or
adsorption, followed by neutralization
as methods of treatment for U134
nonwastewaters. For P058 and U134
wastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration standards based on
chemical precipitation. EPA believes
that adequate treatment capacity exists
for these wastes; therefore, EPA is not
granting a capacity variance for them.
In the proposed rule, EPA proposed
recovery as the method of treatment for
P015 wastes. During the comment
period. EPA received one comment
concerning P015 beryllium recovery, and
EPA verified that beryllium recovery
capacity does exist Because EPA has
determined that sufficient capacity
exists for P015 wastes, EPA is not
granting a variance for these wastes. For
P073 wastewaters, EPA Is promulgating
concentration standards based on
incineration or chemical oxidation for
P073 nonwastewaters, EPA Is
promulgating concentration standards
based on stabilization. EPA has
determined that there Is enough capacity
available to treat P073 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters; therefore, EPA Is not
granting a capacity variance for them.
For P087 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
recovery as the method of treatment.
EPA has determined that there ls not
sufficient treatment capacity for P087
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, and
is granting these wastes a national
capacity variance.
(6) Gases. This treatability group
includes the following groups: P076
(Nitric oxide), P078 (Nitrogen dioxide),
and U115 (Ethylene oxide). For P078 and
P078 wastewaters and nonwastewaters,
EPA Is promulgating venting into a
reducing medium as the method of
treatment For U115, EPA is,
promulgating thermal or chemical
oxidation as methods of treatment for
nonwastewaters, and Inninaratlon, or
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption, or wet-air oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption as
methods of treatment for wastewaters.,
Because no volumes of P078, P078, and
U115 were reported as surface disposed
in the TSDR survey. EPA Is not granting
a national capacity variance for them.
(7)1/ and P Cyanogana For the U and
P wastes containing cyanide, P031
(Cyanogen), P033 (Cyanogen chloride),
and U248 (Cyanogen bromide), EPA Is
promulgating incineration, chemical
oxidation, or wet-air oxidation as
methods of treatment for both
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. EPA
has determined that sufficient capacity
exists to treat these wastes; therefore,
EPA is not granting a national capacity
variance for them.
(8) Capacity Determination for Multi-
Source Lecahate. (a) Definition and
Applicability. EPA defines multi-source
leachate as leachate that is derived from
the treatment, storage, disposal, or
recycling of more than one listed
hazardous waste. Under today’s final
nile, such leachate will be restricted
from land disposal. Residues from
treating such leachate, as well as
residues such as soil and groundwater
that are contaminated by such leachate,
are also restricted from land disposal
under this rule. Leachate derived from a
single source must meet the standard
developed for the waste code from
which it Is derived; therefore, such
leachate is not subject to the standards
developed for multi-source leachate.
(b) Previous Treatment Standards.
EPA imposed land disposal prohibitions
on multi-source leachate In the Solvents
and Dioxins, California list, and First
Third rulemaklngs. In the First Third
rule, multi-source leachate would have
to be treated to satisfy all the standards
applicable to the original wastes from
which the leachate is deriveó (see 53 FR
31148-150 (August 17, 1988) ) ,.EPA
revisited the issue of treatability of
multi-source leachate to address
concerns raised by the hazardous waste
management industry, and rescheduled
promulgation of a land disposal
restriction for multi-source leachate to
the Third Third rule En order to fully
8tudy the most appropriate section
3004(m) treatment standards for multi-
source leachate and to reevaluate the
issue of available treatment capacity
(see 54 FR 8284 (January 27, 1989)).
(c) Final Treatment Standards. In
today’s rule, EPA Is promulgating one
set of wastewater and one set of
nonwastewater treatment standards for
multi-source leachate; these standards
would apply to residuals derived from
the storage, treatment, or disposal of
multi-source leachate. For treating multi-
source leachate in the form of
wastewater, EPA Is promulgating
concentration standards primarily based
on biological treatment followed by
chemical precipitation. or wet-air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation for organic and inorganic
constituents. For nonwastewaters, EPA
is promulgating concentration standards
based on incineration for organic
constituents and on stabilization for
metals.
(d) Volumes Requiring Ajternative
Treatment or Recovery Capacity. EPA
relied on data from the TSDR Survey.
the Generator Survey, and other
capacity data to determine whether
sufficient alternative treatment or
-------
22641
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 1 Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
recovery capacity 18 available for multi-
9u TVe leathste.
MaftI-.omve !v ute le prl erlly
generated In landfifls Ho ivrer . A
recognisee that inaltl-aowue kethate
can alas be generated at dosed
facilities. Because esly sparse data exist
on each leachate. EPA requested
conunenta on the cha ter tion o(
multi-s leachate at dosed ciIities
and on the vutame of treated leachate
that Is preseady land-disposed in
surface disposal units. EPA also
requested the sel di of uuri it data
from interested parties an the volumes
of muli-sour leachate aerated, the
current inanagemeat of such _____
the amount of re als g ated. and
the waste canatiti it npost1ion of
multh-.owce leadtale.
Several camineuters suggested that
EPA has esderestima ted required
capaaty fur multi-source leacbate
because t dt te from closed landfills
and md water from ccerective
actions and CERa.A cleanups were uot
considered. EPA did not obtain
adequate data to quantify the voirrome
of sech lesthates and leechete
treatment ,e uals that might he
surface disposed. These surface-
disposed vokunea, however, are ant
expected tn -effect the nath I capacity
varianco rminatlon.
In addition to data from the TSDRand
Generator Surveys, EPA examined data
submitted as part ala I chate study
plan by four maãor companies managing
hazardous wastes at 17 fa i2i1ia . EPA
evaluated this Infoimation to esth aie
the vnliim of r1it
requiring alternative treatment.
(e) Determining National Variances
for Multi-Source Leachale. EPA
analyzed the alternative treatment or
recovery capacity For two categories of
multi-source leachate: wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.
Most multi-source teachate Is
managed in wastewater treatment
systems and discharged via an Ni’ui i
permit and! or to a POTW A
estimates that over 41 m1 bn a1Iuns of
mu- w- leachate n a ,1 wiitar
residues are smiace d1w dj
Given the low vuhr& R ait-
disposed multi-source leedrate
wastewates’s and the adequate capadty
to treat these wastei, EPA proposed and
has decided not to grant a nat±onal
capacity variance for mn-face-disposed
multi-s ames leadsate wastvwaters. For
multl-soerce leachate nonwastewaters,
EPA Is finalizing its proposal to grant a
two-year nations! capacity variance for
these wastes. because there is
Ins ufficient hiduierutlen capacity.
Most oommenters e eed with the
proposed variance for surface-disposed
multi-source leachate nonwastewaters.
Hewe’, ’er, a few w i ls requested a
flulIun ! ‘capeaty vm4ance for surface-
disposed multi-source leechate
wasteweters. However, commenters did
not piuvide evidence 0 f amface-
disposed volumes of multi-source
leachats wsstewaters. EPA did not
revise the eathnatee of wastewater
volumes because no date were provided
shu volumes of multi-source
leachats wastewatess that are surface-
disposed. Aiso, as noted abuse, this
surface disposal must Involve retrofitted
surface lmpuuudments, under RCRA
section O05fl), which ordinarily axe
section 5 1) Impoundments.
Therefore, there should be little
additional demand for capacity for
displaced leachete wasteweters.
Coumsenters did riot dispute this
analyis.
(9) Capacity tennino6en frr Mixed
Rarfioocfive Wuste . {a liadroesd
EPA has defined a mixed RCRAI
radioactive waste as any matrix
containu a RCRA hazardous waste
and a in ecihre waste subject to the
Atimik iex y AtI S3 FR’37045, 37
September 23 19 ). Regardless of the
type of radioactive consiltnents that
these wastes iuntulfl (e.g., high-level.
low-level, or fransaranic), they are
subject to the RCRA hezarduas waste
regulations, hicluding the lend disposal
restrictions.
Redionctive wastes that ure mixed
with spent solvente, d1o e, or
California list wastes are eub ect to the
land disposal ctions already
promulgated for those hazardous
wastes. EPA has determined, however,
that rothoec6ve waste5 that are mixed
with FIrst Thid and Sv ø d Third
wastes w be toduded In the Thzd
Third rule a 1 )(FR .t2(C3).
Thus, today’s rule edifresses radioactive
wastes that contaIn Font Tldrd. Second
Third. and Third T d wastes .
(b Data Suunxs. The Depiniment of
En , lX)E Is a majorgeneretoref
mixed RC Af radioactive wastes. Fo ’r
data on DOE wastes. EPA used a data
set iiltted by DOE. The data set is
based en a reveiilDOE omwy and
Ounleu!S Lat abon on mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste inventories,
geneia(lea rates. and vxistiin and
plemsed treatment capacity at 21 DOE
facifities.
A vurlety of noa-UOE feci ties also
generate mixed R( AirgecIive
wastes, 1ncIadisi uwdv r power plento,
academic and medical Institutions. end
Industrial facilities. Avai4etyef
iofermatlon somvee were used to
Identify l e non-DOE generators,
estathequnuifliesend typesu!
mired RCRAjradloactive wastes that
they generate, and determine current
management practices mid treatment
capacity. These sources included the
TSDR Survey, the Genarutor Survey.
and other studies. EPA believes that
these sources provala available -
information on non-DOE mixed RCRAI
radioactive wastes.
(c) Determining National Variances
for Mixed RCRA/Radioactive Wastes,
After investigating the data sow s
noted above, EPA estimated that
approximately s3 million gallons of
radioactive waste mixed with First,
Second, and Third Third wastes w1 11
require treatment. Contaminated soil
and debris accounts for 193 milliqn -
gallons of this total, which also includes
wastes generated annually as well as
untreated wastes In storaga. Although
DOE is In the process of increasing its
capacity to treat mixed RCAR1
radioactive wastes, data supplied by
DOE indicate a carreat capacity
shortfall for the treatamint of First.
Second. and Third Third mixed RQIA/
radioactive wugtes. DOE indicated a
stablti2alion capacity of approximately
2.8 million gallons and a neutraI on
capacity of apprwdmately o j
— 11 data, however, showé
significant altenathe treatment
capacity shortfalls for all treain t
technolegies. induding stabilization and
nen’trelizatir,. EPAs investigation of
n .DOE data sources showed a
significant inch of commercial b-ea nt
capacity as welL Although one facility
was Identified that msn a specific
type at mired RCRAlradioactive waste.
data soinoes Indicate a inch at sufficient
trea capacity for all trea t
technoli es. Thai, EPA has determined
that alternative ta nt
capacity Is not svaila and Is granting
a two.year nationsi capacity vax4nnce
for ....,.d R( A,rI sctjse waste
wa tew e and aonvsuatwa s.
One comuienter Indicated that the
proposed twa-year national capacity
variance Is unlawfully and
wui ce,earily bmed, and that EPA
should grant variances only for specific
waste streams. EPA diuegrees with this
statement. The capacity analysis was
based on detailed, stream-specific data
supplied by DOE as well as the best
available non-DOE data sources.
Although sufficient treatment capacity
may exist at certain facilities for certain
mixed RCRA/radio iclive wastes, EPA’s
capacity analysis methodology is
desI wd to amuse available treatment
capacity at the national level. tfiee
RCRA section (h)t2l.) EPA b s
the capacity analysis performed
demuusliutua a mixed RCRA!
radioactive waste capt city shortfall for
-------
Federal ke tek’J iá/ ’Rulesand ’Reg slations
22645
all alternative treatment technologies at
the national leveL -
The same comnienter Indicated that
EPA must determineihat available
treatment capacity existing for non-
radioactive RCRA hazardous waste is
inappropriate for mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. EPA believes that
the lack of commercial mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste treatment capacity
was sufficiently demonstrated in the
proposed rule. Not only does the TSDR
Survey show a lack of permitted
treatment facilities accepting mixed
RCRA/radloactive wastes, the most
recent data made available by States
and State low-level waste compacts
support the same conclusion. For the
reasons iterated here, EPA believes that
the national capacity variance for mixed
RCRA/radloactive wastes is both
necessary and justified. All other
commenters addressing the national
capacity variance were in support of
EPA’s proposaL
One commenter raised the question of
whether naturally-occurring radioactive
materials (NORM) containing RCRA
listed or characteristic hazardous
wastes fall under the definition of mixed
RCRA/radloactive wastes. The question
was also raised whether the national
capacity variance extends to these
materials. EPA believes that because
NORM are not regulated by the Atomic
Energy Act, these materials do not fall
under the definition of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. EPA recognizes.
however, that insufficient alternative
treatment capacity exists to handle
these materials. Therefore. EPA Is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to hazardous wastes mixed
with NORM.
EPA recognized that its information
for the proposed rule on mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes generated and
managed by non-DOE facilities might
have been mcompl te. Consequently.
EPA requested co ents by Interested
parties on the cuzreãtgeneration of
mixed RCRA/radi iactWe wastes. Of
particular interestJi m A was
information on mixtures of radioactive
wastes and First. Second, or Third Third
waste streams. Although several -
commenters addressed problems
a8sociated with the storage and disposal
of nuxed RCRA/radioactive wastes.
only one commenter Indicated that
additional data were available. The data
confirm the lack of available treatment
capacity and the commenter supports
the proposed national capacity variance.
Z Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates for
Underground injected Waste.
Today, EPA is prohibiting the
underground Injection of virtually all
remaining RCRA section 3004(g) wastes,
including characteristic wastes, for
which no effective dates have been set
EPA is not acting on certain newly listed
or newly Identified wastes. In the
proposed rule, EPA solicited comments
on the volumes and characteristics of
the wastes represented in this section,
as well as any information on the
characteristics and volumes of any
multi-source leachate that is currently
being injected.
EPA received several responses to
this request One commenter submitted
data on the volume of U wastes (20,458
gallons) deepwell Injected at Its facility
in 1989. However, this facility has
subsequently received approval of Its
no-migration petition. Another stated
that 3.3 million gallons of P and U
wastes are underground Injected at its
facility. The facility has proved.
however, that this stream qualified for
the mixture rule exception under RCRA
section 261.3(a)(2)(iv), and Is therefore
not considered a hazardous waste. One
commenter indicated it was Inlecting
7,200 tons of 1)004 waste at one of Its
facilities. Further, one commenter stated
that It was Injecting a wastewater
containing U115. Additionally, one
commenter submitted an underground
injection well survey. EPA
acknowledges these comments and has
incorporated them appropriately into the
capacity analysis.
EPA also received comments
pertaining to the form of certain wastes.
Several commenters indicated that the
nonwastewater forms of 0002 0003
(reactive cyanide), 0007, and 1 (014 were
injected and needed to be included In
the capacity analysis. EPA agrees that
nonwastewaters were not discussed for
many deepwell injected wastes and has
evaluated these waste forms for the
final rulemaking.
a. Effective Date Determinations for
Wastes with Treatment Standards In
Today’s Rule
Consistent with the policy established
In previous land disposal restrictions,
EPA Is restricting on August 8,1990, the
underground injection of all wastes,
with treatment standards in today’s rule,
that are not currently being deepwell-
injected. This decision is consistent with
the intent of RCRA in moving hazardous
wastes away from land disposal and
toward treatment. Wastes that are not
currently being deepwell-mjected are
listed in table Ill.B.2.(a)
The volumes of deepwell-injected
wastes that require alternative
commercial treatment and/or recycling
capacity are presented in table -
IILB.2.(b). This table does not include
wastes that are currently being
deepweil-Injected by facilities with
appropriate on-site alternative treatment
technologies for treating the waste.
EPA Is establishing effective date
determinations for all underground
injected wastes In treatability groups. If
there Is adequate available alternative
treatment capacity for all the injected
volume In a single treatability group,
then every waste In that group will be
restricted from underground-injection. If
there is inadequate available alternative
treatment capacity for the injected
volume in a single treatability group,
then EPA is allocating as much of the
available capacity to the wastes -
requiring treatment All remaining
wastes in the freatability group, for
which no capacity exists, will receive a
two-year national capacity variance.
EPA believes that this Is most consistent
with Congressional lntent, ilch favors
both treatment over dispos i and
minimal use of capacity va4 nces. EPA
specifically solicited comments on this
approach; however no com ents were
received during the public comment
period.
EPA recognizes that the effective
prohibition date of the Third Third rule
will critically affect the management of
large volumes of wastes disposed of on-
site In Injection wells at a number of
facilities. On-site injection wells are
characterized by direct piping of wastes
from plant operations to the injection
facility. In contrast, off-site Injection
facilities receive manifested wastes
from other plant operations which are
transported directly to the Inlection
facility.
The Injection wells at on-site facilities
are directly connected to the plant
operations and, all totaled, handle at
least ve billion gallons of hazardous
waste per year. In order to realistically
meet the treatment requirements for the
Third Third rule, the plant managers will
need time to make considerable
logistical adjustments such as repiping,
retooling, and development of
transportation networks at the plant
operation facility. Therefore. EPA does
not believe that treatment capacity is
available if there Is no feasible way for
generators to transport their wastes to
the treatment facilities. EPA can
legitimately consider the time necessary
to do this In determining whether to
grant a national capacity variance.
EPA has relied on such logistic factors
in prior rulemakings to determine when
-------
Fede e! R iste / V L 55, No. IOBI Fridey. June 1, 1990 I uIes and Regu1a1 ons
F P*d Codse
1(004, 1(096 1 15 eoI te.s*ar* 1(017, 1(021
(wastewate , 1(022 (wast atec ), 1(035. 1(036
1(021 Mst0W 5!! . 1(044,
24018, 1(046 (iu c6’.e eo a is ‘d
tOM?. 24060 w&$e $e . 1(061
(wst eis 1(069 nonwsst
and 88 stewate s), 1(073, 1(08.4. 1(085, 1(101
(i nw e ates1. 2 (102 wi 1t9wI T 5%
1(106, P001. P010, P012, P015. P016.
P018, P038. P037, P068, P 6 70. P964. 2,
P984, P087, P092, P10 5, P108, P120. P115,
P120, P123. U010, 11018, 00*8, 11020, 1.1022.
11029.13036, U0 . 0043,0048,13050,0051.
130510062.0083. 64. 0066.0067,0077.
13076. U018 , t. a, titOs. U124 , Ut26, 4.3290
0137, U$55 , 21158, U271. U171. U180, U209,
11237,0238,11248. U249.
Second ThM
1(025 ( ‘* 24029
1404*, 1(942,1(096 (wa eN1 ,
1(096 (wast a1ar* 1(096. 1(195, P902, P903.
P007. P098, P023 (wa Bwte! 5), P014. P026,
P02?. P049, P054. P060, P966, P067, P072,
P0* P104. P107, P11k , P113, PIl l. 21003,
13006.13011,00*4.0075. U021 , 0023,21025,
0026, 0035. 0047. U049. 0057. 11059. 0060.
13062,0073, ‘ 009 13093.0094.0095,
0097, 0096. 0099, (1101, (1109. 21120, 0111.
0114,13118, Ui 19, WV. 2.3128. 0131, tJ1
13142. 13143, 0*44 , 13146. U 146, 0150. .3161.
0183, U184, 11168, 0172, 11173. U174, 11176,
0178, 0179, 0189, U1 , 0196, 13203. 0203,
0206, 21296, 21213, 2.3274, % 15, 2216, 1321?.
oria.
T d T d Codas
1(003. 1(005 (wastewaters), 1(006, 2(007
(wasIDwet s , 1(028. 1(025. 34. 1(100
(wastewaters), P006, P009, P017, P , .
P024, P026. P021, P933. P084, P038. P042,
P046. P0*8. P047. P064. P065. P073, P076.
P077, P078, P088, P002, P095. P096. P101,
P103, Plia, Pill, P116. 13001. u , 0017,
U 0027, 00
004111062.21006,0071. L22?& 13975.13076,
Ut78. 13061, 0002. 1 )084 4.1065. 0010, U091,
1.1098. OIl?. UI. 13121, 0123, 0125, 0126.
13132. (i1 . 0139, tillS. 21145, 21145. t31 .
13151 21150, UIS, U1 , *3191, U , 0133,
- U164 21*48, U*97 . UllI, 1801, 13202. 0204,
0207. (.3222. U . 2.3234. 0238, 0240. 0243,
0248. U247.
Noa*y L od Wastes
F02
W cods
=
= d
—
wu
Fist Thid Code
F006
P019 —
1(011 —
wnls
1(031
K08 6 —.
P006 —. --
P048.
P050
P059
P122 —
1012_ ,.._— — .
1019.. —

U07’ —
11103 _____
.—- -.
0115
_____—
0203-

U154-
U157.
0159.
0185
I i4O
I t .
U210_ - ...___. —
0211 .
u7
Ü226
11227.
Seco llwd Gods
57L____- -
-
0006- —
U070.___ _
010I
11138
0140
( . 1147 _ . . —
W e,____-—
0169.
I I 7fl
Thrd1 e
rYv .4
0004
0065
0006 —_ —__
TABLE IILB.2. a).—WASTEs ( MTH TREAT-
MENT STAN0ARoS ‘fliAT ARE NOT ths-
OERGROUND INJECTED
(ProI sted Scm UrIda Tound tn)e on on August 8,
TA .E m .S.2, b) .—ftE RED ALT€ra IA-
TIVE COMMERCIAL T Th NT/RECY ’
JNG C civ . . UND OuND IN-
JEC1 ’EO WAsTEs
t n 04 wsr3
capacity is realistloafly eva ab e. EPA
notes that These same lo at1e fectoes do
not appear necessary to w w ny
extension for wasta s to offsita
commercial injection facilitIes as those
for on-site injection facilities. EPA
believes that facilities disposing of
wastes through off-site deepwell
injection already have these plant
adaptations and transportation
networks in place, and therefore do not
require any extension of the effective
date, Consequently. EPA is using its
authority undm’ section aoo4 h) of RCRA
to provide a six-month extension
beyond the May 8. 1990 statutory
prohibition date fur all Third Third
wastes disposed of at os-site injection
faCilities directly connected to plant
operations.
Table EILB.2tc) indicates the anaolmt
of capacity aveilable for treating
underground inj ted wastes, the
demand from these injected wastes os
each treatabihty grosps. and which
treatabilily gruup$ require capacity
variances. More Information on EPA ’S
procedure for ’apportionlng trea ent
capacity in these treatability groups can
be found in the Third Third Baclcground
Document foithe tree tability groups.
A number of the following treatability
groups account for relatively small tlees
than 100,000 gaUons/year a o14atsof
underground injected weatea. EPA
believes that these sci ll streania place
little demand on nationwide treatment
capacity.
Presected befo v ate the trea t
technolo we EPA used ki the ca1*dty
analysis for all deepwell-Injected
wastes. EPA selected these ecIuvoIo lee
based on the BOATs used for
establishing the concentration and
technology based standards being
promulgated today. For the capacity
analysis. EPA assigned volmess of
wastOs mixed with other wastes to the
appropriate treatment snch tthe
treatment standards for aff W a s wifi
be met. Consequently. aoate 1tha
technologies listed bel at
trains that include the EDA
determine the standard plus anoihor
technology. Table m Th2(d ) summadzes
the wastes for which EPA is grantir*g a
two-year national capacity variance for
underground ü ected wastes.
50
<9.1
4352
4072
131 0
I I
02
<0.1
<01
0.1
0.1
0.4
<0.1
04
0.I
<0 1
<01
•(Q1
r
0.8
. c.
‘< 01
01
<01
<02
01
so
01
0 .I
02
01
0.3
0.1
<0.1
10
02
0.2
0.3
10
01
<0.1
<0.1
D I
2.7
<6.1
<0.I
<01
9.1
9.2
<0.1
01
CI
0.2
1.0
<01
91
<9.1
0.1
03
0!
<6.1
9.9
192*5
17457
100
1.3
16
-------
Feckrul Re frter I Vol. 55 No. 1( / F iday. June 1. l 9O I Rules and Regulations
TABLE IILB.Z(C}—AVAJLABLE AND REQUIRED M.TERNATWE COMMERCiAL TREATMENT (INcLuoii ,G REcYCUNG) C ip crn’ FOR
Us R uso tMJECTB WASTES
tmSbn of ge5ors/ I
-
Msil o
c aa
Ronwed

.. .. . . ...
......_
Aik I . dI ...,I. ., ed by a. .4I a
. ._. . .__._•
OIolo9caf eab wod bY themical .. ...
Chem I n d by ct en pon._ . .... . ... . .....
Che mc j,,G,s, loMowed by die redic on id the mcal t_ -—
cpiemscej ._______________________
chro ni, .sd.c e tellowed byct sc precçda*x ,..... — — ...
Combustion _ — . _ . . _—_________________________________
Met c Iywk th1g - . ..—_—- ..
NeUtIaI ZadOn — —
Stab .’ri s uc.- - .. . ...
Wet-ar eaidadon . .. _ .... . .. . . -
Wet -.ru 1Iiby c a Teds t,pUo , 1
0
1
4
•
13
2?
<1
314
9
2. 19
<01
14
306
<1
<1
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 190 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore. EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance to D003
(reactive cyanide) waate aters and
nonwastewaters. This waste will be
restricted from injection on May 8. 1992.
(3) Alkaline Chlorination fob wed by
Chemical Precipitation. Treatment
standards based on alkaline
chlorination and chemical precipitation
are today being promulgated for F006
cyanide wastewaters and F019
wastewatere. As shown In Table
IILB.2.(c), the available capacity of 6
million gallons is adequate to treat the
quantity of hazardous waste annually
deepwell-injected requiring this type of
treatment EPA is prohibiting these
wastes from underground injection on
August 8. 1990. (For facilities with
injection wells directly connected to
plant production operations, the
effective date is November 8. 1990, as
discussed at the beginning of this
section).
(4) Biological Treatment. For 1 20,
P048. U002, U009. U019. 1J031, U112.
U140, U159, U17 0 , U188. U220, and U239,
EPA is promulgating concentration
standards based on biological treatment
for wastewaters. (EPA also determined
that the standards may be met using
wet-air oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption). Because there is adequate
biological treatment capacity for these
deepwell injected wastes, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
them. (For facilities with injection wells
directly connected to plant production
operations. the effective date is
November 8. 1990. as discus8ed at the
beginning of this section.)
(5) Chemical Oxidation followed by
Chemical Precipitation. EPA is
promulgating concentration standards
for P122 wastewaters based on chemical
oxidation. For the capacity analysis.
EPA assigned P122 wastewaters to
chemical oxidation followed by
chemical precipitation. EPA has
determined that adequate capacity
exists to treat P122 waatawaters
therefore, EPA is not granting P122
wastewaters a nationa}áap city
variance. ______
EPA is promulgatin nflon as
the method of treatment for 0003
(sulfides), which Includes chemical
oxidation. For the capacity analysis.
EPA assigned this waste to chemical
oxidation followed by chemical
precipitation. As indicated in Appendix
VI, EPA has identified other
technologies for treating these wastes.
The aggregate capacity of the additional
technologies Is still insufficient for
treating these 0003 wastes. Therefore,
EPA Is granting a two-year national
capacity variance to 0003 (sulfide)
waste waters and nonwastewaters. This
waste will be restricted from injection
on May 8.1992.
(0) Chemical Oxidation followed by
Chromium Reduction and Chemical
Precipitation. For D003 (explosives,
water reactives, and other reactives),
EPA Is promulgating standards based on
deactivation. EPA did not have data In
sufficient detail to differentiate between
explosives, water reactives and other
reactives. Consequently, for the capacity
analysis. EPA has grouped these wastes
into one group. For the capacity
analysis, EPA assigned all volumes to
chemical oxidation, chromium
reduction, and chemical precipitation.
As indicated in Appendix VI, EPA has
Identified other technologies for treating
these wastes. The aggregate capacity of
the additional technologies is still
insufficient for treating these 0003
wastes. Therefore, EPA is granting a
two-year national capacity variance to
these wastes, restrIcting 0003
(explosives/reactives) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters from underground
injection on May 8. 1992.
(7) Chemical Precipitation.
Wastewater forms of 0004. D005. D006,
D008 (lead-non.battery), 0009. 0010,
Doll. F006, K031. l 011, P058. U134, and
U151 represent those wastes best
treated by chemical precipitation. As
shown in table IILS.2.(c), the 331 million
gallons per year of available chemical
precipitation are adequate to treat the
quantity of hazardous waste annually
deepwell-lnjected requiring this type of
treatment EPA Is prohibiting these
wastes from underground injection on
August 8. 1990. (For facilities with
injection wells directly connected to
plant production operations, the
effective date is November 8. 1990. as
discussed at the beginning of this
section).
(8) Chromium Reduction followed by
Chemical Precipitation. Treatment
standards based on chromium reduction
and chemical precipitation are today
being promulgated for wastewater forms
of 0007, F006 . 1(002. P011. and U032 . As
shown in Table flI.B.2.(c} . the 32 million
gallons per year capacity of available
chromium reduction and chemical
precipitation is inadequate to treat the
quantity of hazardous waste annually
deepwell-injected requiring this type of
treatment. Excluding D007, however.
adequate capacity exists to treat the
remnining wastes. Therefore, EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to 0007 wastewatera and
nonwastewaters. prohibiting this waste
from underground injection on May 8.
1992. For the remaining wastes. no
national capacity variance is being
granted.
(9) Combustion of Liquids.
Combustion of liquids is the standard of
treatment for deepwell injected 0001
(ignitable liquids), DOll, 0012, D0 13.
D014, 0015, 0018, 0017. 1(032, 1(083,
1(088.1(097, P005. P050, P051, P057, P059.
P069. P075. P102. U001. U007. U008.
U012, U019. U034, U037. U044, U045
U055. U058, U070, U074, U080. U103,
U105, U100, Ul12. U113, U115, U118.
U122, U133, U138, U147, U154, U157,
U159, U160. U162. U165. U169. U185,
U192, U194, U197, U200, U210, U211,
U219, U220, U220, U227, U228, U239, and
U244. Although U041. 11077.11083.11084.
and 11213 are also underground injected.
because they will be treated on-site,
their quantities are not included in
required capacity for combustion of
liquids. As shown in table lll.B.2.(c), the
219 million gallons per year of available
capacity are adequate to treat the
quantity of hazardous waste annually
deepweLl-Injected requiring this type of
treatment Therefore, these wastes will
be restricted from underground in. ction
on August 8, 1990. (For faclliUes th
injection wells directly connect o
plant production operations. th
effective date Is November 8. 19 as
discussed at the beginning of this
section).
(10) Mercury Retorting. Treatment
standards based on mercury retorting
are being promulgated for
nonwastewaters forms of 0009 wastes.
As shown in table ffl.B2.(c) the less
than .01 million gallons per year of
available mercury retorting capacity are
inadequate to treat the quantity of this
waste annually deepwell-Injected
requiring this type of treatment. EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to the nonwastewater forms of
0009, restricting this waste from
underground Injection on May 8, 1992.
(11) Neutralization. EPA is
promulgating deactivation as the
method of treatment for 0002
wastewaters and nonwastewaters. For
the capacity analysis, EPA assigned all
0002 acids and alkalines to
neutralization. As indicated in appendix
VI. EPA has identified other
technologies for treating these wastes.
The aggregate capacity of the additional
technologies is still insufficient for
treating 0002 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Therefore. EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance for the 0002 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. restricting this waste
from underground injection on May 8.
1992. Deepwell injected 0002 liquids
with a pH less than 2.0. which received
a two-year national variance in the
California list rulemaking. are required
-------
F Ja zaI Re ater/ VoL 5L No. 10 F Friday , June 1, 16 ) F Rules and Re u1atLoes
to meet the California list freataicci
standards on August 8.
(12 Stahiliznthwi - F jantdn ik
containing 0005.0006. Daa7. 0006 ( 1ead-
non-battery). DO11 1(082 1(083.1(086.
and U032. stabilization ía part of the
treatment train.. As shown ía Table
ffl.B.24c). the 265 millIon gsllons per
year of available capacity are adequate
to treat the quantity of hazardous waste
residuals requiring this type of
treatment. These residuals will be
prohibited from land disposal on August
8.1990. (For facilities with Injection
wells directly connected to plant
production operations. the effective date
is November 8. 1090 , as discussed at the
beginning of this section.
(13) Wet-AfrOxidatfon-. 1(011,1(013.
and 1(014, rtp neent all of the
under ,w d Infected hazardous wastes
addressed hi today’s rule that are beet
treated by wet-air oxidation. As shown
in table ULD.2.(c), the less than I million
gallons oIavailatllecapecltyaie
Inadequate to beet the quantity of 1(011
wasteweters, 1(013 wastewaters, and
K014 wastewatern and nociwastewateys
annually deepwell-bifected requiring
this type of boa tment. Th efcse. EPA is
granting a two-year national capacity
variance to the waitewater forms ci
Kon, Ka13, and KO14 and the
nonwastewater foii c i 1(014
prohibiting these wastes frmn
undei wiid injection May 8.1902 .
(14) Wet-A rOxitkition foikw& by
Carbon Adsorp&m. Poe P058
wag tewatera. treatment standards based
on wet-air oaida1i and carbon
adsorption aebe gfinaliv d today. As
shownhtTablellfl2-(c),thelesa thani
million gallons ci available capacity sin
adequate to treat the quantity ci P06&
annually deepwell-injected ieq ired this
type of treatment therefore, EPA Is not
granting a national capacity variance for
this waste. (For facilities with k4ectioa
wells directly connected, to plant
production operations. the effective data
is November 6.1990. as discussed at the
beginning of this sectioa3.
(15) BzologicoJ 7a ehtJblkneedby
Chemical Precipitation dr Wet Air
Oxidation foLlowed
Adsorption to/Jawed zzzkzzf
PrecipitaLion. For F0 9 (muM-source
leachate wastewaters, EPA Is
promulgating concentration standar
based primarily on biological tr tmeat
followed by chemical -ecipftation or
wet air oxidation followed by ubü
adsorption followed by chemical
precipitation. As shown in table
ffl.8.L(cj. the a 1 rp&w atety14 mil!on
gallons of available cspaaty Is
insufficient to han e the 15 mfflloir
gallons of required capacity. EPA notes
that the 14 icili oTT gallons of available
capacity Is the a ixIarum avallab¼ as a
portion of this voinme Is confribated by
a facility that was scheduled to come
on-line In 1988 EPA was unable to
determine whether this facility Is
currently operating. Because of the lack
of available capacily EPA is grantIng a
national capacity far tl s waste.
b. Response to Request lbs Data on
Underground Injected 1(014
Nonwastewalers.
EPA addressed the underground
injection of 1(0 11 and F(013
nonwastewatere in the Jmie a igoa
Second Third final sale, in that ruJe a
two-year national capacity variance
was granted due to the lack of
alternative Incineration capacity (M FR
26642). Action on 1(014 nonwastewater,
was deferred so that EPA could evaluate
Information on the composition.
characteristics, and volume, associated
with this waste EPA has received
information Indicating that, by
definitIon. 1(014 reonwastewa tars are
being underground injected. Because
inadequate wet-air oxidation capacity
existe to beat 1(014 nonwastewatma,
EPA Is granting a two-year national
capacity vailance for the r ,uud
Injection of these wastes. restricting
1(014 nonwastewalers from undesgrowad
injection on May8. 1
c. Deepwell Injected MaJYE-Soorue
Leachate.
C,nnn,u1 w ouyp n ted the proposed
capacity var un fur audcrgwuzzd
Injected multi-source leachate. One
commenter provided data orad ticnal
volumes of multi-sousa Penchete that
are underground Infected. Cosweqaenlty,
EPA l updethig Re estimate of the
volume of undevgrusnd Injected multi.-
sante teechate by 1.5 milfion gallons.
EPA estimates that at leust 15 million
gallons of maltl-somc leechate
wastewaters me currently deep-well
infected;and will reqoire alternative’
treatment capacity. EPA believes that
most multl-saece teeshate currently
und r 1 nd injected aistaine both
organie and 1nov ic constituents. EPA
Is promulguth concentration staridaith
for was tewaters primarily based on
biological trvvtmesst fj,llawed by
chemical precipitation, or wet-air
oxidatiot, followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical -
precipitation for ergmsk oral inorganic
constituents. Because there Is
insufficient capacity to treat
wastewaters based on these treatment
ted okgies. EPA Is granting a tr o-year
national capacity ‘,arience for maW-
Ieachate that Is imdergroisaf
injected. This waste w be prvMblled
Irons underground i nfection on May 8.
1992.
ci. h xed Radioactive Wastes.
EPA requires radioactive wastes
mixed with R( A-regtiIated eolventa
and dloxine. to meet LORs and treatment
standards established Lox those solvents
and dn&whea mixed with
radioactive wastes. EPA currently has
no Information on mixed radioactive
wastes that are underground injected.
EPA requested cnn in it on mixed
radioactive wastes that are being
underground injected. EPA received no
Information Indicating that mixed
radioactive wastes were being
underground in ected thus. EPA is not
grant a national capacity variance for
them. These wastes will be prohibited
from underground Injection on August 8.
1990.
3. Capacity Var castor Conto ’mn7cz fed
Soil and Debrm
Today, EPA Is granting an extension
of the effective date for certain Pirat
Second. and Third Third contaminated
soil and debris far whish the treatment
standards are boned on hiciner en,
vitrification, or- ma’onry retorting EPA is
also panting a catinnal capacitg
variance for inocgan sohda debris
contaminated with 0001 through DOLl
wastes. RCRA semion 3001(hfl2) allows
the A aiatratui- to grant am extension
to the effective date based on the
earliest date on which adequate
alternative capacity will be avaltable
but not to exceed two years . - . after
the effective date of the prohibition
which w zkd otherwise apply mum
subsection (d1 fr ). (I ) , or (g). Fm- First
third and Second Third wastes that have
heretofore been subject to the soft
hammer” provisions (see section LaO)
but for which treutn t rtanumth are
being promulgated today . EPA is
interpreting the atatutmy language -
‘ . . effr thedeteoItheprohibition
that world otherwise apply TM to be the
date treatment standards are
- prormilgaterl for these wastes (La. May
8, 1990 rather than the date on which
the ‘sofl hammer provisions took effect
(i.e., August 8. 1 8 and June 6,1999.
respectively). EPA finds this the t*st
Interpretation for two reasons.
Extensions of the effective dale are
based on the available capacity of the
BOAT for the waste. soil is sea aceabla
that such an extension begin on the date
on which treatment standards based on
performance of the UAT ore
established. Fusthmmore. EPA does not
Intend. in eflect to penalize
of lInt Third and Second Third wastes
by allowing lens time ft.... months
and montbs. 1 W CtI rIY ) for the
development of needed capacity, while
-------
Fedesul Register / Vob- 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
generators of Third Third wastes in the
same treatability group are allowed the
maximum 48 months (assuming capacity
does not become available at an earlier
date). The capacity extension will
therefore commence for First, Second.
and Third Third wastes on May 8. 1990.
and would extend (at maximum) until
May 8. 1992
For the purpose of detern lnIng
whether a contaminated material Is
subject to this capacity extension. “soil”
is defined as materials that are primarily
geologic in origin, such as silt, loam, or
clay, and that are indigenous to the
natural geological environment In
certain cases, soils will be mixed with
liquids or sludges. EPA will determine
on a case-by-case basis whether all or
portions of such mixtures should be
considered soil (52 FR 31197, November
8.1986).
Debris Is generally defined as
materials that are primarily non-geologic
In origin. such as grass. trees, stumps.
shrubs, and man-made materials (e.g..
concrete. clothing, partially burled
whole or crushed empty drums.
capac1tors and other synthetic
manufactured items). Debris may also
Include geologic materials (1) IdentIfied
as not Indigenous to the natural
environment at or near the site. or (2)
Identified as Indigenous rocks exceeding -
a 9.5-mm sieve size that are greater than
10 percent by weight. or that are at a
total level that. based on engineering
judgment. will affect the performance of
available treatment technologies. In
many cases, debris will be mixed with
liqwdz or sludges. EPA will determine
on a case-by-case basis whether all or-
portions of such mixtures should be
considered debris.
In addition, EPA has established a.
specific treatability group for Inorganic-”
solids debris contaminated with D004
through Doll wastes. Wastes In this
treatability group are defined as follows:
nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable of passing thx gh:a 9.5-mm
standard sieve that req tf$er ushing.
grinding, or cutting in i& nIcal sizing.
equipment prior to ata flj limited
to the following InorganW ’dr t l -
materiais (1) Metalulap{eltheréosa-.
or scoria) 2)giassifleds [ ag (3)glass;..
(4) concrete (excluding çementltlous or
pozzolanic stabilized hazardous
wastes); (54 masonry and refractory
bricks; (6) metal cans. containers,
drums, or tanks; (7 metaFnnts, bolts,
pipes, pumps, valves, appliances. or
industrial equipment: and (8 scrap. -
metal ’ (as defined in 40 CF9 26l.1(c ) (e}).
EPA has determined that there is
Inadequate treatment capacity for all-
debris In this treatability group.
Therefore, EPA is granting inorganic
solids debris a national capacity
variance.
Analysis of the TSDR Survey data
Indicated that a volume of
approximately 17 million gallons of soil
and debris contaminated with wastes
subject to this rule were land-disposed
In 1988. However, the Superfund
- rexnediatlon program has expanded,
significantly since that time. Plans for
remedlatlon at Superfund sites indicate
that the excavation of soil and debris
requiring treatment (including
Incineration and subsequent land-
disposal) will be far greater in 1990 than
In 1988. Because of the major increase In-
the Superfund remedlatlon progra
EPA has determined that capacity Is not
adequate for incineration. vitrification.
and mercury retorting of Third Third
contaminated soil and debris; In
addition. EPA has determined that there
Is insufficient treatment for inorganic
solids debris. Therefore, EPA is granting
a two-year national. capacity variance
for Third Third contaminated soil and
debris for which BDAT Is incineration,
vitrification. or mercury retorting, and
all inorganic solids debris.
EPA Is also granting a two-year
national capacity variance to all soil
and debris contaminated with mixed
RCRA/radioactive waste. EPA has
estimated that insufficient treatment
capacity exists to handle soil and debris
contaminated with mixed radioactive
waste.
EPA notes that If soil and debris are
contaminated with Third Third
prohibited wastes whose treatment
standard is based on Incineration (or
other .technologles for which EPA
determines there I ,lnsufficient capacity)
and also with other prohibited wastes
whose treatment standard Is based on-
an available type of technology, the soil
- and debris would remain eligible for the -.
national capacity variance. This is
because the-contaminated soil and
debris would still have to be treated by
some form of -technology that EPA has
evaluated as being-unavailable at
present. Howeverd there is one
exception to this principle. if th soil
rand debris are contaminated with a
prohibited waste (or waates) that is no.
longer eligible for a national capacity - -•
extension. such ascertain types of-
prohibited solvent wastes, then the soil
and debris would have to be-treated;to
meet the trealment standard for that
prohibIted waete (or wastes). Any other
Interpretation would result In EPA’s
extending the date of a prohibilion
beyond the dates established by -
Congress, and therefore beyond EPA’a
legal authority.
C NmeIy Day Capacity Variance for
Thfrd Third Wastes
EPA Is delaying the effective date of
the treatment standards In today’s rule
for three months; or untIl August 8. 1990
(except for those portions of the rule
delayed because of long-term national
capacity variances). EPA Is taking this
step because the Third Third rule Is of
unusual breadth (approximately 350
waste codes affected, plus all -
characteristic wastes, multi-source
leachate, and mixed wastes),
complexity, and difficulty. Persons
having to coniply must not only
determine what the treatment standards
are for their wastes, but must also
grapple with the Interplay between
standards for listed and characteristic
wastes, certain new Interpretations
regarding permissible and Impermissible
dilution. and certain new tracking
requirements for characteristic wastes.
Although the Agency has made all
efforts legally available to communicate
Its resolution of some of these matters in
advance of the May 8. 1990. prohibItion
date, most members of the regulä d
community are just receiving no of
the requirements with which they ust
comply. It takes some reasonable
amount of time to determine what
compliance entails, as well as time to
redesign tracking documents, possibly
adjust facility operations, and possibly
segregate wasteatreams which
heretofore had been centrally treated.
EPA believes that these legitimate
delays are encompassable within the
concept of a short-term national
capacity variance because part of the
notion of available capacity Is the
ability to get wastes to the treatment
capacity In a lawful manner.
Accordingly, the Agency is granting a
short-term national capacity variance
for three months, -
The Agency emphasizes that during
this v r1ance, all Third Third wastes
that remain hazardous and that are
being disposed of in landfills or surface
Impoundments may only be disposed of
In landfill or impoundment units that
meet the miniqium technology standards
set out in 268.5(h)(2). (see al o section
IILD of today’s-preamble explaining that
a different p ciple holds for prohibited
wastes that are now nonhazardous.) In
addition. the cecordkeeping
requirements of existing 40 CFR 288.7
(a)(4) and(bX6) will apply during this
period. These proylsions require a
certification that a restricted waste Is
not suhject to a prohibition for
enumerated reasons, such as existence
of a national capacIt3 variance. EPA
does not intend, however. that
-------
Federal R ‘ster / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules arid Regulations
22651
recordkeeping requirements apply to
characteristic wastes that have been
treated to meet the treatment standard
during this three-month period. The new
recordkeeping requirements applicable
to these situations In fact do not take
effect for three months based on the
Agency’s determination that It will take
that long to understand how to use
theni. Thus, traddng documents would
only be required for restricted wastes
that are hazardous wastes when sent
off-site. In addition, all existing
treatment requirements (e.g., California
list require ients applicable during the
period of a capacity extension) are
applicable from May 8, 1990 to August 8.
1990.
D. Applicability of Land Disposal
Restrictions
1. Introduction
Under RCR& wastes can be
designated as “hazardous” in one of two
ways: (1) they may be specifically listed
based on EPA’s evaluation of factors set
out in 40 CFR 261 subpart B (“listed
wastes’), or (2) they may be considered
hazardous because they exhibit certain
indicator characteristics set out in 40
CFR part 281 subpart C (“characteristic
wastes”).
A central issue in this rulemaking
concerns EPA statutory authority to
require full treatment for characteristic
wastes. Some industry commenters
argue that EPA lacks jurisdiction over
characteristic wastes if the indicator
characteristic Is removed before land
disposal. Environmentalists and the
treatment industry, on the other hand,
argue that EPA must, in all cases,
require treatment of characteristic
wastes in the same manner it would for
listed wastes. EPA disagrees with both
positions. Rather, EPA believes that the
statute provides EPA ample authority to
determine whether additional treatment
- beyond removal of the characteristic Is
necessary for particular types of wastes
to achieve the goals of the statute.
In some cases, EPA is requiring
additional treatment beyond removing
the characteristic; in others, EPA deems
removal of the characteristic Itself to be
sufficient especially where no toxic
contaminants are specifically identified
finally, In several cases, EPA has
determined that there is only sufficient
information in the record to justify -
treatment requirements to the
characteristic levels at this time. For
these respective wastes, data In the
administrative record is not adequate to
determine whether treatment below
characteristic levels is feasible to
minimize threats to human health and
the environment for the wide range of
differing waste matrices encompassed
by a single characteristic waste code. In
these respective cases. EPA is
establishing a treatment level based on
its best judgment on the information
currently available, and will review Its
decision In light of new information in
thefuture.
Another critical issue Is whether or
not to prohibit dilution of characteristic
wastes as part of the LDR program. As
discussed below, In some circumstances
a dilution prohibition Is important to
ensure actual treatment of the waste.
EPA is applying a dilution prohibition to
wastes which exhibit a characteristic at
the point of generation, with two
exceptions. The first exception to the
dilution prohibition is for characteristic
wastes treated for purposes of CWA
requirements. CWA requirements,
Including CWA dilution rules, serve
goals similar to the LDR dilution rules.
Relying on the CWA dilution rules will
generally accomplish the goals of the
LDR program without creating potential
inconsistencies or duplication in EPA’s
regulations. A second general exception
to the L.DR prohibitions Is for
characteristic wastes that are
subsequently diluted and disposed In
injection wells authorized under the
SDWA. This exclusion is based, In part,
on EPA’s evaluation that the dispo8al of
dilute, nonhazardous wastes into
appropriately confined injection zones
would not constitute a threat to human
health and the environment EPA’s
decision also is based on the
unnecessary regulatory burden that
would ensue from application of the
LDR prohibitions on the SDWA program
regulating nonhazardous well disposal.
A more detailed discussion of EPA’s
rationale and decision rules follow.
2. Legal Authority over Characteristic
Wastes
a. Introduction. One of the most
fundamental issues in this rulemaking is
whether the prohibition on the land
disposal of untreated characteristic
wastes applies at the point of generation
or at the point of land disposal. The
choice of approach will affect EPA’s
ability to establish methods of treatment
(rather than allowing dilution to meet a
level), to apply a dilution prohibition, to
require treatment of constituents other
than those specifically addressed by the
characteristic, and to establish
treatment levels below characteristic
levels.
This issue arises from current
regulatory distinctions between
characteristic hazardous wastes and
listed hazardous wastes. Listed wastes,
and wastes derived from the storage,
treatment and disposal of listed wastes,
remain hazardous for all regulatory
purposes unless that waste is
specifically delisted by Agency approval
of a delisting petition under 40 CFR
280.22. Thus, a listed hazardous waste
remains hazardous from the point of
generation through the point of land
disposal unless specifically delisted.
In contrast, a characteristic hazardous
waste is no longer deemed hazardous
when it ceases to exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristIc. 40 CFR 261 .3(d)(1).
However, as discussed below, the
characteristic level Is only one indicator
of hazard and, thus, removal of the
specific characteristic is not the same as
assuring that the waste is safe. Until
today, a hazardous waste characteristic
could be removed by treatment:
however, It could also be removed by
simple mixing or dilution. Thus, if LDR
requirements were applied only to —
wastes which exhibit a characteristic at
the point of land disposal. EPA would be
unable to require full treatment or, in
some cases, any legitimate treatment of
wastes which exhibit a characteristic at
the point of generation.
EPA’s proposed approach for both
treatment standards and applying a
dilution prohibition for characteristic
wastes received many comments. Moot
commenters expressed concern about
the regulatory impact of these rules on
land disposal facilities regulated under
RCRA subtitle D. There was particular
concern over the impact of the proposed
rules on existing wastewater treatment
trains regulated under the Pretreatment
and National Pollutant Discharge
Flimination System (NPDES) programs,
pursuant to sections 307(b) and 402 of
the CWA. which use surface
impoundments riot regulated under
RCRA subtitle C. In addition, there were
many comments concerning the impact
of the proposed rules on the SDWA
program for nonhazardous mjectiori
wells,
As discussed below, Congress has
given apparently conflicting guidance on
how the Agency should address land
disposal prohibitions for characteristic
wates. EPA believes it has authority to
reconcile these potential conflicts and to
harmonize statutory provisions to forge
a coherent regulatory system. (See
RCRA Section 1006(b)—”The
Administrator shall integrate all
provisions of (RCRA) for the purposes of
administration and enforcement and
shall avoid duplication to the maximum
extent practicable, with the appropriate
provisions of the (CWA and SDWA)”)
Within this authority EPA seeks to
further the policy of section 3004(m) to
treat hazardous waste prior to land
disposal. However, EPA may also take
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 108 I Friday. June 1. 199G I Rules and Regulations
steps to address problems that could
arise from integration of LDR
prbidons in the context of the RCRA
Subtitle 1). CWA and SOWA programs.
A moredetaileddlscussion of the legal
authority for this approach Is provided
below.
b. General Standoxdfor 4 4gency -
Construction of StaWte2. Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 487 U.S. 837(1984)
sets forth a two-step process for
defrrmining whether to sustain an
agency’s statutory Interpretations. First.
a court determines whether Congress
has spoken directly to the precise
question at Issue. If the inh nt of
Congress is dear, then the ag n y
construction must be consistent with the
Congressional directive. If. however, the
statute Is silent or ambiguous with
respect to the specific Issue, the agency
choice must be based on a permissible
construction of the statute. The
construction may reflect a reasonable
accommodation of policies that are
committed to the agency by statute.
For the reasons stated below, EPA
believes that Congress has not spoken
to the precise question of the point at
which LDR prohibitions apply and. thus,.
the Agency may develop a reasonable
Interpretation of the statute considering
the goals and objectives of the LDR
program and RCRA in general.
c. Scope of Ag yAuthor -ity for
Trentznent Requfrements. Several
Industry conwienters argue that EPA
must determine the applicability of LDR
requirements at the-point of land
disposal based on the language of RCRA
section 3004(g), which authorizes EPA to
prohibit “the land disposal of hazardous
waste. Coinmenters argue that this -
language indicates a Congressional
decision to apply LDR requirements only
to waste which is listed or exhibits a
characteristic at the point of land
disposal.
The Agency agrees that this Is one
permissible construction of the language
in section 3 0 04(g). Clearly a waste must
b hazardous” to fall under the
mandate of 3004(g). EPA could assess
whether or not a waste is hazardous at
the point of land disposal to det4w ’muse
whether the pzohththon in 3004(g) -
applies. The Agency. however, does not
believe this is the only permissible
construction. Although section 3004(g)
dearly authorizes EPA to prohibit the
land disposal of characteristic waste, it
does not specify that the status of the
waste for puzposes of the prohibition
can only be evaluated at the point of
land disposal. Rather, the evaluation of
whether a hazardous waste is subject to
the prohibitions can apply at the point of
generation or at the point of disposal-
(and possibly at some other potnt or
combination of the two). Indeed. section
31X)4(g){5) requires EPA to consider
the goal of mRnaging hazardous
waste In an appropriate manner in the
first instanos.’ (emphasis added) when.
determin rvg the scope of the land
disposal prohibitions. See reference to
section 3004(d)(1)(B) In section
3004(gX5 . This language can be read to
refer to a point of generation approach.
Moreover, the statutory structure
provides for freahn tt of hazardous
waste und secthm 3004(m) 1m nt
standards ‘jbre land disposal and not
nerwesarily at the physical point of land
disposaL Coinmentem farther argue that
the Congressional policy is to limit the
scope of the LOR provisions to facilities
currently regulated under subtitle C of
RCRA. -
As discussed below, the Agency has
concluded that applying LDR
requirements at the point of generation
Is not only a permissible construction of
the statute, but one which may better
serve the goals and objectives of the
LDR progran1 Specifically. EPA
believes that applying LDR requirements
at the point of generation may, in some
cases, be necessary to effectuate the
requirement that the Agency set
treatment standards or methods for
characteristic wastes under section
3004(m). As the Agency noted in the
proposal at 54 FR 48490, the point of
disposal approach could undermine the
Congressional goals of the land disposal
restrictions In cntical ways when
applied to characteristic wastes.
First, the Agency would not -
effectively be able to set a particular
method of treatment or limit dilution for
a characteristic waste. A point of
disposal approach might permit dilution
of characteristic wastes, sinue waste
diluted below a characteristic level prior
to land disposal would not be regulated
by LOR provisions. Such dilution could
be in lieu of treatment or a specified
method and would not fulfill the goals of
‘The A eacy hes previously adapted the po t of
generation approach with respe to Identification
of waste subject to the California 1181 prohibit1on
set out In RCRA eecnoa 3e04(dl(l) end (2). 52 FR
7 5O (July 8. 1987). Uka diaracterlabc wutes.
California list wades at c t .n conatitasets or
exhiblLaprpoerty abovea certain leveL Mnrrover
as a general matter, to enaw the proper
management of wade In the first I .stau . EPA ‘ies
reqmred app8ratlon of several 40 C1 - ’R part
requirements at the point of generation. See
I 268.30(a) (3J and 52 FR m982 Uune 4. 1987 ) ( Initial
generator must determine whether solvent wastei
are prohibited); 53 FR 31148-47 (August 17. 1988)
and 54 FR 2 5605 (June 23. 1989) (waste cede carry.
through priomple applies at the point of generation
and determines both the probibulon and the
freatntent itandaed for listed wastes). All land
disposal restiiction ti ’uáing requirements likewise
attach at the point of generstica. ( 8 98.7 (a) end 54 FR
36988 (SePt. 8.1989)
sectIon 3004(m). In many cases, dilution
simply Inoreases the volume of a waste
without reducing or immobilizing the
mass of hazardous constitutents in the
waste. -
Second, the point of disposal
approach could be construed to limit
treatment standards both in terms of
treatment levels and the range of
hazardous constituents affected by the
treatment standard. For characteristic
wastes, a point of disposal approach
would, In effect preclude a requirement
to treat below the characteristic leveL In
some cases, characteristic levels are not
levels below which there may be no
significant risks to human health and the
environmenL Rather. the EP (and TC)
limits are levels at which wastes clearly
are hazardous. 45 FR 33084 (May 19.
1980); 51 FR 21648 (June 13. 1988); 55 FR
11798 (March 29. 1990).
Characteristic wastes also may
exhibit both a specific characteristic and
contain significant concentrations of
other hazardous constituents. (This is
true, for example, of the-high TOC
ignitable wastes and reactive cyanide
wastes regulated under today’s rule.)
Simply treating the one specific
characteristic which Is an indicator that
the waste is a hazardous waste would
not necessarily fulfill the goal of section
3004(m), Le., to “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 minimi2ed” (emphasis added). The
statutory focus on hazardous
constituents beyond the specific
characteristic constituent is also
enunciated in sections 3004(dHg) of
R A. These provisions authorize EPA
to take into account “ * the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and
propensity to bioaccumu.late of such
hazardous wastes and their hazardous
constituents” in establishing hazardous
‘in Hazardous Waite Treatment Councils. EPA
(HWFC 111), 886 F.2d 355(0 C. Cir 1989) the coini
noted that it would be inappropriate under section
3004(m) to require treatment below levels which
there are no longer threats to human health and the
envlroent. at 3 . However, the cOurt noted
that the toqeiry under section 3004(m) cOncerning
the extent ol tieatment is different than levels
establIshed for other regulatory purposes. and
specaficafly noted that EPA need not construe
characteristIc levels as levels below which no
further minimization of threats can occur. Id. at 382.
The Agency has tecenily discusaed iti rationale for
a teclmology-based approach to treatment
standards under secttori 3004(m) which does not cap
the truslm nt ,‘ , ,ucments at delisangs levels. (See
55 FR 8840. (February 28. 1990) EPA recognizes that
HW7’CllIts not dispositive on the issue we address
today whether characteristic levels at the poir.t of
ctispoaal serve se a jurisdictional bar to application
of section 3004(m) trea ent standards.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 1 Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22653
waste prohibitions. Section 3004(d](1)(C)
(emphasis added). Thua, EPA believes It
has statutory authority to take into
account all aspects of a waste stream In
determining appropriate treatment and
is not limited to considering merely one
specific ‘characteristic” that indicates
that the waste La hazardous in the first
Instance.
EPA also has general authority under
RCRA section 3004 (a)(3) to establish
different criteria for determining when
wastes will enter and exit the hazardous
waste management system—La.. when
they will initially be designated as
hazardous waste and when they no
longer require RCRA subtitle C
management controls. For example, the
clean-closure standards for regulated
units that hold characteristic wastes
require removal of az r4qn —
‘.V tftthehts even If the waste no longer
exhibits a hazardous characteristic. See
53 FR 8705 (March 19, 1987). EPA also
has previously promulgated regulations
requiring that Incinerators treatIng
hazardous waste be operated to a
certain efficiency even if a characteristic
waste In the waste feed ceases to
exhibit a characteristic somewhere in
the combustion process.
EPA believes that under the first test
In Chevron. Congress has neither
.mandnted nor prtcluded a point of
generation approach. In this case the
“meaning or reach of a statute lnvolve [ sJ
reconciling conflicting policies.”
Chevron. 467 U.S. at 848 (citation
omitted). Moreover, “a full
understanding of the force of the
statutory policy In the given situation
has depended upon more than ordinary
knowledge respecting the subject
matters subjected to agency
regulations.” Id. Accordingly, EPA
should make choices which represent ‘a
reasonable accommodation of
conflicting policies that were committed
to the agencys care by statute.” Id.
In this regard. section 1006(b) of
RCRA provides EPA authority to
Integrate provisions of RCRA and other
acts it administers. including the CWA
and SDWA. for purposes of
administration and enforcement Such
Integration must be consistent with the
goals and policies of these acts. Under
this framework, EPA can analyze
potential overlaps between regulatory
programs in its decision-making. Where
the goals are consistent, and uniform
administration or enforcement is
preferable, EPA may rely on one
regulatory framework instead of
applying potentially duplicative or
inconsistent regulations. Accordingly,
the Agency believes that it can
harmonize potentially conflicting
policies by considering both the benefits
of a given approach and any regulatory
problems (Including regulatory overlap)
that would be engendered by the
approach. The balancing may thus result
In different application of LDR.
requirements for certain classes of
facilities.
d. Agency Framework for Addressing
Treatment Standards for Chamcteristic
Wastes and Integrating them With
OtherRegulatory Programs. The Agency
believes that It has authority to apply
LDR requirements at the point of waste
generation for characteristic wastes and
that such an approach will generally
better achieve the goals of the LDR
program. Specifically, EPA believes it
has the authority in am t iev is
-- ‘r r6w fhe characteristic levels, to
specify methods of treatment, and to
prohibit dilution for characteristic
wastes where necessary and
appropriate to further the goals of the
statute. EPA recognizes, however, that
there are many far-reaching policy
considerations respecting the actual
implementation of this approach. For
example, a point of generation approach
could apply to management of waste
prior to RCRA subtitle D land disposal.’
LDR standards which require waste to
be treated to belo ’characteristic levels
would apply to wastes currently
destined for RCR.A subtitle D facilities.
Application of the LDR provisions
would be a very significant change in
the regulatory scheme for these
facilities, and could cause major
administration and enforcement
problems for both EPA and these
facilities. For example, EPA currently
has no authority to enforce subtitle D
criteria against subtitle D facilities, and.
hence has no enforcement program for
these facilities. In order to ensure that
these facilities met the subtitle C
requirements, the Agency would have to
Implement an enforcement scheme that
addressed thousands of subtitle I)
facilities. In addition, owners and
operators of subtitle I) facilities would
need to meet complex LDR tracking
requirements. Many may decide not to
accept partially treated characteristic
wastes rather than comply, thus.
diverting potentially large volumes of
non-hazardous waste to subtitle C
facilities and potentially aggravating
capacity problems at subtitle C
• Waste disposed Into euch uruts would need to
meet the eeatment requirements unless dispose! is
(1) Into a “no m1 adon ” unit approved under 40
CFR part 148 or 2*18. or (2) into, surface
impoundment which meets the requirements of
RciIA aection 3005{J)(11).
facilities.’ As noted In the proposal at 54
FR 48491, some of these problems may
be addressed by future regulatory
revisions. EPA will continue to evaluate
this Issue as it addresses standards for
the wastes identified by the new
Toxicity Characteristic (TC).
In addition, many of these potentially
affected subtitle D units contain wastes
that are regulated. In part, under the
National Pollutant Discharge
F.Ilminatlon System (NPDES) and
pretreatment programs under sections
301, 304, 307, and 402 of the CWA, and
the Underground Injection Control (TJIC)
program under the SDWA. Requiring
treatment below characteristic levels or
imposing a dilution prqhihffinn wwiL
reoukt th ifii ant changes to the
operations of these facilities and create
problems of regulatory integration.
This is not to say that the section
3004(m) objectives carry little weight
with respect to characteristic wastes.
On the contrary, particularly with
respect to toxic wastes, these policies
are of critical importance. Moreover,
many of these potential
Implementational problems may be
addressed by future rulemakings.
Section 1006(b) of RCRA requires the
Agency to integrate “for the purposes of
administration and enforcement” RCRA
subtitle C with the goals and policies of
other portions of RCRA, a well as other
statutes administered by EPA. In light of
this requirement and the absence of any
clear Congressional directive to apply
LDR requirements directly to subtitle D
facilities, the Agency must ask itself
whether the benefits of treating below
characteristic levels warrant the serious
Implementation problems such as those
discussed above. This is particularly
true where the administrative record
contains inadequate data to set levels
below the characteristic level for the
many waste matrices represented by a
single characteristic waste code.
However, where the data is adequate,
EPA believes it can successfully
implement treatment requirements
beyond removal of the characteristic, on
a case-by-case basis, without significant
disruptions to other regulatory programs
to further the goals of section 3004(m) by
requiring treatment beyond removal of
the characteristic. EPA is prepared to
reevaluate these issues in future
rulemakings based on further
information and experience with
implementing the L1JR program.
The extent to which the treatment
goals of section 3004(m) are furthered by
‘As noted below, EPA has provided a regulatory
seucture to enforce dilution rules which does not
Impict subtitleD lacilitlea.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 55, No. 106 / Friday. Jniie 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
treatment beyond removal of the
specific characteristic and by
application of LDR dilu on rules is
discussed below for certain classes of
wastes and certain classes of waste
management practices. EPA also will
consider section 3004(g) and the
Ccmgresmonal directive under section
1000(b) of RCRA to integrate regulatoty
programs. Accordingly. EPA ’s approach
Is to balanceboth the extent of
additional treatment provided from
trentment beyond removal of a
characteristic and regulatoiy Integration
conceras for LDR standards relating to
characteristic
Below. EPA addresses three separate
WR n entia ,treatment levels,
methods of freaftnent. an d. a& r
prohibitions. In addition. EPA discusses
exclusions for some ot tnese
requirements for certain practices
regulated under the CWA and SDWA.
3. Treatment Levels
a. Environmental Considerations.
Section 3004(m) states that treatment
standards should substantially nfni h
the toxicity or mobility and minimize
short-term and long-term threats. The
legislative history of this provision also
states that regulation under RCRA
should complement and reciprocally re-
enforce regulations under the CWA. S.
Rapt. at 18. EPA’s framework for
developing best demonstrated available
technologies helps to ensure that -
toxicity and mobility are mlnlmlaed_.
Additionally, the methods or levels
derived through the BDAT process also
minimize short and long-term threats to
human health and the environment.
Thus, In establishing BDAT, EPA seeks
to achieve substantial reductions In
toxicity and mobility, not merely
Incidental or small reductions. Available
data and objectives of the land disposal
‘°ln date mlmng that some bebmring of -
competing section 3004(m) and1OO (b)J3O04(g)
Interests Is necessary In eatablishing prohibldani
faT charncterme c wastes, the Agency is fintha,
determining that the framework outlined In the
ceert. opinion in7iW2 UL 386 P. Zd 353 (D.C. Cu.
1969) end the Agencys response to that opinion (55
FR 55 (Feb. 26,19963)11 not dirpositire m the
differing context of chsrectcmubc wastes Both the
opinlcn and the Agency’s respoese daeIt with
situations where listed h sitioiia westas wre
being disposed so there were no competing Interest,
to balance against the Section 3004(m) mandate.
Consequently. the Agency detemimned that instil It
could develop dr mnucus concentailan levels
which establish when threat, from prohibited
wastes are mu . , ,nl,ed _ . It would opt for the certainty
of technology-based treatment standards to remove
as murk of tbe imcei uy usoctnied with land
disposal dh ,zardoiis weatu. FR at 8642.
Cuiaractertstlc wastes present a different situation.
howevet due to the potential disruption of othe,
programs. see .aprs. end possible . ‘ ‘ i benefit.
to uratment below the cliarectenitic levels is some
cases.
restrictions program aze both relevant
for determining the appropriate level of
minimixation In individual cases.
Treatment to a characteristic level will
result In a substantial reduction In the
toxicity or mobility of the characteristic
waste matrices EPA has evaluated In
this rulemaking. For example. EPAs
stabilization data for arsenic
demonstrated untreated EP toxicity from
41 to 6450 mg/I. Treatment of these
wastes to the characteristic level of 5
mg/i results In a reduction of 88 to
99.9%. The Agency also believes that
further treatment may, In some cases,
continue to mininiiee threats to human
health and the environment However.
for other waste treatability groups
sddressedáz his,u1emakm& EPA
believes It only has sufficIent aCo a ?
this time, to establish treatment levels at
the characteristic level. See section X I I A
above. -
This section sets forth EPA’s approach
for developing treatment standards far
each category of characteristic-wastes.
The Agency based its decisions on the
data available at the time of this
rulemaking. See RCRA section
3004(d)(1). EPA plans to re-examine
thesestandards as new Information
becomes available. Id addition. EPA will
develop additional standards for the
newly..identifled wastes in the toxicity -
characteristic rule.
Today’s rule reflects a decision to
take limited, but nonetheless significant.
steps within the point of generation
framework. As a general matter, the
Agency believes that the goals of
section 3004(m) may require application
of standards which go beyond the
characteristic level (subject to
harmonization with section 3004(g)
policies) In some future cases. EPA
Intends In the rulemaking for ‘It wastes
to evaluate more s ingent treatment
levels for more treatability groups. This
would potentially require lower levels
for characteristic constituents and
treatment of other hazardous
constituents In a given characteristic
waste matrix. The phased approach in
today’s rule Is consistent with the
principle that an agency Is entitled to
the highest deference In deciding the
sequence and grouping in which It
addresses l sues. Hazartioas Waste
Treatment Council ’ ,. EPA , 881 F.2d 277,
287 (D.C. CIr. 1988) (upholding EPAs
construction of HSWA statutory
provisions in a way that allowed the
Agency to take one step at a time in
Implementing the provisions under
HSWA) Associated Gas Distributors v.
FERC 824 F. Zd 981.1039 (D.C Cir.
1987).
(1) Toxic Wastewaters. EP toxic
inorganic wastewaters are primarily
destined for NPDES wastewater
treatment systems. pretreatment
systems and UIC ln ecfion wells. Given
cursent data EPA could set treatment
levels about an order of magnitude
below the characteristic levels for some
- of the EP toxic metal wastewaters.
Imposing treatment standards below the
characteristic level, however, could
have the effect of invalidating legitimate
methods of treatment Involving surface
Impoundments that are part of CWA
wastewater treatment trains
(equalization basins used to equalize
flows to centralized chemical
precipitation and sedimentation
treatment, for example). A treatment
standard below characteristic levels
wouid neec .fs.i?luet orior to placement
In a subtitle D treatment im ouno f t
This would be so even though the
impoundment might treat the waste for
purposes of CWA requirements. In
effect, this could move BAT/PSES
standards from end-of.pipe to in-
process . requiring facilities to change
their existing wastewater treatment
systems or comply with internal waste
stream requirements that would overlap
with CWA requirements. Imposing such
standards on Class I non-hazardous UIC
disposal could interfere with protective
disposal practices with no
coivesponding environmental benefit
(see discussion on dilution below).
As a result. EPA is not Imposing
treatment standards below
characteristic levels for such
wastewaters. Based on the information
in the rui making record virtually all
wastewaters are managed In the context
of CWA treatment impoundments or
UIC wells. 11
(2) Toxic zion wastewaters. With
respect to nonwastewaters exhibiting
the EP characteristic for metals, EPA
determined that BDAT is based on
vitrification of stabilization. These
technologies are matrix-dependent types
of treatment When considering
characteristic wastes, the amount of
diversity within a single waste code is
typically extensive. This is because.
unlike listed wastes, the characteristics
do not Identify wastes from single
processes. single Industries, or single
chemical species, but rather can come
from virtually any process or industry.
l If EPA should receive information in the future
indicating that .i illcant velumee of wattewater Is
land disposed In enoth oo86ext EPA will
reevaluate the Issue of setting treatment levels
lower than the characteristic level for EP tøxlc
metals. Again EPA Is utilIzing ita considerable
discretion to address (sane. aria at a time. See
HWTCJII. n. 881 F 24 at 287.
-------
22655
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Using available data. It Is not possible In
this rulemaking, due to lack of time and
data on this diverse universe, to
subcategorlze each characteristic waste
Into treatability groups designed
specifically for certain Industries or
processes. Thus, In considering what
treatment standards are achievable for
EP toxic metal nonwastewaters, the
Agency had to develop uniform
standards based on BDAT technology
that constitute all or most of the wastes
Identified by the characteristic.
As discussed in section A. of the
preamble, the Agency Is confident that
these wastes can be treated at least to
characteristic levels. However, the
Agency Is unable to treatment standards
below thi characteristic level are
achievable for all of such wastes.
Certainly, as shown by data submitted
by the waste treatment industry and
other commenters. some samples In
these waste categories can be treated to
levels below the characteristic, and
some to levels well below (an order of
magnitude or more, In some cases). The
Agency does not believe that these data
are sufficiently representative, however,
to warrant extrapolation to all waste
matrices under a given waste code.ia
See discussion In section lilA.
In reviewing the additional data
submitted by commenters, the Agency
was struck by the amount of diversity
often present in the treatment data for a
particular characteristic, not only
confirming the.matrix-dependent nature
of the technology, but the difficulty of
finding a single numerical standard that
would be generally achievable for all
wastes in that particular metal waSte
code. Another problem confirmed by
data Is that many wastes exhibit
characteristics for more than one metal.
and optimized treatment for one metal
can preclude optimized treatment for
another. Yet virtually all of the metal
freatability data in this record Is for
treating only one metal.
Even if the Agency had enough data
to require treatment below the
characteristic levels for these wastes, It
would likely have to establish specific
treatability groups within the individual
codes (as done today to a limited
extent). Many of the difficulties In
assessing data noted briefly above, and
discussed In detail in the sections on
each characteristic metal, appear to be
industry or process specific. It should be
noted that the Agency expects that
treatment will result in levels slightly
‘The treaenent hidust y data. for example. was
often defiaent In such information a. to whether
and how concentrated charactenatic wastes are
mixed and back calculations for dilution effect.
resulting from pretreatment iiuxln$. See section ifiA.
below the characteristic levels in any
case. This Is because ñ ost treatment
technologies cannot easily be “turned
off’ at precisely the characteristic level
and, thus, EPA believes the requirement
to treat to the characteristic level will
often result in further treatment
- For EP toxic pesticide
nonwastewaters, treatment Is based on
a non-matrix dependent technology that
can reduce hazardous constituent levels
to orders of magnitude below the
characteristic leveL Thus, the types of
difficulties posed for EP metals—
assessing treatment achievability for a
wide variety of wastes treated by a
matrix-dependent technology—are not
presented for pesticide wastes.
Moreover, the pesticide wastes are
potent carcinogens, so that removing the
uncertainties of the threats they pose
when land disposed Is highly desirable.
The Agency, thus, Is establishing
treatment standards for these wastes
based on performance of optimized
destruction technology. EPA does not
believe the general regulatory
difficulties in Implemexiting this
requirement to treat below
characteristic levels are significant in
the context of subtitle D facilities as
there is a limited amount of this waste
in existence and the destruction of the
toxic constituents Is a clear benefit over
other treatment approaches.
(3) Other Characteristic wastes. As
discussed in section mA., for most
corrosive, reactive, and ignitable
characteristic wastes, the Agency has
determined that the appropriate
treatment for these wastes is to remove
the characteristic. The environmental
concerns from the properties of
Ignitability, corrosivity. and reactivity
are different from the environmental
concern from EP toxic wastes. Toxic
constituents can pose a cumulative
impact on land disposal even where
waste Is below the characteristic level.
Where wastes pose an ascertainable
toxicity concern, as with high TOC
ignitable wastes, and cyanide-bearinj’
and sulfide-bearing reactive wastes, the
Agency has developed treatment
standards that address the toxicity
concern and (in effect) require treatment
below the characteristic level. As
discussed in section lilA., this.epproach
is important to address toxic
constituents in this waste. EPA does not
believe the regulatory problems in
implementing standards for this limited
number of streams will be significant
Otherwise, treatment that removes the
properties of ignitability, corrosivity.
and reactivity, fully addresses the
environmental concern from the
properties themselves. Further
discussion Is contained in the preamble
dealing with each specific characteristic.
b. Regulatory Problems. In reaching
the approach set forth in today’s rule,
EPA has considered the advantages of
additional treatment with the
difficulties In (1) Implementing a
requirement to treat below
characteristic levels and (2) the effect of
such a rule on overlapping federal
environmental programs.
The characteristic level evaluated at
the point of disposal serves to
distlpgulsh certain disposal practices
and facilities from other permitting and
regulatory requirements under Subtitle
C of RCRA. Many commenters argued
that there are significant advantages to
providing a clear regulatory boundary
which serves. In most cases, to separate
the jurisdiction of different --
environmental programs. As discussed
above. LDR provisions that apply to
require treatment beyond removal of the
characteristic might require complicated
tracking and enforcement provisions
that would apply at many subtitle D
disposal facilities which are currently
not subject to any subtitle C
requirements. The most complicated of
such requirements would involve
enforcing levels below the characteristic
levels. To enforce and implement such
requirements, EPA would potentially
need to expand the universe of disposal
facilities covered by the LDR provisions
to perhaps thousands of facilities.
Requiring levels of treatment below
the characteristic level would also have
specific disruptive impact on practices
regulated, in part. under the CWPL In
effect, a treatment standard below
characteristic levels would need to be
met prior to placement in a surface
impoundment used in the treatrner.t
process. EPA estunates that up to 2000
nonhazardous treatment impoundments
could be affected by a requirement for
treatment below characteristic levels.
There are other difficulties in applying
treatment standards below
characteristic levels to injection wells
regulated under the SDWA which are
described in detail below.
EPA does not believe that the current
technical data in the record justifies
treatment levels below characteristic
levels for the nonwastewater EP toxic
metals. Thus, EPA has not engaged in an
extensive balancing of regulatory
integration problems for the wastes in
this rule. For the EP toxic pesticides.
EPA’believes treatment to the levels
provided for in the BDAT incineration
technology is important to destroy these
particularly dangerous pesticides.
Because there is a limited amount of
these pesticides, EPA believes the
-------
22656
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
environmental considerations outweigh
any difficulties In Implementing the LDR
requirement to treat below the
characteristic leveL For wastewaters,
EPA believes the regulatory difficulties
In integrating the CWA and SDWA
programs outweigh the limited benefit
from additional treatment based on the
current Information. Finally, EPA has set
requirements to remove certain toxic
constituents from certain ignitable and
reactive wastes. Some of these -
treatment requirements are In the form
of methods which are discussed below.
Again. EPA believes the environmental
benefit In terms of treatment outweights
the regulatory problems in providing
such standards for these wastes because
of the limited circumstances Involving
such wastes.
4. Methods of treatment
a. Environmental Considerations. EPA
has express authority to specify
methods of treatment as the treatment
standard. As discussed above, this
necessarily entails a point of generation
approach. Imposition of these treatment
methods normally results In more than
the removal of the characteristic and
further mininii2es threats to human
health and the environment
EPA proposed methods of treatment
for certain classes of characteristic
wastes. There are several advantages to
specifying a method of treatment First.
EPA may not have enough data to set a
level of treatment In such cases, a
methQd can still fulfill the purposes of
3004(m) by providing for treatment.
Seconds analytic methods may not exist
to measure key constituents in a
prohibited waste, In which case
designation of a method Is the only way
to ensure treatment Third. a method
may treat other constjtuents beyond
those addressed by the specific
characteristic. Finally, specifying a
method may preclude other treatment
alternatives which the Agency believes
create other risks to the environment.
For example. some wastewater
treatment systems remove volatile
organics from the wastestrearns simply
by venting these volatiles to the
atmosphere. However, there are two
disadvantages to specifying methods of
treatment (1) It may preclude the use of
alternative methods or development of
aflernatives that are cost-effective and
consistent with Agency objectives; and
(2) It establish a national requirement
that may not be appropriate for a
variety of case-specific applications. For
these reasons, EPA must consider
carefully a decision to rely on methods
of treatment.
In today’s rulemaking. EPA is
cpecifying incineration or fuel
substitution for ignitable characteristic
wastes with high levels of total organic
carbon (TOC). The TOC content of these
wastes serves as an indicator of high
concentrations of hazardous
constituents which Incineration will
destroy. See. e.g., Senator Chaffee’s
floor statement introducing the
amendment that became section
3004(m): “for wastes with a high organic
content, Incineration should be required
in lieu of land dlsposil.” 130 Cong. Rec.
59179 Quly 25,1984).
b. Regulatory Problems. To have any
practical effect. methods of treatment
must generally attach at the point of
generation. EPA does not believe.
however, that this requirement will be
difficult to Implement in this rule
because a limited number of
characteristic wastes are affected. EPA
is also somewhat limiting the
circumstances under which the methods
would apply to avoid certain regulatory
integration problems with the SDWA
program regulating underground
injection wells. However, as discussed
below, the requirement to incinerate
these wastes Is entirely consistent with
and promoting of the objectives of the
CWA. Accordingly. EPA believes the
benefits of incineration of certain
categories of characteristic waste
outweigh any limited regulatory
problems under the CWA.
5. General Dilution Prohibition
a. Environmental Considerations.
Dilution rules are intended to prohibit
dilution in lieu of treatment and to
ensure that wastes are treated In
appropriate ways. As discussed In the
preamble sections on treatment .of
characteristic wastes, EPA believes the
mixing of waste streams to eliminate
certain characteristic Is appropriate
treatment for most wastes which are
purely corrosive, or In some cases.
reactive or Ignitable. As a general
matter, these are properties which can
effectively be removed by mixing. On
the other hand, simple dilution is not
effective treatment for toxic
constituents. Dilution does not itself
remove or treat any toxic constituent
from the waste. Accordingly, EPA
believes that a dilution prohibition for
characteristic wastes Is important for
purposes of the treatment requirements
and carries a significant benefit.
The dilution rules will help jninimize
hazardous constituents that are
currently disposed under both the RCRA
subtitle C and D programs. Although
few data on specific health and
environmental Impacts resulting from
subtitle D facilities are available, the
large volume of waste and number of
facilities involved present concerns
about actual and potential threats.
Based on a 1984 study, EPA estimated
that there were 7.8 billion tons of
Industrial nonhazardous waste disposed
in approximately 28,000 indu trlal solid
waste and disposal facilities. More than
half of these facilities were surface
impoundments . which create concerns
because of the mobility and physical
driving force of liquids in Impoundments
and the current limited use of design
controls. Study results indicated only
sporadic use of design and operating
controls at industrial solid waste
landfills, and surface imppundments,
with gnly 12 percent and 22 percent.
respectively, employing any type of liner
system. (53 FR 33320, August 30, 1988).
Study findings also reveal that few of
these facilities have monitoring systems.
and only 35 percent were inspected by
States in 1984, the latest year for which
data are available. The present
inspection status is unknown. Limited
data on violations of State requirements.
coupled with these statistics on design
and operating controls, suggest that
releases may be.occurring (53 FR 33320,
August 30, 1988). As discussed below.
EPA believes this is an area where the
environmental benefits Imposing a
prohibition on characteristic wastes at
the point of generation outweigh the
problems In integrating other regulatory
programs.
b. Regulatory Problems. As discussed
below, the LDS dilution prohibition
could have a significant disruptive effect
on practices regulated. in part. by
programs under the CWA and SDWA.
EPA generally agrees with the many
comments regarding impacts on these
programs. In harmonizing or reconciling
the general need for a dilution
prohibition with the need to avoid these
disruptive impacts. EPA believes it is
appropriate to exempt certain practices
from the dilution prohibition. These
practices and the rationale for the
exemptions are described in the sections
that follow.
EPA does not believe these same
regulatory problems apply to the
program far disposal of other waste
under subtitle D of RCRA. Subtitle D
establishes a framework for Federal.
State, and local government cooperation
in controlling the management of
nonhazardous solid waste. The Federal
role In this arrangement is to establish
the overall regulatory direction, to
provide minimum standards for
protecting human health and the
environment, and to provide technical
assistance to States for planning and
developing environmentally sound
waste management practices. The actu .
planning and direct implementation of
-------
Federal Register I Vol 55. No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22657
solid waste programs under subtitle D,
however, remain State and local
functions. Most States Impose some set
of overall facility performance
standards; however, among the States,
specific design and operating standards
vary greatly.
Under the authority of sections
1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) of RCRA, EPA
promulgated the “Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices” (40 CFR part
257), and subsequently Issued minor
modifications to these Criteria. These
Subtitle D Criteria establish minimum
national performance standards
necessary to ensure that ‘no reasonable
probability of adverse effects on health
or the environment” will result from -
solid waste disposal facilities or
practices. The existing Part 257 Criteria
Include general environmental
performance standards addressing eight
major topics: floodplains. endangered
species, surface water, ground water,
land application, disease, air, and
safety. Currently, EPA does not have the
authority to enforce these criteria
directly.
EPA does not believe this regulatory
framework Is at all similar to those
under the CWA and SDWA which, as
discussed below, the Agency is
excluding from the LDR dilution rules.
Specifically, there are limited federal
regulatory, implementation or -
enforcement provisions that would
require integration. (This is not the case,
Incidentlally If treatment standards are
established below characteristic levels.)
In that case, the subtitle D facility would
necessarily be involved in the
Implementation and enforcement of the
prohibitions. Accordingly. EPA Is
codifying the general dilution
prohibition for characteristic wastes
with certain exceptions.
6. Exemption to Dilution Prohibition for
Characteristic Wastes Treated for
Purposes of Certain CWA Programs
a. Introduction. For listed wastes,
there are generally no overlapping CWA
and RCRA treatment requirements for
wastewater ultimately discharged to a
water of the United States or POTW.
5 Westewater which contaln a listed haxardoua
waste and Ii ultimately discharged to waters of the
United States under an NPDES permit pursuant to
section 4 of the CWA or to a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (P01W) pursuant to section 3W
of the CWA Is not ordInarily subject to the land
disposal prohibitions for several reasons. Flr t, to
many situations, the wastewater I. managed in
tanks poor to discharge and, thus. there Is no
placement in a Land disposal unit. Second. even
where a surface impoundment is used to freat
hazardous waste prior to discharge such surface
lmpoundmsnts may satisfy the requirements of
section 30051J)(11) of RCRA in lieu of meeting
(Of course, sludges or other residues
from NPDES treatment trains which are
subsequently land disposed are subject
to the land disposal restriction
provisions.) Some of these facilities,
however, generate waste which exhibits
a hazardous characteristic but after
mixing with other waste streams ceases
to exhibit that characteris c prior to
placement in a subtitleD surface
Impoundment which Is part of the
wastewater treatment train. These
surface impoundments are land disposal
units for purposes of LDR prohibitions.
The practice of mixing could thus trigger
LDR dilution rules. EPA received many
comments that the proposed RQ A
dilution prohibition for wastewater
going Into these Impoundments could
undermine the ability of these operators
to use nonhazardous waste surface
Impoundments as part of their NPDES
treatment train. ’ 4 This impact would
occur despite the fact that further
treatment would occur In the
Impoundment to remove constituents
from the wa8tewater prior to discharge
to waters of the United States or to a
POTW. These commenters further
argued that application of such RCRA
rules to wastew ters alreadyrequired to.
be treated under CWA requirements
would be undul ’ confusing and
duplicative.
b. Envirt,ninental Considerations. As
discussed below, the NPDES program
has a series of technology-based
requirements for the treatment of
wastewater prior to discharge to waters
of the United States. See 33 U.S.C. 1314
and 40 CFR Parts 400-471. These
requirements provide for treatment of
wastewaters prior to discharge. Indeed.
many of the LDR treatment standards
are based on data used to set the CWA
standards. Thus, EPA believes the
overlap of an LDR dilution prohibition
where an NPDES treatment train
Includes a nonhazardous treatment
Impoundment would not substantially
further the treatment goals of the land
disposal restrictions.
c. Regulatory Problems. The
regulatory overlap of similar but not
identical dilution rules would create
significant regulatory disruption. Section
1006(b) of RCRA provides EPA the
section 30041 ci ) eatment standards. See 288.4.
Section 3005U)(1i) requires an impoundment to meet
certain design requirements set out In section
3004(o)(1) of RCRA and be dredged annually to
remove residues.
“As noted above, appiying WR requirements at
a point of generatloo would require a facility either
to (1) ireat the waste poor to placement in the
surface unpoundment (2) obtain a “no migration
variance. (3) comply with section 3005{j)(i1): or (4)
Install tank tiaatment instead of using surface
impoundments.
authority to consider these Integration
problems and set requirements that are
consistent with the goals and policies of
the CWA and RCRA. Many of the
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards, including all of those
reflecting mass-based limits and
standards, have factored in controls on
dilution. In addition. NPDES permit
writers can set requirements which
reflect the nature of the treatment
process. Including best management
practices, mass limitations in Lieu of
concentration based limitations,
adjustments to reflect pollutants in
Intake water, and conditions on internal
waste streams. 40 CFR 122.44(k]; 122.45
(f). (g) and (h). Indirect dischargers are
also subject to specific CWA dilution
rules In both the general pretreatment
rules and the Combined Wastestream. -
Formula (as well as though many the
categorical standards). 40 CFR 403.6 (d)
and (e).
In this case, the general treatment
requirements and associated dilution
rules undef the CWA are generally
consistent with the similar requirecients
under RCRA. Relying on the existing
CWA provisions is. thus, consistent with
the goals of both Acts and avoids
unnecessary duplication and potentially
conflicting requirements.
EPA also believes, however, that
where the Agency has established a
method of treatment, and where
applica’tion of that method is consistent
with and promotes the objectives of the
CWA program, then the dilution
prohibitIon should apply to make it
impermissible to dilute these wastes to
avoid treating them by the designated
treatment method. This group Includes
the ignitable nonwastawaters containing
greater than 10% total organic carbon
(TOC). The treatment methods for these
wastes is incineration or. In the case of
the ignitable waste, fuel substitution.
Prohibiting dilution to require the
specified method is entirely consistent
with the regulatory framework for the
CWA programs. The high TOC ignitable
wastes, in particular, are inappropriate
for wastewater treatment systems as the
high TOC levels would overwhelm the
capacity for most biological treatment
systems. In addition, EPA believes there
are few reniauung pesticide wastes
designated as D012—17, Thus, this
requirement should have minimum
impact on CWA systems. Accordingly.
the exemption from the dilution
prohibition for CWA systems is not an
exemption for the requirement to follow
specific methods of treatment.
-------
226
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1900 / Rules and Regulations
7. Exemption from LDR Prohibitions for
Characteristic Wastes Disposed Below
Characteristic Levels In Wells Regulated
under the SDWA
a. Introduction. EPA has set out a
regulatory program under sectIons 1421.
1422, and 1425 of the SDWA which
contains “nilnimum requirements for
effective programs to prevent
underground Injection which endangers
drinking water sources.” 42 US.C.
300h(b)(1). Class I deep wells Inject
below the lowermost geologic formation
containing an underground source of
drinking water (USDW). 40 CFR
144.8(a). These wells are subject to
location, construction. and operating
requirements set out at 40 CFR parts 144
and 146. In addition. EPA may authorize
states to administer the UIC program. 40
CFR parts 145 and 147. There are
approximately 400 such wells currently
injecting only nonhazardous waste.
The large facilities that have these
wells often mix waste streams and
through this mixing remove the
characteristic prior to disposaL A
dilution prohibItion would require
restructuring of these facilities.
Alternatively, the facilities could apply
for a “no migration” variance under 40
CFR part 148.
b. Envimnientøi Considerations.
LDR dihitlon rules for wastes currently
disposed of below the characteristic
levels in IJIC wells would be limited to
toxic wastes. As discussed below. EPA
Is generally providing that treatment of
Ignitable . corrosive or reactive
wastewater may be accomplished
simply by removing the characteristic.
This could be accomplished by mixing.
çrhere are a few exceptions discussed in
the specific discussion on treatment
standards.) These gineral standards are
based on EPA’s technical evaluation of
appropriate treatment for purposes of
3004(m) regardless of the disposal
scenario. Thus. for these particular
characteristic wastes, the application of
the part Z68 dilution prohibition to
operators of nonhazardous waste
Injection wells would not require any
additional treatment beyond what is
already occurring. Moreover, there is a
very limited amount of the pesticide
wastes D012—17, and EPA Is unaware of
deepwell injection practices for these
wastes. Thug, the characteristic wastes
of concern for UIC wells in this rule are
those that exhibit the characteristic of
EP toxicity for metals at the point of
generation.
11 A USDW ii defined to include aqulfera
containIng watera with up to 10.000 milllgrema per
liter ( “mg/Il of total dissolved solids ( “TDS 1. 40
FRi44.3.
EPA believes that the application of
dilution rules to these waste&would not
further minimize threats to human
health and the environment
Specifically, EPA believes that disposal
of these metals by underground injection
at the characteristic level Is as sound as
the treatment option. Native formation
fluids In injection zones already contain
substantial concentrations of these
metals. The addition of more metal-
bearing fluid below characteristic levels
would not appreciably alter these
concentrations. Moreover, the
propensity of such metals to adhere to
and, thereby, generally stay contained In
the injection zones makes the practice of
deep well disposal of such constituents
an environmentally sound one. The
example of Immobilizing heavy metals
in a unit Is also noted In the legislative
history. ’ 6 In addition. as discussed
below, there Is a significant body of
information that EPA has received from
the petition process under 40 CFR part
148 concerning the containment
properties of injection zones for dilute
levels of the wider range of toxic
constituents. This data supports the
containment properties of these
injection zones.
c, Regulatory Problems. There would
be significant regulatory problems from
application of a dilution prohibition to
this. category of facilities. If such a -
prohibition were to apply, many well
operators would seek a “no migration”
variance for their wells. EPA considers
such wells likely candidates to be
granted variances. Currently. however.
EPA Is processing variances for
hazardous waste injection wells and is
not processing variances for
nonhazardous wells.
Hazardous waste injection is
specifically subject to RCRA s land
disposal restrictions. RCRA section 3004
(f), (g) and (k). Approximately 85 of
these facilities have submitted petitions
to obtain “no migration” variances from
the LDR treatment requirements as
provided for in 40 CFR part 148. EPA has
proposed to grant 15 such variances, has
granted 12, and anticipates that many
other petitions will be both proposed
and granted for underground injection.
Thus, as a general matter, EPA believes
the practice of deep well injection can
be a protective practice within the
framework of the land disposal
restrictions rule. The petition process.
however, has been very time consuming
ii “Another example of a potentially acceptable
land eatment situation involves wastes containing
heavy metals. Although land eatment does not
render the waste nonhazerdoua. a prohibition would
not be necessary if there is long-term certainty that
the hazardous constituents would be Immobilized”
H. Rep. No. 188 at 34.
and resource Intensive. In adthtio the
process has Involved a high degree of
coordination with states that are
authorized to administer the UIC permit
program.
EPA experience with the “no
migration” petition process indicates
that many nonhazardous deep wells
could probably qualify for a “no
migration” variance under 40 CFR part
148. However, operators of
nonhazardous waste wells have not had
reason to believe that their operations
would be subject to the land disposal
restrictions and have not submitted
variance petitions. Moreover, EPA is not
convinced that the Part 148 regulations
would be appropriate for nonhazardous
waste wells. The goal of the SDWA
regulations for deep well Injection is
containment of the wastes in an
injection zone. This goal Is consistent
with the protectiveness goals behind the
“no migration” variance under RCRA.
There are no documented problems with
the effectiveness of the IJIC regulations.
Moreover, even where the practice
involved disposal of hazardous waste,
Congress fashioned statutory provisions
in RCRA which reflect the view that
there is more certainty concerning the
safety of the deep well disposal practice
than surface disposal practices. For
example. RCRA sections 3004(c) and
3019(b) ban both landfluing of liquid
hazardous waste and underground
injection of hazardous waste into or
above USDWs. RCRA provisions
regarding deep well injection of
hazardous waste, however, provided for
further EPA review of this method of
land disposal and allow for variances
from the statutory prohibition. RCRA
section 3004 (f) and (g). The legislative
- history of the 1984 Amendments also
state that “underground injection of
hazardous waste can be safe
environmental technology,” Statement
of Senator Bentsen, 129 Cong. Rec. S9153
(daily ed. July 25. 1983), and envisioned
that compliance with the then-existing
underground injection control
r gulations could be sufficient to justify
continued operation. Id. Through the
Part 148 petitions. EPA has gamed
further knowledge concerning the
critical issues determining the safety of
the practice. In general, where the
SDWA regulations are followed,
Injection of dilute amounts of toxic
constituents Is safe. Where injection is
of waste below the characteristic level
the injection zone will appropriately
contam these hazardous constituents in
a properly operating injection well.
Accordingly, if EPA were to apply a
dilution prohibition to nonhazardous
wells at this time, there would be
-------
Federal RegIster I VoL 55, No. 106 I FrIday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
2265)
considerable disruption at facilities that
EPA generally considers safe. On
balance, EPA believes it Is appropriate
to exempt from the LDR prohibitions
characteristic waste disposed below the
characteristic level In these wells.
& Implementation of Requirements for
Characteristic Wastes
In todays final reIe the Agency is
promulgating several new provisions
concerning Implementation of the land
disposal resfrictlons for characteristic
wastes. Specifically, the Agency is
amendIng 40 CFR 288.7 and adding 40
CFR 288.9 to incorporate recordkeeping
requirements and special rules for
characteristic wastes, and is revising the
current regulations In parts 281 and 262
regarding the Identification and
management of wastes that exhibit a
characteristic. In addition, the Agency is
clarifying which requirements apply
during the period of a national capacity
variance both to wastes that a±e
prohibited on the basis of exhibiting a
characteristic only, and to wastes that
have applicable treatment standards as
both listed and characteristic wastes.
FInally, the Agency is clarifying whether
to apply the TCLP or EP ana1 yt1caI
methods to verify compliance with the
treatment standards. - -
t Overlap of Treatment SIandard for
Listed Wastes that also Exhibit a
Characteristic
The Agency Is today promulgating its
proposed approach with respect to
determining applicable treatment
standards for wastes that carry more
than one waste code.
(1) For wastes that carry more than
one characteristic waste code, the waste
must be treated to meet the treatment
standard for each characteristic.
(2) Ifs listed waste also exhibits one
or more hazardous characteristics, the
waste must be treated to meet the
treatment standard for each of the waste
codes with one exception. Under that
exception, If the relevant constituents or
narrative characteristics are specifically
addressed in the treatment standard for
the listed waste, then the standard for
the listed waste operates in lieu of the
standard for the relevant
characteristic(s).
- - One comnienter suggested that EPA
should require treatment ln compliance
with the most stringent treatment
standard rather than the most waste-
specific treatment standard. The Agency
disagrees, and EPA is following the
general principle set out In previous
rulemaldngs that the more specific
treatment standard takes precedence.
This is the principle EPA adopted with
respect to California list wastes that are
covered by another treatment standard.
an analogous situation. See 52 FR 25773
and 25776 UuIy 8,1987). At the same
time, when a listed waste exhibits a
characteristic that Is not addressed by
the listed waste’s treatment standard.
EPA believes It Is necessary for that
characteristic to be treated to meet the
characteristic treatment standard.
The Agency received several
comments Indicating that subjecting
listed wastes to treatment standards for
characteristics is a major shift in the
current regulatory program. As stated in
the proposed r le, the Agency believes
that to ignore the characteristic would
mean that the Third Third prohibition
for that characteristic is being Ignored.
and that with respect to that constituent.
the waste’s toxicity or mobility is either
not being reduced or not being
mlnlmi,ed. Since this outcome would
satisfy neither the statutory language
nor Its policy. EPA Is requiring
treatment As with the California list
wastes, EPA is applying this principle at
the point of generation, since otherwise
the treatment standard for the
characteristic constituent could be
Ignored by removing the characteristic.
EPA is consequently promulgating new
requirements in 268.9 (b) and (c) as
proposed.
EPA Is further promulgating
provisions specifying that disposal of a
waste which at the point of disposal
exhibits a characteristic is prohibited
unless the treatment standard for that
characteristic component is above the
characteristic leveL This approach is
again essentially the same as that which
EPA adopted for the analogous situation
involving California list wastes (see 52
FR 25787), and Is needed to ensure that
the statutory prohibition against
disposal of characteristic hazardous
wastes is not violated.
2. Revisions to Waste Identification
Requirements
A consequence of the Agency’s
Interpretation that the prohibition for
characteristic wastes can apply
concurrently to wastes that also are
listed is a change in the Initial
determination that a generstor must
make pursuant to I 282.11. That section
presently sets out an either/or scheme
where if the generator determines that a
waste is listed, the generato; does not
need to determine whether the waste
exhibits a characteristic (40 CFR 282.11
(b) and (c)). For purposes of compliance
with part 288, however, the generator
would need to know if the waste
exhibits a characteristic, even if the
waste Is listed, because further
treatment of the waste is required if the
treatment standard for the listed waste
does not address the characteristic
property. Consequently. EPA Is
amending section 262.11 to indicate that
generators must determine whether
listed wastes also exhibit characteristics
of hazardous waste for purposes of
compliance with part 288.
In addition, 281.21—281.24 indicate
that wastes that exhibit the respective
characteristics and are not listed have
the designations D00i—D017. However.
as discussed above, generators (and
other handlers) will need to know both
the listed waste code and the
characteristic waste code in the event a
listed waste also exhibits a
characteristic which is not addressed by
the treatment standard for the listed
waste. EPA is consequently amending
the language in these sections to
indicate that wastes that carry
characteristic waste codes may alsotu
listed wastes.
3. Wastes Subject to a Capacity
Variance
RCRA section 3004(h)(4) states that
during periods of national capacity
variances and case-by-case extensions.
hazardous wastes subject to those
extensions that are disposed in landfills
and surface impoundments may only be
disposed.of if the landfill or surface
impoundment is in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements of
section 3004(o). EPA has interpreted this
language to mean that the landfill or
impoundment unit receiving such wastes
must be in compliance with the
minimum technological requirements.
§ 268.5(h)(2), and this interpretation was
sustained in Mobil Oil v. EPA. 871 F. 2d
149 (D.C. dr. 1989).
Under the present rule, it Is possible
for prohibited characteristic wastes
sub ject to a national capacity ariance
to become nonhazardous. For example,
certain D009 mercury wastes are subject
to a two-year national capacity
variance. If. during the period of the
variance, such a waste was treated to be
nonhazardous by a means other than
retorting and was disposed of n a
landfill or surface impoundment,
arguably the landfill or impoundment
unit would have to meet the minimum
technological requirements.
EPA does not read the statute or the
rules this way. Rather, section 3004(h)(4)
only requires compliance “with the
requirements of subsection (o).” Section
3004(o). In turn, only applies to units
subject to Subtitle C. See also
I 268.5(h)(2), which likewise imposes
minimwn technological requirements
only on landfill and impoundment units
that are permitted or that have interim
status. Consequently. EPA dop not
-------
22660
Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Interpret these provisions as requiring
subtitle D landfill and surface
impoundment units receiving prohibited
wastes during a national capacity
variance to have to satisfy the minimum
technological requirements.
Finally, for wastes that are subject to
more than one treatment standard, the
Agency Is ctarifylng that during the
period of a national capacity variance
for one of the wastes, the treatment
standards for any otherwaste codes
that have not received such a variance
must be met. For example, If a 1(048
nonwastewater also exhibits the
characteristic for chromium, the waste
has a six-month capacity extensfon as a
1(048 listed waste, but no capacity
extension as a DOW characteristic
waste. Therefore, at a minimum, the
waste must be treated to meet the
treatment standard for D007 (and any
other applicable characteristic treatment
standard) prior to land disposaL This
requirement Is consistent with the
Agency’s approach In previous
rulemakings is which it stated that In
setting the treatment standard. the
Agency is making a more waste-specific
detei natlon: however, this
determination is not effective until the
capacity variance ends. Because -
capacity exists to- treat the characteristic
waste, the characteristic treatment
standards still apply. and the 1(048
waste must meet the prohibitions for
characteristic wastes. The 1(048
treatment standard would then become
applicable when the national capacity
ariance expires. See 53 FR 31188.
Furthermore, if such listed!
characteristic wastes have been treated
so that they no longer exhibit any
characteristic and are to-be disposed of
on a surface impoundment or landfill,
the unit must meet the minimum
technology requirements set out in
section 3i)04(o) . as required for listed
wastes during the period of a national
capacity variance.
4. Use of TCLP v. EP Analydcal Methods
for Compliance
The Agency proposed two
alternatives in the proposed rule, that
treatment standards for characteristic
wastes either be a numerical standard
(typically lower then the characteristic
level) or be established at “the
characteristic leveL” See. e.g... 54 FR
484:30/3.11 the latter alternative were
adopted. the Agency did not specify
whether the characteristic level would
be measured by the EP test or by the
TCLP. The Agency did indicate in a
somewhat different context, however,
that It sfron 1y prefers to use the TCLP
to measure compliance wherever
possible Id. at 48432/3.
As stated in section ffl.D of today’s
preamble. EPA La establishing treatn ent
standards for most characteristic wastes
at the characteristic leveL The Agency
has determined that this level should be
measured by the TCLP. This Is the
protocol that large quantity generators
will use to assess the toxicity of their
wastes starting on September 25.1990
and small quantity generators will begin
using on March 29,1991. It Is also the
protocol used to measure the efficacy of
stabilization or other Immobilization
treatment in most of the BDAT
standards. Most of the data submitted In
response to the Agency’s proposal were
based on the TCLP to measure treatment
performance. and these data indicate
(with a few exceptions) that treatment
to the characteristic level, as measured
by the TCLP, Is achievable. (These data,
Incidentally, were available for reply
comments. and the Agency received
dozens of reply comments on the data.)
Furthermore, if EPA were to establish
the EP as the protocol to measure
compliance with metal standards, then
regulated entities would have to subject
many wastes to both the EP (for
purposes of land disposal restriction
compliance) and the TCLP (for waste
Identification purposes). The Agency
prefers not to impose this type of
duplicative burden. Accordingly, the
Agency Is adopting the TCLP as the
means of measuring compliance with the
metal standards for toxic characteristic
Third Third waster in this rule, with two
exceptions. For lead characteristic
nonwastewaters and all
nonwastewaters containing arsenic as
the primary hazardous constituent (Le..
D004 , 1(031.1(084, KiOl., 1(102. Polo.
POll, P012, P03 8 . P038, and U136), the
Agency is specifying that if a waste does
not achieve the nonwastewater
standard based on analysis of a TCLP
extract but does achieve the standard
based on analysis of an EP extract, the
waste is in compliance with the
standard. The Agency Is taking this
action because the performance data
used to develop the treatment standards
for these wastes were based on EP
toxicity leachata data. A more detailed
discussion is provided In section flLA of
today’s preamble.
5. Newly Identified TC Wastes
There is one final Interpretive point
dealing with the interplay of the EP and
the new TCLP. EPA interprets the
statute such that wastes that exhibit the
toxicity characteristic by the TCLP but
not the EP are not presently prohibited.
even if the constituent causing the waste
to exhibit the TCLP is also a constituent
controlled by the EP. This Is because
such wastes are newly identified
• pursuant to RCBA section 3O04(g 4)
they were Identified as hazardous after
November?. 1984.
6. Further Principles Governing
Applicability
a. Other Statzzlorj Exemptions or
Exclusions. The’ Issues in this
rulemaking concerning when hazardous
wastes become prohibited from land
disposal does not change the status of
other regulatory or statutory Inclusions
or exclusions to the definition of solid or
hazardous waste found at 40 CFR 251.2-
.8. These provisions can override the
LDR point of generation evaluation to
keep wastes from being prohibited and
subject to a dilution prohibition or
treatment standard. This result is
cpnsistent with EPA’s existing
regulation at 40 CFR 288.1.
EPA believes that different legal and
policy considerations under exclusions
from the statutory and regulatory
definitions of solid waste and hazarddus
waste require an evaluation of the
status of the waste at the point of
disposal. Generally, these exclusions
address the status of the waste without
regard to a particular constituent
concentration, and thus do not involve
Issues of treatment levels or dilution.
EPA has not fully analyzed these
exclusions and. in the absence of
specific justification, will continue to
provide exclusions from the land
disposal restrictions for waste excluded
from the de n.ition of hazardous or solid
waste under 40 CFR 2612—6.
For example. solid waste does not
include solid or dissolved material in
domestic sewage. RCRA section
1004(27). EPA regulations further
provide that any mixture of domestic
sewage and other waste that passes
through a sewer system to a Publicly
Owned Treatment Work, (POTW) for
treatment is not solid waste. 40 CFR
2&14(aJ(1). Thus. even if a waste is
hazardous at the point of generation. the
- domestic sewage exclusion would allow
land disposal of the solid waste at the
PbTW without meeting treatment
standards under section 3004(m)
(assuming that there is no land disposal
of the waste before it becomes subject
to the domestic sewage exclusion).
b. Restricted Wustes Versus
Prohibited Wc.stes. Consistent with the
cradle-to-grave mandate of RCRA’s land
disposal restrictions, those wr io manage
hazardous waste will need to assess -
what LDR prohibitions apply at different
points in the waste management
process. First. generators of restricted
wastes must assess whether the waste
Is prohibited wider the LDR. Restricted
waste is defined by several conditions.
-------
Federal Register I Vol 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22661
See 51 FR at 40819—40632 (November 7,
1988); 54 FR 38967, 38968 (Sept 6, 1989).
As discussed above, however, certain
statutory exemptions that would be
evaluated at the point of land disposal
may apply to restricted wastes.
Moreover, during either a national
capacity variance under section
3004(h)(2) or a case-by-case variance
under section 3004(h)(3), disposal of
certain restricted wastes Into certain
units would not be prohibited. Also,
placement of waste in a “no migration”
unit Is not prohibited land disposal, nor
Is placement in an Impoundment in
compliance with 40 CFR 268.4. In
addition, there are situations where
waste in managed in a way which
results in no land disposaL EPA outlined
which LDR prohibitions attach to wastes
managed under each one of the above
scenarios in 54 FR 36967, 36968
(September 6, 1989).
c. Changes in Treatabilliy Groups
The question of whether a given waste
Is going to prohibited land disposal Is
complicated by the fact that wastes may
change form or treatability groups after
undergoing treatment For example,
treatment of a wastewater often
generates a nonwastewater sludge as
well as a treated wastewater. Also,
incineration of a nonwastewater can
generate a nonwastewater (ash) as well
as a wastewater (scrubber water). (A
treatabifity group is defined both in
terms of the applicable waste code and -
the form the waste Is In.) The specific
problem addressed here, which occurs
mo8t often with respect to characteristic
wastes, Is the effect that changes in
treatabiity groups have on the initial
status of a waste as prohibited or non-
prohibited.
First, by way of background, the part
148 and 268 regulations generally divide
the universe of wastes potentially
subject to land disposal prohibitions
into two broad categories: wastewaters
and nonwastewaters. For purposes of
the LDR program. “wastewatera” are
generally defined to have less than 1%
total organic carbon (TOC) and less
than 1% total suspended solids. Any
other waste stream is deemed a
nonwastewater. (There are certain
enumerated exceptions from certain
wastes such as F0O1—F005 solvents, and
1(011.1(013. and 1(014 acrylonitrile
wastes. See generally § 288.2 in today’s
rule, incorporating the various
regulatory definitions.) Part 268 provides
for different treatment standards for
these two broad categories of waste.
The standards may also have different
effective dates because of national
capacity variances. Treatment
standards for listed wastes apply to the
waste as generated as well as to all of
the residual wastes that are generated in
treating the original prohibited waste.
See 53 FR 31138,31145 (August 17. 1988).
However, when EPA specifies a
treatment method as the treatment
standard, residues resulting from the
required treatment method are no longer
prohibited from land disposal (unless
EPA should specify other requirements).
54 FR 28594. 28624. 28830 (June 23,
1989) 17
A change in treatabllfty group during
the waste management process can
affect whether the waste prior to the
change in treatability groups is subject
to certain LDR requirements. The
follo ting rules are important to
understand this point. First, if a
treatabthty group, and treatment
residues In the same treatability group,
is not going to prohibited land disposal.
then neither the original waste nor the
residue is subject to the treatment
standards or to the dilution prohibition.
As a corollary, wIste is prohibited if the
treatability group, or residues from the
same treatability group is land disposed.
This Interpretation provides a clear line
of demarcation, avoids the enormous
difficulties of determining new points of
generation every time a hazardous
waste Is altered in some respect and
avoids having an initial waste’s status
as prohibited determined in all cases by
some later management of a residue
derived from the initial waste.
d. Examples. Several examples will be
useful to help clarify this point.
Example 1. Listed wastewater A is
treated In a tank that yields two residue
streams: nonwastewater residue B and
wastewater residue C. The
nonwastewater residue is land disposed
and the wastewater residue is
discharged pursuant to an NPIDES
permit without being land disposed.
Only nonwastewater residue B is
going to prohibited land disposal.
Moreover, residue B is a newly
generated hazardous waste belonging to
a different treatability group than the
original waste. See 53 FR 31209 52 FR
25667 coL 1 (July 8, 1987). The original
hazardous wastewater A i a restricted
waste, but not prohibited, and so is not
subject to the dilution prohibition in 40
CFR 288,3 or any treatment standard
under part 268. Was tewater residue C
“A facility Is not allowed to dilute or perform
parthi eathent on a waste in order to switch the
applicability of a nonwastewater standard to a
waatewater standard or vice versa. See 52 PR 21012
(June 4. 1981) but see 52 FR 23787 (June 8 . 1987)
noting special circumstance, when California hat
wastes are Involved. Dewataring technologies (auth
as filtration and centnfugatlonj that are desi ied to
separate waatewater from nonwa ,tewater - . not
prohibited.
also is a restricted waste (due to the
“derived from nile” it carries the same
hazardous waste code under 40 CFR
part 281 as the original waste A). but it
is not a prohibited waste because the
wastewater freatability group is not
going to prohibited land disposaL
Example £ Listed nonwastewater D is
treated to yield two nonwastewater
residues E and F (which carry the same
waste code as D based on the derived
from rule). Residue E is incinerated arid
the ash Is land disposed, residue F Is
directly reused as a substitute for a
commercial chemical product In this
case, nonwastewaters D and E are
subject to treatment standards and the
dilution prohibition. EPA does not want
imperrnissible dilution of
nonwastewater D to be the reason that
the nonwastewater residue E meets tim
BDAT level. Thus, since there is no
change in treatability group between the
original point of generation and land
disposal for one residue of the original
waste D the part 268 prohibitions apply.
However, residue F Is not a prohibited
waste because the definition of solid
waste excludes secondary materials
that are directly reused as substitutes
for commercial chemical products.
As illustrated by the above examples.
a unit treatment operation can be a
point of generation for certain
treatabthty groups. To assess what
prohibitions apply, one must first
determine whether any residues of the
listed waste go to prohibited land
disposal. If no residues are land
disposed then part 288 treatment
requirements do not apply. If one or
more residues are placed in prohibited
land disposal, the dilution prohibition
applies between the point of land
disposal and the point that a given
treatability group first exists. In example
1. that point is immediately after the
tank treatment operation. In example 2,
that point is the original point of
generation for nonwastewater D.
The rules regarding treatability groups
apply similarly to characteristic wastes.
The fact that a waste loses its
hazardous characteristic at some point
prior to land disposal does not
constitute a change in treatability group.
The fact that the derived from rule does
not apply to characteristic wastes is
Irrelevant because the derived from rule
only affects hazardous waste status, not
treatability group determination (which
is a function of physical form). To
determine if a characteristic waste is
prohibited, the decision is still made
based on whether the waste or any
residue in the same eatability group Is
destined for land disposal. This
approach is necessary to assure that this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
level was met by treatment and not by
dilution. The following example helps
illustrate this decision nile.
Exomple& Wastewaterj Is El’ toxic
for lead. It Is treated in a tank and
genera tea a sludge K. that Is non-
hazardous. The treated wastewaim’ I.,
which no longer exhibits a
characteristic, L then sent to a surface
Impoundment for further treatm -”t. after
which It Is discharged under on NPDES-
permit. The sludge Is sent to a landfill.
The sludge K Is not a restricted
hazardous waste, notwithstanding that
it derives from treatment of a
characteristic hazardous waste. This Is
because it is a new treatability group
which is not hazardous at point of
generation. The status of wastewaters J
and I. is determined by the special rules
for characteristic wastes managed in
CWA systems; therefore, they are
- prohlbkted wastes but are not subject to
a dilution prohibition. Since wastewater
L meets the treatment standard when It
is land disposed. the disposal is legaL
Exiirnple 4. Electroplating wastewater
M which exhibits a hazardous
characteristic, is treated in a tank to
yield a treated wastewater N and a
nonwastewater sludge 0. The treated
wastewater N. which no longer exhibits
a hazardous characteristic, is discharged
into a Class I injection well and the
sludge is sent to a landfill. -
In this example, neither wastewater M
corN is a prohibited waste due to the
special rules for wastes managed in
Class I Injection wells subject to the
SDWA. Sludge 0 Is a newly generated
waste that meets the listing description
for EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006,
Sludge 0 is a prohibited waste because
this nonwastewater is destined for
placement In a land disposal unit
Example £ An EP toxic wastewater
slude P Ia dews tered to yield a
nonwastewater sludge Q which is
toxic and now exceeds the California
list level for lead. Also, a wastewater R
is generated which exhibitS a hazardous
characteristic. The sludge is sent to a
landfill and the wastewater R is mixed
with domestic sewage and sent through
a sewer system to a P01W.
Both sludges P and Q are prohibited
wastes because Q Is sent to land
disposal and P i in the same treatability
group as Q. Note that during a
(hypothetical) national capacity
variance for the lead characteristic
treatment standard. Qmust comply with
the California list standard for lead.
Wastewa tar R Is a restricted waste, but
not a prohibited waste because it is
covered by a 281.4 exclusion from the
definition of solid waste.
In conclusion, it should be noted that
the previous discussion applies In
determining when prohibitions attach.
The Issue of what administratIve
requirements apply by virtue of a waste
being restricted Is discussed elsewhere
In this preamble.
F. A.tnended T ’ocking System for
Characteristic Prohibited Wastes
EPA’, decisions concerning
characteristic wastes necessitate certain
modifications of the tracking provisions
contained In 268.7. See 54 FR 48491
and 48492 (requestIng wmmeflt on this
point). This section of the preamble
outlines the modifications the Agency is
making to the existing rides, and
clarifies certain points regarding the
rules’ applicability to listed wastes as
well as to characteristic wastes. The
Agency Is also amending one of the
certification provisions that presently
fails to mention compliance with the
prohibition on lmpermissible dilution..
A. Applicability of Tracking
Requirements
1. ClariJYcotion of and Changes to
Generally Applicable Record keepLrig
Reqwrement& SectIon 2683 applies to
generators, treaters. stosers, and
disposers of restricted wastes. Most of
the provisions contemplate that
restricted wastes arti being shipped off-
site for treatment or disposal (see 268.7
(a)(2) arid (a) [ 31 , and 288.7 (1 ,1(4) and
(b)(5)). The first point the Agency
wishes to address is the exiating
requirements that apply when restricted
wastes are managed on-site. At a
mlnimimi. certain recordkeeping
requirements are triggered. Section
268.7(a) states that generators must first
determine whether their waste is
restricted. Section 288.7 a)(8) indicates
that generators must retain a copy of all
demonstrations and other waste
analysis or documentation for all wastes
sent to either on-site or off-site
treatment, storage, or disposaL The
Agency interprets these two provisions
to mean that ordinarily generators
managing hazardous wastes on-site
must determine if the waste is restricted.
and keep some documentation of that
determination plus some documentation
of where the restricted waste was
treated, stored or disposed—whether
treatment, storage, or disposal occurs
on-site or off-site. These revordkeeping
requirements for on-site management
are needed to implement the various
prohibitions or to account for those
restricted wastes that for some reason
are not also prohibited. The Agency
notes briefly that certain wastes are not
subject to recordlceeping requirements
at all by virtue of the exemptions from
all of part 268 that are contained In
sections 288.1 (b) and (e). (See 54 FR
38968 (September 6. 19891 discussing
what a “restricted” waste is.)
The Agency is applying the existing
268,7 (a) and (a)(8) requirements to
characteristic wastes that are restricted
under today’s final rule. These
requirements apply even when the
hazardous characteristic Is removed
prior to disposal, or when the waste is
excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste under § 2612—
.6 subsequ-ei’rt to the point of gen.emtion.
For example, If a characteristic waste is
not prohibited because it is discharged
pursuant to a NPDES permit without
land disposal. some record must still be
kept indicating why the waste is not
prohibited. (For example. a statement
that there is no land disposal in the
system prior to the 281.4 exclusion
should be kept in the facility’s operating
record.) The rationale for this Is that the
§ 261.4(a)(1) exclusion for domestic
sewage does not attach until the mixture
passes through the sewer system to a
P01W; in the interIm, the waste is
restricted. (See also section l]LE.6 of
today’s final rule.) Finally, this
Information should already exist in any
case, to justify the absence of subtitle C
regulation.
B. Tracking (La. Notification!
Certification) Provisions Applicable to
Generators Shipping Wastes Off-Site
Under existing 268.7ta), generators
managing restricted wastes must
determine whether the wastes meet
applicable treatment standards on the
point of generation, or are otherwise
exempt from those standards. Separate
tracking provisions apply to each of
these situations. Section 268.7(a) (1), (2),
and (3). In all cases, however, the
generator must prepare a notice fbr each
off-site shipment setting out the
hazardous waste identification number,
applicable treatment standard or
prohibition level, manifest number, and
available waste analysis data. If a
generator’s waste meets the treatment
standard, the generator must prepare a
certification to this effect. (EPA is thus
using the terms “tracking document”
and “notification and certification”
synonymously In the discussion that
follows.)
If a generator’s characteristic waste
has been treated to meet the treatment
standard before it is sent off-site, EPA
believes that the existing tracking
scheme requires some modification.
There are two principal reasons to make
changes. Characteristic wastes that
meet treatment standards Will be s rLt
(almost invariably) to subtitle I)
facilities. EPA Is concerned that sending
part 268 notifications and certifications
-------
Federal RegiMe! / VoL 55, No 106 / Friday, lune 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22663
to btitle D facilities could be
counterproductive. These facilities are
not familiar with subtitle C paperwork
and could easily mistake the tracking
forms (i.e. the notifications and
certifications) for manifests and refuse
to accept the shipment. Even if the forms
are not mistaken far manifrsts . the
subtitle B facilities could view the forms
as describing hazardous wastes and
refuse to accept the wastes. This could
result in a situation where scarce
subtitle C management capacity La used
for non-hazardous wastes because
subtitle B facilities are refusing the non-
hazardous’wastes.
These potential misunderstandings
are probably solvable as 8ubtitle 1)
operators become more sophisticated
and as EPA further implements its land
disposal restriction training and
guidance efforts. The Agnecy believes
further, however, that under today’s rule
no important interest would be
vindicated by requiring notifications and
certifications to be sent to subtitle D
facilities. When listed wastes are
involved, the tracking document tells
diappeal facilities what standard the
waste must meet before it can be land
disposed. Treatment standards for most
characteristic wastes are established at
characteristic levels, however. Thus,
these wastes can be land disposed in a
subtitle B facility when they no longer
exhibit a characteristic. Having a
generator certify to an off-site subtitleD
facility that the waste no longer exhibits
a characteristic adds little or nothing to
the information the disposal facility
needs to know [ 0 dispose of the waste.
That is, the disposal facility already
must determine that the waste no longer
exhibits a characteristic. Sinos under the
present rule, sending the tracking forms
to subtitle B facilities could normally
have only the counterproductive effects
discussed In the previous paragraph.
EPAhasdetermmed that the tracking
forms should not accompany shipments
from generators to subtitle D facilities.
(As noted below, the Agency is adopting
the same approach for any shipments to
subtitle D facilihes. so that a treatment
facility that has treated a characteristic
waste to meet a treatment standard also
would not send tracking documents to a
subtitle D disposal facility.) EPA
reafizes that some of the treatment
standards in today’s rule, notably those
for reactive cyamdes and pesticides
and the standards for characteristic
wastes that are treatment methods,
would generally result in treatment
below characteristic levels. in these
cases, the tracking documents would
add information useful to a subtitle D
facility. EPA is concerned enough about
potential confusion and disruption of
subtitle B disposal practices. however,
that at this time the Agency believes it
the better decision not to require
tracking documents fot this set of
wastes to go to subtitle D facilities.
By deciding that tracking documents
for prohibited characteristic wastes that
no longer exhibit a characteristic should
not go to subtitle 1) facilities, the Agency
is not deciding that notifications and
certifications should not be prepared for
such wastes. The A icy’s concern Is
where those notifications and
certifications are sent. EPA believes.
and is requiring, that the notifications
and certifications be sent to the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator
or his delegated representative, or to a
state euthorized to implement the land
disposal restrictions. The person
preparing the notification and
certification must also include the
identity and address of the facility
where the treated waste is sent.
Including the address. This is the
approach the Agency adopted in an
analogous circumstance where sending
notifications and certifications to the
ultimate disposer would be
counterproductive or otherwise be ill.
advised. See 288 7(b)(8) and 53 FR
31198 (Aug. 17. 1988) (notifications and
certifications of persons treating
hazardous wastes to produce hazardous
waste-derived products that are to be
used in a manner constituting disposal
are to send the notifications and
certifications to EPA or to an authorized
state, not to the ultimate user of the
hazardous waste-derived product). By
requiring notifications and certifications
to be prepared. EPA is also assuring that
a recard is kept that the characteristic
waste has been treated to meet the
standard and not xrnpezmissibly diluted.
Generators t treatment facilities, see
below) would also have to certify that
these requiroments were satisfied. Thus.
the key ob ectives of the notification
and certification provisions are
satisfied.
EPA lansakmg some slight
modifications in the notification form
that would be sent to EPA (or to en
authorized state). This is because the
existing notification form refers to the
waste’s ID number and manifest number
when shipped. Since wastes no longer
exhibiting a diaracteristic have neither
an ID number nor a manifest number,
some umall modifications are necessary.
While the noti&ation form would not
contain hazardous waste codes, it must
contain a complete and accurate
desciiptlan of the waste, including its
former hazardous waste classification.
In addition, although a manifest number
would not be Encludedi the notifications
must clearly identify the facility
receiving the waste.
EPA Is not amending the tracking
requirements for those characteristic
wastes that still exhibit a characteristic
when they are sent off-site. All of the
normal 28&7(a)(1) notice requirements
fit this situation (i.e. the waste has an ID
number: it does have to have a manifest.
etc.) and do not require any change. The
tracking document also would be going
ha4 . 1’ C ..Jt s... —— •t.... _ .. C
tO a DU o . a
counterproductive effects discussed
abovewith respect to subtitleD
facilities would occur. Thus, no changes
to existing rules are required.
The following examples illustrate how
the revised tracking requirements would
apply to generators of characteristic
wastes:
1. Generator A generates a D008
nonwastewater that is sent off.site to a
treatment facility.
The generator would prepare a
§ 288.7 a)(1) notice which would set out
the EPA hazardous waste number,
treatment standards, manifest number,
and any waste analysis data. Because
the waste is still hazardous, no revised
notice is necessary.
2. Generator B generates a D008
nonwastewater that is not a spent lead
acid battery. The generator treats the
waste on-site to meet the treatment
standard and then sends it off-site for
disposal in a subtitle D landfill.
Generator B would have to prepare a
notice and certification to document that
the waste has met the treatment
standard and has not been diluted
imperinissibly. Rather than send the
notification and certification to a
subtitle D facility, the generator would
send it instead to the EPA Regional
Office or to an authorized state.
Included on the notification wouid be
the identity and location of the subtitle
D facility where the waste has been
sent.
C. Tracking Provisions Applicable to
Treaters
EPA is adopting the same approach
for treaters of characteristic wastes as it
is for generators. Thus, tracking
documents for shipments of
characteristic wastes that meet a
treatment standard, and therefore no
longer exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste. would be sent to EPA
or an. authorized state (along with
information documenting the receiving
facility’s location). not to a subtitle D
facility. The reasons are the same as
those for generators discussed above.
EPA is also making the same slight
-------
2 64
Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 106 I Friday. June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
adjustments In the notification
requirement.
The following examples illustrate how
the amended rules would apply to
treaters:
1. Treater A receives a D007
nonwastewater that It treats to meet the
treatment standard and sends to a
subtitle I) landfill. The treater also
generates a wastewater In the course of -
treatment that does not exhibit a
characteristic.
The treater must prepare a notice and
.certification which It would send to the
EPA Regional Office or to an authorized
state. The wastewater generated during
treatment is not a prohibited waste
because It is a new treatability group
whose status as a non-prohibited waste
is determined when it (i.e. the new
treatability group) is generated.
Therefore, part 268 does not apply to the
wastewater.
2. Treater B receives a high TOC
ignitable waste that it incinerates. The
ash, which no longer exhibits a
characteristic, is sent to a Subtitle D.
landfilL
The treater would prepare a
notification and certification and send
them to EPA or to an authorized state,
as In the previous example. At least at
this time, the Agency is not requiring
that tracking documents be sent to
subtitle D facilities, even when the
treatment standard Is a designated
method.
D. Land Disposal Facilities
Under existing rules, subtitle C
disposal facilities receiving prohibited
wastes must keep copies of the notice
and certification prepared by the
generator and/or the treater, must test
wastes (or waste extracts) at a
frequency specified in their waste
analysis plan (as modified in today’s
rule), and must dispose of certain types
of wastes in minimum technology units.
Section 268.7(c) (1), (2), and (3). These
requirements do not fit well for the
characteristic wastes prohibited in
today’s rule. The requirement of
disposal in minimum technology units
does not have any applicability at all.
Moreover. if a land disposal facility is a
subtitle D facility receiving non.
hazardous waste. EPA does not believe
that testing requirements are
appropriate to implement today’s rule.
These facilities are already barred from
accepting hazardous waste and so must
ascertain if the wastes they are
receiving exhibit a characteristic. Thus,
since few of the treatment standards
adopted today require treatment to
levels below the characteristic, the
Agency believes that existing controls to
ensure against receipt of hazardous
waste will constitute sufficient
corroborative testing by a disposal
facility. The Agency is thus indicating
that the requirements of § 268.7(c) do
not apply to Subtitle D disposal facilities
receiving wastes that no longer exhibit a
characteristic.
B. C1 anges in Certification to Reflect
Dilution Prohibition
EPA Is also amending the
certifications of compliance required of
treaters and generators to state that the
treatment standard was not achieved by
a form of Imperinissible dilution. This
requirement. of course, is already
contained in § 268.3 and today’s
amendment sunply includes a reference
to this requirement in the certification.
(The existing certificationfor treatment
facilities In fact refers to the dilution
prohibition. but does so In an overbroad
manner by referring to all dilution.
rather than only lmperrnissible dilution.
EPA is thus modifying this reference in
today’s rule.)
C. The Dilution Prohibition as it Applies
to Centralized Treatment
1. Background -
EPA discussed the issue of
permissible and imperinissible dilution
of prohibited wastes at length in
previous rulemakings. EPA’s existing
rules state that prohibited wastes
cannot be diluted In order to circumvent
a statutory or regulatory prohibition or
effective date. 40 CFR 2683 1S The rules
also generally discourage aggregation of
wastes not amenable to cotreatrnent by
providing that when wastes with.
different standards for a common
constituent are combined for purposes
of treatment, the treatment residue must
meet the lowest applicable treatment
standard. 40 CFR 268.41(b).
In interpretive preamble discussions,
the Agency explained that these rules
are not intended to discourage
legitimate centralized treatment, and
that aggregation of wastes preceding
legitimate centralized treatment is not
considered to be linpermissible dilution.
See e.g.. 52 FR 25768 (July 8. 1987) and
other notices there cited. However, the
Agency noted that centralized treatment
of incompatible wastestreams was not
legitimate treatment and constitutes
Impermlasible dilution. Id. For example.
it is Impermissible dilution to aggregate
a heavily concentrated organic solvent
for which incineration is the appropriate
treatment technology with less
ii Although section 268.3 is written In terms of
“restmctad” hazardous wastes. It applies equally to
the narrower class of prohibited hazardous wastes.
See 54 FR 38968 (Sept 8, 1989) explaining the
applicability of the dilution prohibition.
concentrated solvent streams for which
biological treat nent is appropriate. 19
In this rulemaking. EPA believes that
It Is a necessary and responsible action
on the Agency’s part to indicate how -
these existing rules apply when
prohibited characteristic wastes are
involved. Contrary to the views of some
of the coinmenters. this is not a new
issue unrelated to the general substance
of the Third Third rulemaking. Absent
discussion. the existing rules would still
apply to prohibited characteristic
wastes, but the regulated community
would be unaware of how the Agency
interpreted their application and would
be potentially unable to determine how
to conduct their operations in order to
comply with the dilution prohibition.
EPA also believes that further
clarification of the dilution rules with
respect to prohibited listed wastes is
warranted.
2. Summary of Proposal
EPA’s proposal dealt with two
particular issues. The first was the
question of what constitutes legitimate
‘treatment as opposed to impermissible
dilution. The Agency Indicated that any
dilution that failed to meet the section
3004(m) standard of substantially
reducing the prohibited waste’s toxicity
or mobility would be impermissible. arid
further proposed to quantify this
statutory standard by indicating that
there must be some actual reduction in
the prohibited waste’s toxicity or
mobility as a result of treatment. 54 FR
48494. To satisfy this test, the Agency
indicated at a minimum that there would
need to be actual reduction through
treatment of at least one BDAT
constituent for each prohibited waste
that Is treated. Id. EPA further proposed
that any dilution of a prohibited waste
to render it noa.hazardous. In lieu of
treating, would be considered
Impermissible. Id. at 48495. The Agency
solicited comment. however, on whether
dilution could be considered a legitimate
form of treatment for certain prohibited
characteristic wastes. Id. at 48496.
These proposals were the focus of
many of the comments, most dealing
with the implications for wastewater
“EPA notes that its authority to promu1 ate a
dilution prohibition rests not only on the land
disposal restriction statutory provisions and
Congressional directives (see in particular section
3804(m) and related statutory requtrements for EP i
to establish pretreatment standards ae a condItion
to tend dispoaal see also H. Rep. No :98.98th
Cong. let Sese. 38(1983) and S. Rep. No 284. oath
Cong. 1st Seas. 17). but in addition, the more general
authority in section 3004(a)(3) to establish treauner
standards “a, may be satisfactory to the
Admuaisuator ” and “as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment’
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22665
treatment systems that include land-
based treatment (often biological
treatment ponds) or storage (for
example, holding ponds for corrosive
wastes that have been neutralized by
dilution).. Commenters also correctly
viewed this Imue as being intertwined
(at proposal) with the implications of
requiring treatment of characteristic
wastes below the chan cleristic levels.
More broadly still, the issue presents
another aspect of the question of
whether to determine If wastes are
prohibited at the point of generation or
at the point of disposaL
3. Today’s Action
The existing rules on dilution and
EPA’s interpretive statements regarding
those rules Indicate that the dilution
prohibition has a two-fold objective: (2)
To ensure that prohibited wastes are
actually treated: and (2) to ensure that
prohibited wastes are treated by
methods that are appropriate for that
type of waste. EPA has acknowledged
that prohibited wastes whidi are
aggregated are not diluted
lnipermissfbly if they are treated
legitimately In centralized treatment
systems, frrespecthre of the dilution
inherent in such a system. Thus. If
“dilution” is a legitimate type of
treatment, or a necessary pretreatment
step in a legitimate treatment system.
such dilution Is permissible. Conversely,
prohibited wastes that are treated” by
Inappropriate methods, or sent to -
treatment systems that do not treat the
wastes, are diluted impermismbly.
In applying these principles to
characteristic wastes, EPA encountered
two major difficulties: first, the Interface
with regulatory systems established
pursuant to the Clean Water Act and
Safe Drinking Water Act, and second.
difficulties in being able to quantify the
proposal In a meaningM way. In section
11W above, we have already discussed
the potential difficulties of integrating a
full-scale d’hrtin prohibition with the
Clean Water Act s NPIIES and
pretreatment regulations, and the Safe
Drinking Water Acre UIC rogram. We
explain below the attempts EPA made
to quantify the proposed standard, and
the obstacles the Agency encountered.
The A ncy’s pcopoeal to require
reduction of a BDAT constituent as a
means of evaluating if impermiaaible
dilution has occurred did not indicate
how much reduction would be deemed
adequate, and thee without further
elaboration not only fails to provide
clear guidance but also potentially fails
to achieve the objective of aseunng that
wastes are treated by an appropriate
treatment method. More lmportantly
quantifying the extent of removal
necessary to be considered legitimate
treatment leads to a very complicated
system given the number of prohibited
wastes, treatability groups, treatment
methods and treahn nt
çon guratlon s .
Given these problems add
complications, EPA has decided that the
most constructive course is to provide
addjt:innciI interpretive guidance on the
existing dilution prohibition contained
In 288.3. and to explain more fully how
those rules would apply in specific
situations. We also explain again how
we have determined to deal with the
loterface between RCRA and other
wastewater regulatory programs.
a. The exJst ng dilution prohibition
ordinarily would not apply to prohibited
characteristic wastes generated and
managed in treatment systems regulated
by the CWA or SDWA. As explained in
a previous section. EPA has determined
In most cases not to appiy a dilution
prohibition to characteristic wastes that
are generated arid managed in treatment
systems regulated under the CWA or
SDWA EPA believes, howeve that
where the Agency bar established a
method as the freatment standard for a
characteristic waste, and that where
application of that method Is consistent
with and promoting of the objective, of
the Clean Water Act or the Safe
Drinking Water Act programs, then the
method of treatment attaches to the
waste at the point of generation, and
dilution to change the freatability group
to avoid application of the method Is
Impermissible. For example, in this rule,
this is true of the Ignitible
nonwastewaters containing greater than
10% TOC and the EP toxic pesticide
wastewaters (D012-17) If these wastes
are managed in wastewater treatment
systems regulated wider the Clean
Water Act. The treatment method for
these wastes Is incineration. fuel
substitution, or some type of wastewater
treatment technolo that destroys
organics. Not only are these wastes
amenable to conbustion treatment (or
other treatment that destroys arganics),
but they typically contain high
concentrations of toxic organic
constituents whose destruction furthers
the RCRA goal of decreasing waste
toxicity and mllnTnizing threats from
land disposaL
Prohibiting dilution of these wastes
(i e., requiring application of a specified
treatment method) Is entirely consistent
with the existing regulatory framework
of CWA’s NPDESfpretreatmerzt
programs. For example, the 10% TOC
ignitible wastes are inappropriate for
wastewater treatment as they would
overwhelm the capacity of most
biological treatment systems. (As noted
In the preamble section describing the
DOOl treatment standards. EPA in fact
developed the 10% TOC cutoff for
ignitible wastes based on the outer limit
of design capacity for biological
treatment systems.) The Clean Water
Act effluent limitations guidelines and
the standards addressing these types of
wastes already contemplate that these
wastes will not be diluted, but rather
will be treated In the appropriate
mannA? ,
The logic that forces this decision for
these wastes In a NPDES/pretreatment
Clean Water Act system is not equally
persuasive in the case of wastes
disposed of by injection. As noted in
section l]LD, Class I deep wells inject
below the lowermost geological
formation containing an underground
source of drinking water. Deep wells era.-
not currently Injecting wastes that
contain any of the pesticide constituents
found in D012—17 characteristic wastes.
Mditlonally. there is not a design
concern of overwhelming the biological
treatment system ía the deep well
scenario. In this instance, it is illogical
to force deep wells to utilize a specified
method as there is little concornitment
environmental or technical benefit
through its utilization. Therefore. in
today’s final rule, the Agency is
exempting deep wells from specified
methods arid the dilution prohibition as
long as the characteristic is removed
before disposal.
b, Dilution is considered to be an
acceptoble method of treatment for non-
toxic characteristic wastes. Although
EPA proposed that the dilution
prohibition would cover all
characteristic wastes, the Agency
specifically noted that dilution might be
an acceptable type of treatment for non-
toxic characteristic wastes and solicited
comment on the issue. 54 FR 48496. After
considering the comments, the Agency
has determined that for non-toxic
hazardous characteristic wastes (i.e..
wastes that exhibit a hazardous
physical or chemical property), it should
not matter how the non-toxic
characteristic property is removed so
long as it is removed. Thus, dilution is
an acceptable treatment method for
such wastes. (This issue is discussed in
more detail in the sections on each
particular characteristic waste.). The
Agency realizes that this approach does
not fully address the potential problem
of toxic constituents that may be present
in such wastes, nor encourages
minimi alion or recovery of non-toxic
characteristic hazardous wastes. EPA
has determined that these potential
problems should be addressed, if at all,
-------
22686
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
in other rulemaklngs (or potentially In a
reauthorized statute) and are too
difficult to resolve In this proceeding.
given the extraordinary pressures and
limited review time imposed by the May
8 statutory deadline.
EPA also notes that It considers high
TOC Ignitable nonwastewaters, reactive
cyanide wastes, and reactive sulfide
wastes to be toxic characteristic wastes.
As noted above, the high TOC Ignitables
have been shown to frequently contain
high concentrations of organic toxlcants.
Reactive cyanide and sulfide wastes
obviously contain toxic constituents.
Thus. dilution would not be an
appropriate method of treatment for any
of these.
c. Detennirdng when types of
b’eotment (including centnilized
treatment) involving dilution are
permissible. The Agency Is able to
provide limited additional guidance
today on the Issue of when treatment
methods involving dilution are
permissible. The issue frequently arises
when prohibited wastes are aggregated
for purposes of treatment First. if the
wastes are all legitimately amenable to
the same type of treatment, and this
method of treatment Is utilized for the
aggregated wastes, the aggregation step
Is not Impermissible dilution. Thus, It is
permissible (and normally desirable) for
prohibited organic-containing wastes
that are suitable for combustion to be
aggregated before ombustion even
though the concentration of organics In
some of the wastes decreases. (See, for
example. the discussion for wastes
K048- ’52.) On the other hand, as noted
above, aggregation of high 1’OC
Ignitable wastes with Ignitable
wastewaters for centralized biological
treatment is not permissible. Biological
treatment is Inappropriate for the high
TOC ignitable wastes. and the
aggregation step merely dilutes the high
TOC stream.
As noted above. EPA Is unable to
quantify across-the-board what types of
treatment are appropriate for particular
prohibited hazardous wastes (both
listed and characteristic). Clearly, as
stated at proposal, units would have to
be doing some treatment (i.e., removing
toxicity or mobility of BDAT
constituents). In addition, treatment
units would have to be treating wastes
that are amenable to treatment In that
type of unit or by that type of treatment,
or, In the case of centralized treatment
units treating aggregated wastes,
appropriately combining wastes for
common treatment An example of type
of treatment that is inappropriate for
treatment of certain prohibited wastes
would be biological treatment systems
used to treat prohibited wastes having
treatment standards for metals. In these
systems. metal removal is Incidental and
nowhere as efficient as systems
designed to treat metals; biological
treatment systems are designed solely
for organic treatment. (EPA notes,
however, that since it is not applying
dilution rules for most characteristic
wastewaters, the above example would
only apply In cases when a listed
prohibited metal-bearing wastewatez’—-a
wastewater with treatment standards
for metals—was being treated In a
biological treatment unit. If this
hypothetical biological treatment were a
surface Impoundment. EPA would not
view it as satisfying the requirement of
section 3005(j)(11) and 288.4 that it be
conducting “treatment” See discussion
at 52 FR 25778-79 (July 8. 1987) where
EPA determined In an analogous
circumstance that Impoundments which
primarily evaporate hazardous
constituents do not qualify as section
288.4 impoundments which may receive
wastes that have not met the treatment
standard.) The clearest objective
Indication that proper treatment for a
prohibited waste is being conducted Is If
the treatment is the same type as that on
which the treatment standard is based.
Thus, any aggregation before such
treatment would ordinarily not be
considered to be impermissible dilution.
However, other forms of treatment may
also be appropriate. Such
determinations will be made on a case-
by-case basis.
d. Dilution to remove a chamcteristic
EPA proposed that prohibited hazardous
wastes could not be diluted by
Impermissible means to render them
non-hazardous. even though the waste
resulting from dilution would not have
to be managed In a subtitle C unit 54 FR
48495. Although this possibility exists
for all prohibited wastes—both those
that are listed (i.e., dilution to achieve
delisting levels) and those that e xhibit
characteristics—the issue arises most
often with respect to characteristic
prohibited wastes. -
EPA is flnalI fng this approach In the
final rule, modified, however, by a
number of principles discussed above.
Thus, since it is permissible to dilute
prohibited non-toxic Ignitable, reactive,
and corrosive wastes, It is permissible to
remove the characteristic from such
wastes by this means. Second. dilution
of prohibited characteristic wastewaters
is normally permissible because the
Agency does not wish to disrupt existing
regulatory programs developed under
other statutes for such wastewaters.
These two modifications address the
concerns raised by many of the
commenters.
For other situations, however, dilution
to remove a prohibited waste’s
characteristic (or to render it delistable)
is used “as a substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with [ a
treatment standard)”. and so falls within
the express terms of the § 288.3 dilution
prohibition. Furthermore, as the Agency
explained in detail in the proposal. if the
dilution prohibition were not to apply in
such circumstances, the authority
Congress granted the Agency to
establish treatment standards for
characteristic wastes would be
essentially meaningless. Thus, EPA
adheres to the position that the act of
lmpermissibly diluting a prohibited
waste so that it no longer exhibits a
characteristic (or is rendered delistable)
Is illegaL
5, Examples
a. Facility A generates an EP toxic
wastewater that it mixes in tanks with
other wastewater so that the
characteristic is removed. After mixing,
the aggregated wastewaters are
discharged to waters of the United
States.
The dilution prohibition does not
apply because the wastewater is riot a
prohibited waste; it is not being land
disposed. In addition, the Agency has
determined not to apply the dilution
prohibition rules to charac’teristic
wastewaters (with the exception of
those subject to certain treatment
methods that are managed in Clean
Water Act facilities).
b. Facility B generates a wastewater
that Is corrosive and EP toxic for a
pesticide. It Is mixed in tanks with other
wastewaters generated at the same
facility so that both characteristics are
removed. The aggregated mixture is then
injected Into a Class I UIC well. While a
restricted waste at the point of
generation, these wastes are not
prohibited because they are injected
below the characteristic level in a Class
“I injection well. See § 268.1(c)(3).
c. Facility C generates a wastewater
that is a listed hazardous waste that
contains metals for which EPA has
established treatment standards. It
aggregates this waste with organic
wastewaters that are generated on-site
so that the metal levels in the
aggregated wastewaters are below the
treatment standard. The aggregated
mixture is then sent to a surface
impoundment for biological treatment
and then discharged to waters of the
United States.
The dilution prohibition would be
violated. EPA does not consider
-------
Federal Register I Vol 55. No. 106 / Friday. June. 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22667
biological treatment to be an
appropriate mode of treating metal-
bearing toxic wastes (i.e.. wastes for
which there are treatment standards for
inorganic hazardous constituents). Any
metal removal is incidental because the
treatment technolo r Is not desigaed to
remove metals. In addition, removals
are aLa rate that is considerably less
efficient than could be achieved by
chemical precipitation or other forms of
wastewater treatment. Thus. In the
example, dilution would be used as a
substitute for treatment of the listed
waste and would therefore be illegal
dilution and not treatment. (See 54 FR
38968 (Sept. 8, 1989) (dilution prohibition
applies to wastes managed In section
28&4 Impoundments).)
d. Facility D generates an EP toxic
nonwastewater that it stabilizes to meet
the treatment standard. The waste’s
volume increases 400 per cent as a result
of stabilization.
Although there are too few facts in
this example to give a definitive answer.
normally this large an increase In waste
volume would indicate that the
treatment standard is being achieved as
a result of dilution rather than
treatment, and therefore would be
impermissible.
H. Applicability of Today’s FthoJ Rule
to Mineral Pmcessizzg Wastes
Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(il) of RCRA
excludes from the hazardous waste -
regulations (pending completion of
studies by the Agency) solid wastes
from the extraction, beneflciation and
processing of ores and minerals. On
September 1. 1989, EPA published a final
rule (54 FR 38592) that narrowed the
scope of this exclusion for 25
enumerated wastes that meet the
exclusion criteria of “high volume/low
hazard,” as specified In the September 1
rule. EPA determined that five specific
mineral processing wastes clearly
remain within the scope of the
exclusion. and 20 additional specified
mineral processing wastes remain
within the exdusion pending collection
of further volume and hazard data. All
previously excluded mineral processing
wastes, otherS than these 25 specified
wastes, that exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste wilt
no longer be excluded from the
hazardous waste regulations when the
final rule became effective on March 1.
1990. On January 23. 1990 (see 55 FR
2322—2354), EPA published another final
rule removing an additional five of these
wastes from the exclusion based on
additional volume and/or hazard data.
This final rule becomes effective on July
23.1990.
EPA believes that these previously
excluded wastes are “newly identified”
for the purpose of determining
applicability of the land disposal
prohibitions. Although technically the
wastes are not being identified by a new
characteristic, they are being brought
into the Subtitle C system after the
November 3. 1984 enactment of HSWA.
A permissible Interpretation of RCRA
section 3004(g)(4), which is ambiguous
as to whether it applies to wastes first
brought into the Subtitle C system after
1984 due to regulatory re-interpretation.
Is that wastes brought into the system
after the 1984 RCRA amendments may
be prohibited from land disposal under a
different schedule than those wastes
that were hazardous on the date of
enactment of HSWA. and also are not
subject to the statutory hard hammer.
The policy reasons for preferring this
interpretation are those that prompted
Congress to establish a separate
prohibition schedule for other newly
identified and listed wastes: the need to
study such wastes separately, and
prioritiratlon of hammer dates.
Consequently, because these wastes are
considered to be newly identified, the
Agency must develop treatment
standards for them within six months of
their being identified as hazardous
wastes (RCRA section 3004(g)(4)(C)).
However, as stated above, these
wastes are hazardous because they
exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste.
Today’s rule promulgates treatment
standards for characteristic wastes. A
question. therefore. Is whether the
treatment standards for characteristics
should apply to these mineral processing
wastes recently determined not to fall
within ihe Bevill exclusion. Put another
way, although as newly Identified
wastes they are not subject to the hard
hammer. EPA has the choice of whether
to apply the treatment standards for
characteristic wastes to them at this
time. -
The Agency has not yet performed th
technical analyses necessary to
determine if the treatment standards
promulgated today as BDAT for EP toxic
hazardous wastes or other characteristic
hazardous wastes can be achieved In
treating the various mineral processing
wastes. Therefore. EPA has determined
that these newly identified mineral
processing wastes are not subject to the
BDAT standards promulgated today for
characteristic hazardous wastes. The
Agency plans to study the mineral
processing wastes in the future o
determine BDAT for these newly
identified hazardous wastes.
There are circumstances when newly
identified mineral processing wastes
can, however, be subject to existing
hazardous waste prohibitions. In
particular, If the mineral processing
waste is mixed with other prohibited
wastes (i.e.. any prohibited solvent.
dioxin. First or Second Third hazardous
waste), it becomes subject to the
prohibition for the prohibited waste with
which it is mixed. EPA also solicited
comment on applicability of California
list prohibitions, but has determined that
these prohibitions will not apply. See
section IILF for a discussion of this
issue.
Whether any of these prohibitions
would have Immediate regulatory effect
would be determined by the
authorization status of the State in
which the waste is managed. Because
the final rules removing wastes from the
scope of the Bevill exclusion are not
being adopted pursuant to HSWA. they
do not take effect immediately in
authorized States. Thus, in these States.
these mineral processing wastes would
only be hazardous wastes if they are
included within the scope of the State’s
authorized program. If they are not, they
would not be hazardous wastes until an
amended State’s program including them
Is authorized. Only after authorization
would the land disposal prohibitions
apply in that State. These mineral
processing wastes would be hazardous
wastes La unauthorized States as soon
as the rule removing them from the
exclusion becomes effective. At that
time, any land disposal prohibitions that
apply to them also would take effect.
The Agency, in the proposed rule,
solicited comment on whether the BDAT
treatment standards proposed for the EP
toxic metals are appropriate for the
newly identified mineral processing
wastes. Of the comments received.
almost all supported EPA’s position that
the mineral processing wastes are
sufficiently different from other
characteristic wastes to warrant
additional analysis, and that the
statutory hammer and the California list
prohibitions apply only to those wastes
regulated as hazardous at the time of the
HSWA enactment.
Several commenters argued against
the Agency’s position on mineral
processing wastes. One conlmenter
stated that since EPA has extensive
information available from the listing
- process, that should be sufficient to
develop EDAT treatment standards.
However, data collected and analyzed
for the purpose of listing a waste as
hazardous are different from those
required to perform BDAT analyses n
addition. most of the analyues
-------
Fecaral Register Vol. 5 o. 106 1 Frfday, Tune 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
performedhavebee to determine if the
mineraL processing WaStae fall within
the scopaof the Be il1Amendn nt
high volume /law hazard}.Thue. the
Agency does ant agree. that it ha
sufff’ nt data to det,r n1ne BDAT
standards for mineral prsimsslng
Anothercon # nt arguth that th
waster were hspropealy ccteded from
inthefirstplacabyan il1egal
interpretation of the Bev lk Amendment
In 1980; so shoulànot be consideredi
newly identified at this time.The-
Agency dIsa eer with the’coinmenter
that mineral processing wastes cnnn 5
be considered newly identifird wastes
These wastes nave benome sub jest to
the subtitle C regulations subsequent to
the enactment of HSWA. and thus nsed
not be suh ect La the hard hammer, nor
must treatment standards fur
characteristic-hazardous wastes be
applied to them in this rulemaking..
Certainly, there is no Indication in either
the statute or the legislative history that
in creating a 6&inoath deadline for
chaructezistic’ wastes, Congress
expected the Agency to address wastes
wuhin the scope of the Bevill
Amendment at the time of HSWA ’s
promulgation..
1. Cenam(arN i,tif fcaf [ on B qw)t’ment9
The generator notification
requirements setforth 1n40 ’CFRZ98.7
specify that when the generatorhas
determined, either through testing or
through knowledge of the waste, that the
waste Is restricted, and dues not meet
the applicable treatment standards. the
generator must with each shipment of
waste , uutll’y the treatment facility In
writing of the apph ’ able treatment
standards and prohibition levels. The
notice must include the EPA Hazardous
Waste-Number, the corresponding’
treatment standards and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 26 32 or
RCRA section 30Ott d the manifest
number associated with the shipment of
waste 1 and waste analysis data, where-
available’ (40- C R 288.7fa)tTlJ If the
generaror has determined thaP the-waste
being shipped Is restricted, but can be
land disposed without further treatment.
the generator must submit to the rand
disposal facility the same’ information.
as well asa certification stating that the
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards (40 CFR 268.7 al(2 . (EPA
reiterates that such dèternination must,.
of course, be accurate. Thus, failure to’
accurately determine a asters, statue as
restricted-is tionel 2883fa){
or (a)fZ), as. well as a potential violation
of other provisfons4
TeAgencyihadreceived. prior to the
Third Third proposed. rule; a number of
questions on whether the actua?
treatment standards (Lu.,. the actnal
number or method inustbeplaeethon
the generator notification form. or if it is
sufficient to reI nns the appropriate
trea u standards bycitatinncfthe .
applicable part of 4 C ’R 268.41 . .42.. or-
.43. EPA ’s in±etatioahasbeen that
all applizmble- treatment standards st
be listed completely on the generatnr
notification lone sent to the- treatmenL
stonageor disposal facility. A numh w of
these pre-propoaak cammenters- had
indicated that they believe-the’ current
regulatIclLS.Can beinterpreted.to allow
refereacing . rather than listing the-
spwflc. treatment standards as part of
the generator nobflcation. The
commenters argued that referencing the
standards serves the same purpose. as
listing the specific treatment standards.
Furthermnre. they stated that the
notification forms ambecnming longer,.
more complicated. and unwieldy as new
wastes and correapon iIng. trø Pni nt
standards are added La the liatofwastes
restricted from, land dts$s .al. and thus
listing each tre th ’nent standard on the
notification. form imposes an.
unnecasaary burden on generators.
As proposed In. the Third Third. notice
osNovember 2Z1989 54FR484 6). the
Agency today is amendmg 4 CFR 28&7
to allawreerencingtheCodeofFederal
Regulations (CFRI rather than listing.
each treatment standard. EPA solicited
comment in the Third Third proposed
rule on this action to determine if the
regulated community anticipated any
pro blems with referencing of the CFR.
and to determine the effect this action
would have on hazardous waste
geireruturs. The comments EPA received
on the proposal were overwhelmingly in
favorof allowing referencing the CFR . .
Commentem stated: that this action will
sigpiflcantfrredixce the paperwork
Involved in handling the waste
shpxuents, reduce franemiptiort errors;
and Lnmrweycausebarm to the
environment
Although EPA today is allowing such
references to the R. the- following
information also must be incinded In the
refereecei the EPA Hazardous Waste-
N ’or. the subeategory of the waste code
(e.g . D003, reactive-cyanide’
subcategory)b the treatabdity grvup s} of
thewastefsJ ’(eg.. wastewuter or non—
w& tewdter , and the CFR sections and
paragraphs where the applIcable
treatment standards appean hLad ’dition
where treatment standards are
expressed as specified technologies in
§ 268.42, the S-letter treatment code
found in. Table-I of 1 268.42 (e.g, INCIN.
WETOX must be-listed. Omissions or -
inaccuracies in listing any of these items
will be considered a violation. In
addition, the Agency emphasizes that
the change to 40 CFR28&7allows
referencing of the CFR in lieu of only the
individual treatment standards, all other
* 298.7 Information is still required in
the notification.
EPA notes that these revised
notification requirements also apply to
treatment and storage facilities, with the
following exceptions. These changes do
not apply to generators. ortreatuient or
storage’ facilities that ship spent solvents
(F001-F006) multi-source leachate
(F039J or California list wastes off-site to
a disposal facility. These waste
categories-each contairra number of
individual constituents or waste groups
(e.g.. the waste code for mult i.source
leachate (F039) contains 230
constituents).. Therefore, referencing
only the CFR section in lieu of the
treatment standards would not provide
the disposal facility with meaningful
Information regarding which
constinients miglitreasonably be
expected to be present in the waste. The
same is true far California lot wastes
and spent solvents. For each of these
wastes, therefore, all applicable waste
group’i and individual cw’.stitients
actually must be listed on the
notification.
In addition. some pre-proposal
commenters raised concerns about
notification requirements with regsrd to
shipments subject to the March 24. 1 J26
small quantity generator (SQG) r.ile.
This rule. soeciflcally 40 CFP. 2 Z2Q(e).
exempts S1 Cs (100-1000 /mo.) with
recycling tolling agreements (as defined
in 40 CFR 262.20(e)) from the full Part
262 manifes g requirements.- EPA
received a number of conur.e rite
supporting the proposed approach. and
today is amending § 268.7 to allow a
one-time notification and certification
for SQG shipments subject to tolling
agreements_Such agreements, as well as
the one-time notifications and
certifications, must be maintair.ed by
,the generator for three yearn after
termination or expiration of the
agreement in keeping with the
provisions of 40 CFR 252.C(e )(2).
The Agency is pronrulgatfr.g this
amendment because it believes the
subsequent handlerof the waste under
the contractual. tolling arrangement has
sufficient notification and knowledge 3!
the nature of the wastes being handled.
Tolling agreements- provide for the
collection and reclamation of a spec ed
waste and for redellver’y of regenerated
material at a specified frequency. The
Agency believes that since the seine
waste is picked -.rp at regiiar interiais.
one notice will suffice for the duration of
-------
- Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22669
the agreement to apprise the subsequent
handler of the land disposal restrictions
applicable to the waste.
J. Waste Analysis Plans and Treatment/
Disposal Facility Testing Requirements
In the proposed nile. EPA.noted that
* * 268.7 (b) and (c) currently require
treatment and disposal facilities to test
their wastes in order to ensure that they
are In compliance with applicable
treatment standards and prohibition
levels. EPA also noted that these
provisions require such testing to be
performed according to the frequency
specified In the facility’s * 264.13 or
* 265.13 Waste Analysis Plan (WAP).
Although H 284.13 and 265.13 require
that waste analyses contain enough
information to allow the owner/operator
to comply with the 40 CFR 288
requirements, the Agency noted that a
comment found in both of these sections
has created Implementation problems.
The comment states, “the owner or
operator of an off-site (treatment,
storage, or disposal) facility may
arrange for the generator of the
hazardous waste to supply part or all of
lbs (waste analysis) information.” This
language has been construed -
erroneously as precluding EPA (or an
authorized State) from requiring the
owner/operator to conduct a detailed
chemical and physical analysis of the
waste where the generator has supplied
the owner/operator with such waste
analysis Information. Although EPA -
stated In the proposal that it has
authority to require owner/operators to
test their wastes In such cases, the
Agency stated Its preference for
removing any ambiguities and modifying
the regulations in order to clarify EPA’s
intent
The Agency noted In the proposal Its
belief that ordinarily, treatment and
disposal facilities should do some
corroborative testing to ensure
compliance with LD treatment
standards and prohibitions. Although
there are certainly situations where test
data submitted by the generator, or the
knowledge of the generator. may
constitute an essential part of the
necessary Information. EPA’s proposal
was premised on a need to ensure that
the LDR requirements are metpriorto
disposaL The Agency also noted that
such corroborative testing provides
records that may be useful In
ascertaining compliance with LDR
requriements. Thus. EPA stated that
treatment and disposal facilities
normally should do periodic
independent corroborative testing of
prohibited wastes, even If the generator
also tests the waste or otherwise
certifies that it Is eligible for land
disposaL
Given this context, the Agency
proposed two approaches for specifying
the circumstances under which EPA
could require corroborative testing. The
first approach would allow off.slte
facilities to arrange for the generator
and/or treater of wastes to supply all or
part of the waste analysis Information
only If an EPA-approved WAP
affirmatively allows the generator and!
or treater to supply this Information.
Since interim status facilities do not
have their WAPs approved until their
permit applications are reviewed by
EPA (or the authorized State), such
facilities would no Longer be able to rely
upon generator data under this
approach. Under the second approach.
the Regional Administrator or his
- designate would determine the owner!
operator’s testing frequency, but such
facilities would be required to conduct
waste analyses at least once a year.
Since such an approach would be self-
Implementing, no revisions to existing
permits would be necessary.
Numerous commentere pointed out
the advantages and disadvantages of
both approaches. The primary issues
raised by commenters related to the
flexibility and resources associated with
the proposed approaches. Several
commenters supported the flexibility
that the first approach would provide.
Individual facility circumstances can be
considered, which the commenter.
believed would result in appropriate
testing frequencies. The Agency agrees
with the commenters and continues to
believe that the frequency of testing is
best determined on a case-by-case basis
by the permit writer. This Is because the
range of variables (e.g.. variety of
wastes managed, different types of
waste matrices, number of processes
Invovied) in too broad to Justify a single
national testing frequency. However,
evaluating the appropriate testing
frequencies for every treatment and
disposal facility can be very resource-
intensive, a task that likely would take
several years to complete. Some
commenters expres8ed a preference for
specific minimum testing frequencies, In
part to establish a baseline level from
which to depart. As stated above, a
required testing frequency Is difficult to
specify for all facilities, and would be
excessive and redundant in some
situations while not being protective
enough In others. To address this
problem, the Agency is developing
guidance to help identify what testing
frequency, based on site-specific
considerations, Is reasonable and
appropriate for treatment and disposal
facilities.
Several commenters stated that
corroborative testing by treatment and
disposal facilities is unnecessary where
generators supply such waste analysis
data. Some of these commenters felt that
testing should be required only where
the generator does not supply testing
data (i.e.. where the generator supplies
waste characterization data based only
on his knowledge of the waste or waste
generation process). EPA disagrees with
the commenters, and notes that the D.C.
Circuit, in upholding EPA’s 288.7
testing framework, has expressed its
support for treatment and disposal
facility corroborative testing
requirements:
i]t Is the treatment iscility’s job to
bunaform waste otherwise deemed too — -
dangerous to permit Into landfills Into
acceptable form. It Is therefore not Irrational
for the EPA to Introduce a backup, arguably
“redundant” testing stage for these wastes
requiring treatment and even to consider this
a “mitical” stage In the process.
886 F.Zd at 370.
The court also noted that such
corroborative testing is necessary for
dlspoasl facilities:
(flust prior to land dIsposaL waste must be
vigorously tested to confirm that It Is what
others have represented It to be and that it
may permissibly be land disposed.
Id.
Given these concerns, the Agency
today Is promulgating an approach that
combines elements of both the proposed
approaches. EPA is revising the
comment In H 264.13 and 265.13 to
implement this approach.
Under the final approach, treatment
and disposal facilities may generally
rely on Information provided to them by
generators or treaters of the waste.
However, treatment and disposal
facilities must conduct periodic detailed
physical and chemical analysis on their
waste streams to assure that the
appropriate part 268 treatment
standards are being met. Specifically,
today’s final rule amends the comment
In * * 284.13 and 285.13 to make it clear
that the restricted waste testing
requirement (or other frequency
approved by the Agency) is not
superseded by the ability of the facility
to rely on information supplied by the
generator or treater. Also, with today’s
change. * 284.13 more clearly specifies
that EPA may, through the permit,
require the owner or generator of a
treatment or disposal facility to conduct
periodic chemical and physical analysis
prior to treatment or other management
of wastes.
-------
Fi I Register I VoL 55, No. iO6 Friday. J’une 1. meG / Rutes and Regulations
In m. a f lifiQ 1 am subject to
the testing requirement for resthated
wastes. Interim status waste analysis
plane are developed b the facility and
cnaintainnd on-aite. In accczrdance with
elf-isnplsm nI ng procedures of
285 13. Therefore, 1nie im
facility owners or operators should
ensure that their plan conforms with
today’s new requirement. For ampt ,
If the faeilitys plan specifies total
reüance on generater a treater-
provided InformatIon. then the plan wilL
likely need to i .hztn 8 e to require
appropriate testing (See discussion
below regarding general Agency waste
testing conaiderations) . Also 1 , Interim
status facilities should update their
pending permit applications promptly to
ensure that the applications reflect the
most current Information and todays
revised regil atory requirements.
If a perndtted facility wants tcs m nI
Its- WA? to better address restricted
waste testing requlremen . then it
would follow the permit modiffcatiorr
procedures l i x V0.41 tinder those
modification procedures, a rh in 8 e
Indicate a different t et1ng frequency
would most likely baa Class 2.
modIfication (see appendix L to 270.42.
Item 0(1)).
EPA believes that tfrer wifi be
sufficient time to incorporate
appropriate waste analysis
requirements Into the development of
permits for the approximately 1000
Interim. tnq . trea1ww tt and storage
facthliar expected to rsc& e RCRA
pets in. the next several years.. WAPa
for permitted storage and treatmpnt
facilities ( nt4itrih rg incinerators) will be
examined no later then atpermit
relsanance. Rüvalnatian of lath
dlsposel facility pcrmitswill occ no
later than the five yeerpormit review
required by 270.50(d).. so WA? changes
can be accomplished at that time. It
should also be noted that for permitted
facili A may address selected
WAPs earlier than the above timeframes
by using Its general authority to reopen
permits when new standards or
regulations have been promulgated
( 270.41Ca)(3Th.
For both permitted and interim statn
facilities, the Agency retahms its
authority (particularly where a revised
WAP has net been Agency-appraved to
det e,nin that. based an an inspection
or othes Lnfcrmatkoiz,thetestiirg.
frequencies andjoz protocols are
Inadequate at a partimiarfAr 4 lfty.tti
such cases. EPA (as-au authorized State)
may take a nrmber of actions.. inchidIng .
but not limited to. t rmin tlng as
modiflying a facility’s permit or’ pursuing
an enforcement action.
In order to aid permit writers and the
regulated community In determining the
appropriate testhigfrequenclas .at both
stages In time, the. Agency expects to
Issue guidance soon which will further
address these Issues.
K Tes gc Wastes Teotedn, I.Dey
Toxzks or Cojstaiiress
As noted In the November 1989
proposaL tre iL ut of prohi1zft d wastes’
conducted Er so-called 9G-day tanks (or
containers regelated under 262.34 Is’
not presently’ subject toa waste analysis
plan requIrement. 54 FR 48497. .Thus,
there Is no regulatory vehicle for
determf th g testing frequency in auth
circumetances. In contrast, under
§ 2e8.7(b , treatment facilities treating
prohibited hazardous wastes must test
the tree thient residtzes that they
generate at a frequency determined by
their waste analysis plan. in order to
ascertain compliance with the
applicable treat t standards. All
freahmrntfedhilas operating pursuant
to Interim status or a full permit must
have a waste analysis plan.
Therefore. in artier to close this
regulatory gap. EPA proposed that
generators treating prohibited wastes in.
* 282.34 tanks and containers must
prepare a. plan. justif 4ng the frequency
of testing they choose to adopt (54 FR
484971. EPA. disagrees with several
comm tem who contended that
sufficient re ilatory mechanisms are
already In place for thesa mIta . . Most
importantly, there is no reg ilation at all
addressing testing.frequency. Since a
substantial volume of hazardous waste
Is treated In these units, the issue of
testlngfreq,uency is viewed by the
Agenc as fmportantfor ensuring the -
6tt dty of the section 3004(m}
ti utLfleDt standards. Furthermore.
today’s imposition of a waste analysis
plan requfrement—addressing among’
other Issues. testing &equency—aTr
persons freatlngfrreo.day tanks is
consistent with the Agency’s
determinatioo In the Solvents and
Dloxins final rule that generators who
also treat must asswne the same
responsibilities as off-site treaters. See’
51 FR 4059P}. Put another way, A
believes that persons treating prohibited
wastes should ordinarily’havo the same
recordkeeping and docinnent tlon
responsibilities whether the treatment
occurs off site or to 90-day’ ranks..
Tharofere,. in today’s final r ule, the
Agency Is pzvm1llgnfing the proposed
action with several modifications In.
* 288.7(a)(4). In t&1it1nn to the
modifications (and hr. accordance with
majority of wwents) ,. the Agency Is
clarifying that only generators treating
wastes tocoinpty with the applicable
BOAT atmpnt standards (as opposed
to wastes treated partially but recaving
further off-site treatment before meeting
the treatment standard), are subject to
the new requirement to-prepare a waste
analysis plan. Specifically. generators
treating prohibited wastes i ii § 262.34
tanks and containers to meet the
applicable BOAT treatment standard
must prepare a plan detailing the
frequency of testing that is to be
conducted. The plan is to be justified on
detailed chemical and physical analysis’
of a represeutative sample of the
prohibited waste ( 1 being treated, and
must contain all information necessary
to treat the waste(a) in. accordance with
requirements of part 268 (see * I 264.13
and 26a.13, from. which these
substantive requirements are drawn),
Including the selected testing frequency.
Examples of factors EPA would expect
to be Included in the plan are:
discussion of the number of prohibited
wastes treated .. their variability, and. the
variability of the treatment process. See
sectIon ffl. of today’s preamble for more
detailed information on factors to
Include in the plan.
EPA does not believe however, that it
needs to require waste analysis plar.s
from 90-day generators who treat
partially, but do not treat to achieve the
treatment standard. Such a requirement
would duplicate waste analysis plans of
the ultimate treatment facility.. The
requireiient that EPA is adopting today
Is meant to close an outright regulatory
gap which exists ooiy when the 90-day
generator is the sale treater.
The plan will be self-implementing in
the sense that there is no requirement of
prior approval from any regulatory
entity’. There is. however, a requirement
that the plan be retained as a facility
record, where it serves as the means of
justifying to enforcement officials why
the frequency of testing selected by the
facility is reasonable. Furthermore-, as
su89ested by’ several commenters. this
plea should be filed with the EPA
Regional office or State within 3 days
prior to the activity by some mechanism
that can verify delivery (e.g., return.
receipt requested. Federal Express, or
messenger). This’ provision will allow
the Agency or State air opporturuty to
review the testing plan established. EPA
notes. however that it reserves the’ right
at any snbseq nenf time to disapprove of
the testing plan. This review mechanism
should ease one commenter”s concerns
abou.t these p 1 ans being self-
Implenientirig ,ondnot subject to
regulatory review.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55. No. 106 / FrIday, June 1. 1 0 I Rules and Regulations
22671
L Clarification of “P’and ii ” Solid
Wastes
1. Residues Remaining in Containers or
Inner Liners
In the November 22, 19 proposal,
EPA proposed several amendments to
clarify the eidsthig language of 40 CFR
281.33. The first amendment involved 40
CFR 261.33(c). a provision that lists
resldue5 remaining in containers or In
an inner liner thai have held commercial
chemical products listed In 40 CFR
261.33(e ). EPA believes that this
language was partially in error as It
does not include residues remaining In
containers or In an inner liner
contaminated with the 40 CFR 261.33(f)
inaterial& All of the other provisions in
40 CFR 201.33 refer to both 40 CFR
261.33 (e) and (1) wastes, and there Is no
reason that 40 CFR 281.33(c) should not
as well. The omission results in fact
from an oversight, and Is not based on
any choice by the Agency.
Many- commentera misunderstood the
Agency’s intent by this clarification. It
was not our Intent to subject “U” wastes
(i.e., non-acute hazardous wastes) to the
triple-rinsing requirements of 40 CFR
261.7(b)(3) as this section applies solely
to acute hazardous wastes. In 40 CFR
281.33(c), there Is not a corresponding
reference, however, that residues
remaining In containers or In an inner
liner contaminated with U” wastes are
subjectio regulation, unless empty as
defined in 40 CFR 281. 7 (b) (1). This
omission could be read as allowing the
disposal of full containers of “U” listed
wastes. While this would dearly be an
incorrect reading, today’s final action
corrects this omission.
aSp iflResidues
In addition, EPA proposed a clarifying
amendment-to 40 CFR 281.33(d) to be
codified In 40 CFR 261.2 (b) and (c) to
state that residues of spills of
commercial chemical products listed in
4 OCFR281 . 33(e)andffl -willbe
considered solid wastes if they are not
recycled within 80 days of the spilL 54
FR 48493-94. The Agency’s rationale
was that although such spilled materials
may be considered to be “abandoned”
under the existing regulatory language,
it might be more appropriate to establish
a specific time period after which such
spills became solid wastes. The Agency
noted further that it ordinarily views
spilled commercial chemicals as solid
wastes because the nature of a spill
constitutes disposal, and because of the
difficulty of recycling spill residues in
such matrices as soil or groundwater. Id.
En these instances, not only are spill
residues of commercial chemical
products unlike other 40 CFR 261.33
material (e.g., offspedflcatfon
products), but the Agency believes that
marginal claims of recyclabllity could be
asserted to avoid proper cleanup of
spllls.Id -
While comments on this Issue were
mixed, a number of commenters made
the point that this issue was
Inappropriate for determination in the
Third Third rulemaking because it is not
directly related to the Land Disposal
Restrictions program. Given that these
comments have merit and considering
the number ofissues that must be
dedded under the pressing timetable
Imposed by the statute, the Agency will
not go forward with the quantified
standard that It proposed.
Furthermore, the Agency believes that
this issue can be addressed by
interpretation of existing regulations.
Under 40 CFR 281.33, mere assertion of
intent to recycle a api11 residue of a
commercial chemical product does not
automatically Immunize the spill area
from RCRA subtitle C Jurisdiction. The
generator has the burden of proving that
the spilled material Is not a solid wasle,
and a generalized assertion does not
satisfy the burden. See 40 CFR 261.2(fl.
Objective considerations that could be
pointed to to satisfy this burden Include
whether the getierator has begun to
recycle the spill residue.-the length of
time the spill residue has existed, the
value of the spilled material, whether it
Is technically feasible or technically
practical to recyde the spill residue, and
whether there is any past history of the
company recycling this type of residue.
EPA repeats that assertion of intent to
recycle does not satisfy the generator’s
burden of proof. Rathes there must be
objective indicators of intent. and the
Indicators must be strong given that a
spill of hazardous material to soil or
groundwater Is normally a simple act of
disposal.
3. De Mirthnjs Exception to the Mixture
Rule
In the context of the Third Third
proposal, several commenters requested’
clarification of the scope of the mixture
rule exemption to the definition of
hazardous waste under 40 CPR
281.3(aX2 )(iv). This provision exempts
mixtures which contain small amounts
of listed spent solvents (“F-listed
solvents”) or other de nun /mis losses of
commercial chemical wastes (“P and U
wastes”) from manufacturing operations
when these listed wastes are mixed with
other wastewa -ter “the discharge of
which is subject to regulation under
either section 402 or section 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act (including wastewater
at facilities that have eliminated the
discharge of wastewaterV’ °
Commenters raised the issue of whether
disposal of such mixtures via Class I
UIC wells allows the facility to claim
this exemption. In particular,
commenters expressed concern that
recent EPA statements regarding the
scope of this exemption imply that large
volumes of wastewater will require
treatment of the P and U wastes within
the wastewater stream before injection
of a Class I well, and that capacity for
treatment of such wastestreams Is not
currently available.
Before responding to these comments,
some background information is in
order. RCBA subtitle C generally
regulates as hazardous all mixtures of
listed hazardous wastes and other solid
wastes. One exception from this rule is
for mixtures that “cons lst(] of
wastewater the discharge of which La -_
subject to regulation under either
sectIon 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water
Act (Including wastewater at facilities
which have eliminated the discharge of
wastewater) and: [ contain specific
amounts of listed solvents or de rnin:mis
losses of discarded chemical productsl.”
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(lv). This exception to
the mixture rule was estabbehed by
regulation on November 17, 1981. See 46
FR 58582. A specific level for spent
solvents Is established by the regulatton
(either I ppm or 25 ppm). The regulation
sets a worst-case maximum
concentration of solvent within the
wastewater stream the actual
concentration will almost certainly be
less. Conversely, there is no set
regulatory concentration for de minim s
loss levels of P and U wastes that are
listed In 40 CFR 281.33(e) and (I).
In the 1981 interim final rule, EPA did
not exempt all de rn/airing mixtures
generated at all facilities. Rather, EPA
limited the exemption as follows; “ [ The
exemption] applies only to wastewater
mixtures managed in wastewater
treatment systems whose discharge is
subject to regulation under’ • the
(CWAJ. This requirement will help to
prevent Indiscriminate discharge of
wastes into wastewater treatment
systems because to do so would
jeopardize the generator’s ability to
comply with its [ CWA) discharge
requirements.’ (T)he Agency
50 The exemption aieo covers mixtures of small
amOunts of hated ha rdous wastes in wastewaters
resulting from tabore tory operaflco o R
261.3(a)(2)(IvJ(E). Also, there is similar. but not
identicaL language contamed ma final rule that
provided (niarpretatione of certain terms and
provisions of atandaxsfn for hazardous waste tank
system, (53 FR 34W9. September 2. 1968J. Today’s
notice is ( W I changing the applicability of the
September 2. 1988 F aaI rule wflh respe to
hazardoua weate tank systems.
-------
22672
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 108 / Friday. June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
means to include all facilities which
generate wastewater which Is
discharged Into surface water or Into a
POTW(.) The Agency also means to
include those facilities (known as ‘zero
diachargers’) that have eliminated the
discharge of wastewater as a result of.
or by e,cceedlng (i.e., doing better than).
NPDES or pretreatment program
requIrements.’ 48 FR 58584 (Nov. 17,
-- 1981). -
Furthermore, the applicability of the
mixture rule exemption for P and U
wastes was limited to the Introduction
of these wastes into wasteweters “In the
normal handling of these materials,
either as raw products used In the
manufacturing process or as
intermediate or chemical products used
in or produced by the manufacturing
process.” [ emphasis added] 48 FR 58588.
Certain commenters assert that the
mixture rule exemption currently applies
to wastewater disposed of in a TJ!C welL
Specifically, these commenters argue
first that all Injection wells dispose of
wastewater “the discharge of which Is
subject to regulation (under the CWAJ.”
Second, commenters argue that U1C
wells per se constitute a method for
facilities to “eIImlnl%te ‘ the
discharge of wastewater.” Commenters
further suggest that wastewater disposal
via U1C wells should. be exempted as
consistent with the purposes for the
exemption expressed by EPA. i.e., that
such wastewater mixed with do minimia
levels of Listed wastes are adequately
regulated by another statute. These
commenters express their belief that
disposal of such mixtures down TJIC
wells would be adequately controlled
under the UIC regulations, and that
injection was the environmentally sound
method of disposal for these
wastewaters. -
EPA does not agree completely with
the commenters’ analysis of the scope of
the mixture rule exemption. First,
injection of a fluid In a UIC well Is not a
“discharge” within the meaning of the
CWA. Injection wells can, in
appropriate instances, constitute a
practice which has “eliminated the
discharge of wastewater.” but these
Instances must be evaluated on a case-
by-case basl8. As the regulation states.
the issue Is whether the “discharge” Is
subject to section 402 or 307(b) of the
CWA. not whether the facility is
“subject to regulation” under section
402. A IJIC weLl, whether or not the state
adopts its regulations under 402(d)
addressing such a weLl. Is not a CWA
discharge point. Thus, facilities with
wells for Injection of wastewater do not
fall within the mixture rule exemption
simply because they have an Injection
well on site.
UTC wells may, however, be “zero
discharge” facilities, La.. those which
have eliminated their dlschargn. To
qualify as such a facility, It must satisfy
the definition of a “zero discharge”
facility outlined in the November17,
1981 regulation. To repeat the language
from the 1981 preamble discussing that
provision. “(t)he Agency • means
to Include those facilities (known as
‘zero dlschargers’) that have ellnilna ted
the discharge of wastewater as a result
of or by exceedii g, NPDES or
pretreatment progmm requirements. “48
FR 58584 (Nov. 17, 1981) (emphasIs
added]. Thus, a IJIC well will certainly
qualify as a zero discharge facility if the
facility Injects the wastewater to comply
with NPDES permit conditions or an
applicable CWA effluent guideline. A
well at a facility which Is not “subject to
(CWA) regulation” under an NPDES
permit or an effluent guideline Is not
within the scope of the language of the
mixture rule exemption. EPA notes that
this Interpretation Is fully consistent
with Its 1981 preamble. and thus does
not constitute a “change” in
interpretation, as suggested by certain
commenters.
EPA notes. that, as a practical matter.
the facilities concerned about the scope
of the mixture rule exemption are Likely
unaffected by today’s clarification. Most
of these facilities are. In fact, in an
industry category (organic chemicals)
whose facilities are “subject to
regulation” under section 402 by virture
of the effluent guideline for that
category. See 40 CFR part 414 (1989).
Thus. EPA does not-believe that there
will be a problem with treatment
capacity for P and U wastes, because
most wastewaters containing do
minimis amounts of P and U wastes
now being Injected are not hazardous
waste now being Injected are not
hazardous waste and will be unaffected
by today’s rule. Nonetheless, EPA
wishes to caution such facilities that the
mixture rule exemption does not
constitute a license to mix collected
volumes of E, P. or U wastes into a
treated wastewater stream and then
Inject such a stream. As EPA clearly
stated in 1981, the emption is
designed to cover situations where
“various spills or Incidental losses” of
solvents- or commercial chemicals are
“reasonably and efficiently managed by
being discharged Into a plant’s
wastewater treatment system.” 46 FR
36584. EPA clearly did not assume that
facifitles would attempt to avoid
treatment of such wastes.
M. Storage Prohibition
In the proposed rule. EPA recognized
that there are concerns with Its existing
interpretation of the statutory storage
prohibition set out in section 3004(j) of
RCRA. Section 3004(j) provides that
storage of prohibited hazardous waste is
Itself prohibited “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.” Principal concerns are that
some storage may be prohibited even
where it Is not being used with the
intent to circumvent the land disposal
prohibitions. and whether the storage
prohibition should only apply if storage
is used as surrogate disposal.
To fully evaluate these concerns, the
Agency requested comment on an
alternative Interpretation of 40 CFR
288.50. Under the alternative approach.
storage of prohibited wastes In tanks or
containers pending the utilization of
proper treatment recovery or disposal
capacity would not be prohibited. EPA
provided two examples of allowable
storage under this alternative approach:
(1) Where a generator is storing
wastes In tanks for six weeks because
of a backup at an Incinerator which the
generator has a contract to use; and
(2) Where a treatment facility treats a
prohibited waste to a level that does not
meet the treatment standard and then
stores the waste before treating it again
to meet the standard.
EPA recognized In the proposal that
under the alternative approach. the
phrase “utilization of proper treatment.
recovery or disposal capacity” needed
to be further defined. The Agency also
sought further comment on how a
temporal element might be added to the
phrase “pending the utilization
in order to define the limits of the
proposed approach. Commenters were
also asked to address other potential
situations where they believed that an
overly literal reading of 3004(j) may
beve consequences they believe
Congress did not intend.
Many of the commenters supported
the proposed broadening of the
allowable bases for storing prohibited
wastes. However, the commenters did
not offer specific workable suggestions
for defining terms such as “pending”
and “proper”, as EPA noted was
necessary. Without objective criteria for
defining the limits of allowable storage.
EPA believes that the proposed
reinterpretation will be very difficult to
Implement and enforce. For example.
does it matter how far In the future—
five years. two years, six months—
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
proper treatment might be utilized? Must
there be a contract with a treatment
company? What if it Is contingent, or
contains option provisions? Thus, the
Agency Is Instead retaining its
longstanding Interpretation of the
storage prohibition and Is not flnali ng
the proposed alternative approach.
Under the existing approach, both
RCRA 3004(j) and 40 CFR 268.50 provIde
that storage of prohibited hazardous
wastes Is itself prohibited “unless such
storage Is solely for the purpose of th
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposaL” Storage of prohibited wastes
Is only allowed in non-land based
storage units (La.. tanks and containers),
since land-based storage Is a type of
land disposaL
Two major principles underlie the
storage prohlbitLon (1) the need to
reduce the risks created by long-term
storage; and (2) the goal of the Land
Disposal Restrictions, and HSWA
generally, to encourage the expeditious
use of alternative treatment
technologies. Cf. Hazardous Waste
Treatment CocznciIv. EPA. 888 F.Zd..355
(DC. Cir. Sept.15, 1869) (“HW7 C un
where the court said: -
Congress believed that permitting storage
of large quantitie, of waste as a means of
forestalling treatment would involve health
threats equally serious to those posed by
land disposal, and therefore opted in large
part for a “treat as you go regulatory regime.
886 F.2d. at 357.
Mechanisms such as national capacity
variances and case-by-case extensions
are intended to address situations where
there is a lack of treatment capacity.
No finn time limit is established
pursuant to § 268.50. Generators and
owners or operators can store as long as
necessary. The legislative history-makes
it clear that the Intent of RCRA 3G04(j)
and § 268.50 Is to prohibit use of long-
term storage to circumvent treatment
requirements imposed by the Land
Disposal Restrictions. 129 Cong. Rec.
H8139 (daily ed. October 6, 1983).
However, if prohibited wastes are
stored beyond one year, the owner/
operator has the burden of proving (hi
the event of an enforcement action) that
such storage is for the allowable reason:
prior to one year, EPA maintains the
burden of proving that storage has
occurred for the wrong reason.
Finally, EPA reemphasizes that intent
is not a-critical factor hi determining
liability. In order to successfully enforce
this provision, the Agency need not
demonstrate that those storing
prohibited wastes have a particular
state of mind. Rather, objective factors
such as the type and amount of waste In
storage and the time In storage still may
be relied upon as the key factors In
Interpreting this provision. in
determining-whether storage is lawful,
the Agency will continue to evaluate
these factors In light of Its “treat as you
go” approach noted In Ii Wit ’ EL EPA
notes, however, that the Intent of those
storing prohibited wastes may be
relevant In the Agency’s determination
regarding what type of relief, if any, to
seek In a civIl or criminal enforcement
action.
1. Storage of Radioactive Mixed Waste
Several commenters urged the Agency
to modify its existing interpretation of
the section 3004(f) storage prohibition as
it relates to radioactive mixed waste.
Mixed waste contains both a hazardous
waste component subject to RCRA
hazardous waste management
standards and a radioactive waste
component regulated -under the Atomic
Energy Act AEA). The commenters
asserted that there Is little or no
available permitted treatment or
dlspO8aL capacity for commercially
generated mixed waste, and that many
of these mixed wastes contain spent
solvents or California list wastes that
are not -eligible fp.r the national capacity
variance which EPA is granting for
mixed waste containing first, second.
and third-third wastes. The commenters
emphasized that generators have no
practical option but to store their
prohibited mixed waste on-site, pending
the availability of treatment and
disposal capacity. The commenters
stated that the Agency should not
interpret such storage as “surrogate
disposal” that violates section 3004(j),
since this interpretation would result in
a requirement allowing no possibility of
compliance by generators. The
commenters further asserted that
interpreting section 3004 (j) in this
manner could give rise to an
incons istency with the AEA. within the
meaning of RCRA section 1006(a).
EPA is aware of the difficulties posed
by the applicability of the section 3004(j)
storage prohibition to mixed wastes
under circumstances where there is no
treatment or disposal capacity. These
Issues and their effects on certain low-
level waste generators (e.g., hospitals.
research institutions. universities), were
also discussed at length in a recent
report developed by the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA). (See
“Partnerships Under Pressure, Managing
Commercial Low-level Radioactive
Waste,” OTA, November 1989).
EPA acknowledges that the current
shortage of treatment or disposal
capacity, ann the requirements and
deadlines under other statutory
programs, are factors which are
affecting the management of mixed
waste. EPA will further evaluate the
legal, policy, and factual issues relevant
to this matter. Since this issue Is not
material to the requirements which EPA
must promulgate In order to meet the
May 8, 1990 Third Third rule statutory
deadline, EPA will resolve this matter
separately from this rulemaking. The
Agency expects to issue Its policy on the
mixed waste storage issue during the
next 90 days.
N. Case-by-Case £vten’sions
Under RCRA Section 3004(h)(3), EPA
can grant case-by-case extensions of the
prohibition effective dates for up to one
year beyond the applicable deadlines;
extensicns are renewable once for up to
one additional year. On November 7, —
1988, EPA published a final mile (51 FR
40572) establishing the regulatory
framework to implement the land
disposal restrictions program, including
the procedures for submitting case-by-
case petitions.
To obtain a case-by-case extension.
the statute requires that the applicant
make the following demonstrationsi
(1) A binding contractual commitment
has been made to construct or otherwise
provide alternative treatment, recovery.
or disposal capacity that protects human
health and the environment. 21
(2) Due to circumstances beyond his
or her control, such alternative capacity
cannot reasonably be made available by
the applicable effective date.
(3) if a surface impoundment or
landfill is used by the applicant to
manage the waste during the extension
period, the unit must meet the
requirements of section 3004(o). EPA has
Interpreted these statutory provis ons to
also require the following (see 40 CFR
268,5(a)):
(1) A good-faith effort must be made
to locate and contract with treatment,
recovery, or disposal faciLties
nationwide to manage the waste in
accordance with restrictions by the
applicable effective date.
(2) The capacity being constructed or
otherwise provided will be sufficient to
manage the entire quantity of waste that
Is the subject of the petition.
• Secuon 3004(hK3) refe to si ch alt ath-
capacity. refmving back to Section 30O4(h)
which apeaki of ahernatfve tr atoent. recove y. or
disposal rapacity which protecta human hoatth and
the cnvtronm ,ent.” For disposal capacity. EPA
IntorpTe’b thu language to mean a no.ongrahcn unit.
See S€ctlons 3004 (dIll). (e)(l), and (g)( 5t. For
treatment and recovery capacity, the referenr.e
refers to c apacity that satisfies the S cttcin 3 1114t.n)
standard.
-------
22674
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
(3) A detailed schedule for obtaining
required operating and constructing
pennlta, or an outline of how and when
alternative capacity will be available.
(4) Adequate capacity Is available to
manage the waste during the extension
period, documenting in the petition the
location of all sites at which the waste
will be managed.
Alter an applicant has been granted a
case-by-case extension, the applicant
must notify the Adrninintrator as soon as
he or she has knowledge of any change
In the demonstrations made In the
petition. In addition, the applicant must
submit progress reports, at specified
intervals, that describe the progress
being made towards obtaining adequate
alternative capacity, Identify any delay
or possible delay in developing the
capacity, and describe the mitigating
actions being taken In response to the
event See 40 CFR 268.5 (1) and (g).
The Agency has received a number of
Inquiries on whether a proposed no-
migration petition or proposed
treatability variance would satisfy the
first statutory requirement That is,
could a proposed no-migration variance
or a proposed treatability variance
constitute the “alternative treatmenL
recovery, or disposal capac1t .” If so,
and if the Agency were to grant a case-
by-case extension, this could provide
petitioners with additional time while
their no-migration petition or treatabilhty
variance is being considered for final
• approvaL
First, It should be noted that the
amount of time required to process no-
migration and treatability variances (for
other than injected wastes) Is expected
to be 12—18 months due to the
complexity of the technical
demonstratlon4 that must be made. and
their subsequent evaluation. On the
other hand, the case-by-case petitions
generally can be processed in about 6-8
months because the required
demonstrations are more
straightforward. This could give the
petitioner about 6 months of relief Some
petitioners believe that there are a
number of legitimate circumstances
where the few extra months’gained
would make the difference between
closing a facility which ultimately will
be granted a valid variance request, and
keeping it in operation.
In response to these inquiries. EPA is
taking this opportunity to clarify that the
statutory requirement to obtain a
“binding contractual, commitment to
construct or otherwise provide
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity” may be satisfied by a
Federal Register notice wherein the
Agency proposes to grant either a no-
migration extension or a treatability
variance. The Agency believes that
EPA’s proposing to grant either a
treatability variance petition or a no-
migration petition is sufficient
demonstration that the petitioner has
made a good faith effort to commit to
obtaining alternative protective disposal
capacity any further commitment Is
solely contingent on EPA’s action at this
poinL In addition, the Agency’s action In
proposing to grant the variance petition
serves as a partial lmprlmatu.r that the
alternative capacity under consideration
will prove to be protective. However,
the mere filing of a variance petition
provides no such guarantee (most of the
no-migration petitions for surface units
filed to date, for example, have proven
technically deficient), and thus cannQt
be deemed to satisfy the statutory
requirement
Of course, should EPA then grant a
case-by-case extension, that grant
would be conditional If EPA denies the
no-migration petition or the treatability
variance, then the basis for the case-by-
case extension may no longer exist and
the variance will be terminated unless
there Is additional basis for the
variance. In additio when the no-
migration oi treatability variance Is
granted, the case-by-case extension
automatically expires (since it Is no
longer needed). -
Because significant time and -
resources would have been expended on
the case-by-case petition review
unnecessarily if the no-migration
petition or treatability variance is
ultimately denied, EPA will begin
review of a case-by-case extension
petition only after receiving a clear
Indication that the Agency has the
Intention of proposing to grant the no-
migration petition or treatability
variance (and will not propose to grant a
case-by-case extension unless the
Agency has actually proposed to grant
the variance). Conversely, when the
clear Indication Is that the no-migration
petition or treatability variance will be
denlecL ’EPA will not review the case-by.
case petition, and the petitioner will be
notified at the same time ha or she is
notified of the status of the other
petition.
0. Applicability of California List
Prohibitions after May & 1
In the November22. 1989 proposal.
EPA discussed two Issues relating to
California list wastes. 54 FR 48498, The
flr t issue is the question of continued
applicability of California list
prohibitions to wastes which are
granted a national capacity variance in
today’s rulemaking. The second issue is
whether California list prohibitions
apply to wastes that are first Identified
and listed alter the date of the HSWA
amendments. 54 FR 48498-99.
EPA discussed the relationship of
California list prohibitions to scheduled
wastes subject to a capacity variance
(either national or case-by-case) In the
preamble to the First Third rule. 53 FR
31188. The Agency established In the
First Third rule that although specific
prohibitions and treatment standards
take precedence over California list
prohibitions, during the period of a
capacity variance the California list
prohibitions continue to apply. EPA
Included this discussion in the Third
Third proposal not to reopen the Issue
but to put persons on notice that the
same reading applies to Third Third
wastes, Including characteristic wastes.
In fact, the few commenters on the Issue
Indicated that they agreed with and
were aware of the Agency’s position.
The Agency did solicit comment
however, on whether It would be
permissible to reevaluate whether the
California list prohibitions for acid
corrosive wastes would apply during the
period of a national capacity variance
for Third Third acid corrosive wastes
(which are Identical substances). -
Several coinmenters suggested that the
prohibition for California list corrosives
should not apply to Third Third
corrosives that are granted national
capacity variances In today’s
rulemaking. The Agency disagrees with
this assertion and believes that not
applying the more generally applicable
California list prohibitions as an Interim
prohibition is contrary to the literal
statutory language and enunciatlons of
Congressional intent In the legislative
history. See S. Rep. No. 284. 98th Cong.
1st Sess. 17. Also, given the fact that
these wastes have been restricted since
July 8. 1987. It Is illogical that the
Agency would grant these wastes a
capacity extension in today’s
rulemaking. Therefore, a corrosive
waste that Is Injected underground Is at
a minimum subject to the California list
prohibitions on August 8, 1990.
The other Issue on which EPA
solicited comment Is whether newly
Identified or listed wastes could be
covered by California list prohibitions.
Most of the comments supported the
Agency’s tentative conclusion that the
statutory language does not compel a
reading that California list prohibitions
apply, and further supported the view
that California list prohibitions should
not apply. EPA is adopting that reading
In today’s rule. As the Agency noted at
proposal, there would be massive
dislocations in the regulated community
If California list prohibitions were to
apply to newly identified and listed
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22675
wastes. For example, If wastes
identified by the new Toxicity
Characteristic were HOCs, thus
triggering Immediate California list
prohlb1Uons there would be Immediate
prohibitions of these wastes rather than
the more phased schedule specified In
section 3004(g)(4). EPA does not believe
this result Is desirable, In addition, the
Agency believes that the better reading
of the statute Is that the California list
prohibitions were not meant to apply to
wastes that are newly Identified or
listed. Consequently, EPA is determining
today that wastes that are newly
Identified and listed 33 are prohibited
only when the Agency takes specific
action with regard to them pursuant to
section 3004(g)(4).
Since the California list prohibitions
are superseded by more specific
treatment standards (with the caveat
that the prohibitions continue to apply
during capacity variance periods as
discussed above) with the promulgation
of the Third Third final rule, almost all
of the California list prohibitions will be
superseded by more specific
prohibitions and treatment standards.”
The California list prohibitions remain
applicable for (1) liquid h?zardous
wastes that contain over 50 ppm PCBs:
(2) HOC-containing wastes identified as
hazardous by a characteristic property
that does not involve HOCs, as, for
example, an l itable waste that also
contains greater than 1000 ppm HOCs
(but not an EP toxic waste that exhibits
the characteristic because it contains
one of the six chlorinated organic
pesticides covered by the EP toxicity
characteristic); and (3) liquid hazardous
wastes that exhibit a characteristic and
also contain over 134 mg/I of nickel
and/or 130 mg/i of thaffium.
Finally, EPA proposed that it would
delete the provision specifying burning
In boilers and furnaces as a specified
method of treatment for California list
HOCs (existing § 268.42(a)(2)) because
there are virtually no situations to which
the provision could apply. 54 FR 48499.
There was virtually no comment on this
point, and EPA Is finalizing this action
as proposed (or the. reasons stated at
proposal.
“Newly Identified means either newly subject to
an existing characteristic (e.g. such as thou. wastes
removed from the Bevill exclusion) or aubiect to a
new characteristic. Newly listed wastes may still be
subject to any peexisting applicable characteristic
standards or Callfcrnia list prohibitions stemming
from the characteristic.
‘ 5 See 52 FR 993 (August 12. 1987) and 52 FR
25773 (July 8. 1987) see al,o 40 CER 28&32 b) (HOC
prohibttton superseded by treamient standard and
effective date for a particular HOC).
W. State Authority
A. Applicability of Ruies in Authorized
States -
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization. EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013, and
7003 of RCRA. although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
In 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to HSWA a State with final
authorization admlniatered Its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied In the authorized State,
and EPA could not Issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions Imposed
by HSWA take effect In authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect In nonauthorized States. EPA Is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the Issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adop.t
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization. HSWA
applies In authorized States In the
interim. -
With one exception, today’s final rule
is promulgated pursuant to sections 3004
(d) through (k), and (m), of RCRA (42
U.S.C. 6924 (d) through (k), and (m)).
Therefore, It will be added to Table I in
40 CSR 271.10), which Identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
take effect In all States, regardless of
their authorization status. States may
apply for either Interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions
In Table 1, as discussed in the following
section. Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.1(j) will
also be modified to indicate that this
rule is a self-implementing provision of
HSWA.
The exception is the clarifying
amendment to § 261.33(c). This
clarification is not effective in
authorized States since the requirements
are not imposed pursuant to HSWA.
Thus, these requirements will be
applicable only in those States that do
not have interim or final authorization.
In authorized States, the requirements
will not be applicable until the State
revises Its program to adopt equivalent
requirements under State law.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will Implement
today’s final rule in authorized States
until their programs are modified to
adopt these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either Interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3008(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA’s. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described In 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January 1. 1993 (see 40
CFR 27124(c)).
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and must subsequently
submit the modification to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which the
State must modify Its program to adopt
these regulations is July 1, 1991, in
accordance with section 271.21(e). These
deadlines can be extended in certain
cases (see section 271.21(e)(3fl. Once
EPA approves the modification, the
State requirements become subtitle C
RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in todays
rule. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course. States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the
Federal program. EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States in
their efforts to implement their programs
rather than take separate actions under
Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
br final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include
-------
22 J8
Federal Register j Vol. 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1. 2 ) / Rules and Regulations
8tandards equiv.a t to these
egnlthLnIa eirappllcafiea.
Howsver the State must modify its
program by the deadline set forth In
27L21 eJ. States that submit official
applications for final authorIzation 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations must Include standards
equivalent to these regulations In their
application. The requirements a state
must meet when submitting Its final
authoi t appIIi nttnn are sat forth In
40 CFR 271.3.
The regulations being promulgated
today need not affect the State’s
Uade ound Injection Control
pranacy states. A State currently
authorized to nister the UIC
program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) could continue to do so
withont seeking authority to administer
these amendments. However. a State
which wished to implement Part 148 and
receive authorization to grant
exempthms from the land disposal
restrictions would have to demonstrate
that It had the requisite avthoi:ily to
administer sectIons 3004(f) and (g) of
RCRA. The conditions under which such
an authorization may take place are
summarized below and are discussed In
a July 15, 1985 final rule (50 FR zs72s) .
C Stale IthpJementzrt n
The following fo w aspects of the -
framework established in the November
7,1988. rule 51 FR 40572) affect Slate
iplementatkan of today’s role and
Impact State actions on the regulated
COiuiau ity
1. Under port 268. subpart C. EPA is
promulgating land disposal restrictions
for all generators. treaters, storers, and
disposers of certain types 0 f hazardous
waste. In order to retain auihonzation.
States must adopt the regulations under
this Subpart since State requirements
can be no less stringent than Federal
requirements.
2. Also under port 268. EPA Is granting
two-year national variances from the
effective dates of the land disposal
restrictions based on an analysis of
available alternative tr tTnent .
recovery, or disposal capacity. Under
288.5. case-by-case estensines of upto
one year (renewable for one additional
yesri may be granted for specific
applinairts lacking adequate capac y .
The Arlmi,i trator of EPA Is solely
responsible far granting vanan to the
effective dates because these
determinations t he made on a
nat ional basis. In addition. it is clear
that RCRA section 3004(h}(3) intends fur
the Mmint frator to grant case-by-case
extensions after consulting the affected
States, on the bams of national concerns
which only the Mniinistrator can
evaluate. Therefore. States cannot be
authorized for this aspect of the
pru uw .
3. Under 288.44. the Agency may
grant waste-specific variances from
treatment standards In cases where It
can be dernonafrated tht the physical
and/or chemical properties of the
wastes differ significantly from wastes
analyzed In developing the treatment
standards, and the wastes cazmnt he
treated to specified levels or treated by
specified methods.
The Agency is solely responsible for
granting such variances sInce the result
of such &i action may be the
establishment of a new waste
treatahility group. All wastes meeting
the criteria of these new waste
treatability group. may also be subject
to the treatment stnnd2rd estahitehed by
the variance. Granting such variances
may have national Impacts: therefore.
this aspect of the program Is ont
delegated to the States at this time.
4. Under 288.8. EPA may grant
petitions of specific duration to allow
land disposal of certain hazardous
wastes where It can be demonstrated
that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents for as long as
the waste remains hazardous. States
which have the authority to impose
re Mri1nn may be authorized under
RCRA section 2006 to grant petitions for
exemptions from the restrictions. -
Decisions on site-specific petitions do
notrequ.u e the n t n perspective
required to restrict wastes or grant
extensions. EPA wffl be handling “no
migration” petitions for surface disposal
facilities at Headquarters. though the
States may be authorized to grant these
petitions in the fubre. The Agency
expects to gain valuable experience and
Information from review of “no
migration” petitions which may affect
future land disposal restrictions
rulemaldngs. In accordance with RCRA
section 3004(1). EPA will publish notice
of the Agency’s final decision on
petitions in the Federal RegistaL
V. b fect Of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Pru azn on Other
Envi ental Programs
A. Discharges Reguiated Under the
CJerm Water Act
As a resell of the land disposal
restrictions program, some generators
might switch from land disposal of
restricted Third Third wastes to
discharge to publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) in order to avoid
Incurring the costs of a1ta tive
treatment. In shifting from land disposal
to discharge to POTWs, an increase in -
human and environmental risks could
occur. Also as a result of the land
disposal resfrinlioris hazardous waste
generators might illegally discharge their
wastes to surface waters without
treatment, which could cause damage to
the local ecosystem and potentially pose
health risks from direct exposure or
b i oaccunulation.
Seine generators might treat their
wastes prior to discharging to a POTW.
but the treatment step itself could
Increase risks to the environmenL For
example. I! incineration were the
pretreatment step, metals and other
hazardous constituents present in air
scrubber waters could be discharged to
surface waters. However, the amount of
Third Thfrd waste shifted to POTWa
would be limited by such factors as the
physical form of the waste, the degree of
pretreatment required prior to discharge,
and State and local regulations.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the
Marine Protection. Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
There could be a potential demand for
some of the hazardous wastes included
In today a rulemaking to be shifted from
land disposal to ocean dumping and
ocean-based incineration. If the cost of
ocean-based disposal plus
transportation were lower than the cost
of land-based treatment, disposal, and
transportation. this option could seem to
be an attractive alternative. In addition.
ocean-based disposal could seem
attractive to the regulated commuruty if
land-based treatment were not
available.
However, the Ocean Dumping Ban
Act of 1988 has restricted ocean
dumping of sewage sludge and
industrial wastes to existing, authorized
dumpers until December 31, 1991. after
which”... It shall be unlawful for any
person to dump (sewage sludge or
Industrial wastes) into ocean waters.. .“.
Therefore, the Ocean Dumping Ban Act
has made moot any economic or other
Incentive to ocean dump industrial
hazardous wastes, including the wastes
subject to this regulation.
C Wefihead Protection Regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SD WA)
Section 1428 of the SDWA contains
requirements for the development and
Implementation of state Wellhead
Protection (WHP) Programs to protect
wells and weilfields which are used, or
may be used to provide drinking water
to public water systems. Under section
1428, each state imist adopt and submit
to EPA for approval a WHP program
that, at a Thr., ,r.ufl
(1) Specifies the duties of stats agencies,
local governments, and public water systems
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 I FrIday. June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22677
in the development and implementation of
the WHP program
(2) For each wellhead, determine, the
weilbead protection area (WHPA), as defined
In section 1428(e) of SDWA. based on all
reasonably available hydrogeologic
information on ground-water flow, recharge.
and discharge and other Information the state
deems necessary to adequately determine the
WHPA
(3) IdentIfies within each WHPA all
potential human sources of contaminants
which may have any adverse health effects:
(4) Describes provisions for technical
assistance, financial assistance,
implementation of control measures, and
education, training, and demonstration
projects to protect the water supply within
WHPAS from such contaminants:
(5) Includes contingency plans for the
location and provision of alternate drinking
water supplies for each public water system
in the event of well or welifleld
contamination by such contaminants:
(8) RequIres that state and local
governments and public water systems
consider all potential sources of human
contamination within the expected welihead
area of a new water well which seives a
public water eystem and
(7) RequIres public participation in
developing the WHP program.
SDWA required all states to submit a
WHP program to EPA by June 19, 1989,
for EPA review and approval. EPA has
received 29 state submittals for review.
SDWA requires that all Federal
agencies having jurisdiction over any
potential source of contaminants
Identified by a state program under this
section shall comply with all the
requirements of the state program.
Any private or public entity subject to
the land disposal restrictions regulations
must also be in compliance with the
appropriate state’s wellhead protection
program. The Agency reiterates that the
land disposal of hazardous wastes must
comply not only with the land disposal
restrictions and other RCRA regulations,
but with other environmental programs,
such as the Welihead Protection
Program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act
D. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Air Act (CAA)
There are two air emission concerns
with respect to the land disposal
restrictions. The first Is a cross-media
concern about air emissions that occur
as a result of waste treatment such as
incineration of metal-bearing wastes
causing metal emissions to the
atmosphere. Another concern is with air
emissions from the land disposal of the
treatmextt residue. Air emissions control
programs are under development using
both the CAA and RCRA to address
these concerns as discussed below.
Specific cross-media air emission
concerns have been identified for
treatment technologies applicable to
Third Third wastes, but EPA believes
that existing Clean Air Act controls
adequately address the potential
problems. Retorting of mercury sulfide
wastes can result in air emissions of
both elemental mercury and sulfur
dioxide (S02). The Agency has
promulgated a National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for mercury emissions under
section 112 of the CAA (40 CFR part 61.
subpart E). There are no industry-
specific national CAA control standards
for S02èmlssions from retorting
mercury sulfide wastes. There are,
however, regulations for the prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) of air
quality that would address not only
these S02 emissions but also any
mercury emissions that are not
regulated by the NESHAP.
The NESHAP limits mercury
emissions to the atmosphere from
mercury processing facilities, mercury
cell chlor-alkall plants, and plants that
incinerate and/or dry wastewater
treatment plant sludges. In all these
cases, the NESHAP limits mercury
emissions across the entire processing
facility to the extent necessary to
protect human health. The NESHAP
would not apply to a dedicated mercury
sulfide waste retorting facility that is not
located in an ore processing or a
mercury cell chior-alkall plant EPA Is
addressing problems of potential
mercury emissions by requiring that
retorters either be subject to the
NESHAP or operate with the PSDs on
which the NESHAP was based.
Under section 165(a) of the CA.A. all
new major stationary sources and major
modifications to existing sources oLair
pollution must obtain a PSD permit. If
the mercury of S02 emissions from the
retorting process were to come from a
major stationary source or a major
modification subject to the PSD
regulations and would be emitted in
significant amounts (greater than 0.1
tons per year of mercury or 40 tons per
year of S02), then such emissions would
be subject to best available control
technology (BACfl requirements. An air
quality analysis for mercury and S02
would also be required under PSD.
Moreover, an air quality analysis must
be conducted to demonstrate that the
S02 emissions would neither cause nor
contribute to violations of any national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
or PSD increment for S02. Facilities that
are located in areas that have failed to
meet any NAAQS for S02 (I.e.,
designated nonattachment areas) and
emit more than 100 tons per year of S02,
must not only apply emission controls
that meet the lowest achievable
emission rate but also offset their
remaining S02 emissions by acquiring
federally enforceable emission
reductions from other nearby S02
emissions sources.
The Agency Is also concerned
whether incineration of wastes
containing brominated organics or
organo-nitrogen compounds may
adversely affect air quality. The
presence of bromine complicates the
evaluation of incineration of these
wastes. A detailed discussion of the
Agency’s approach for brornina ted
organics is contained in section IU.A.5 b
of today’s preamble. A discussion of
potential nitrogen oxide emissions from
organo-nitrogen wastes is contained in
section ULA.5.c.
There are several general regulatory
development programs under RCRA that
address treatment technology air —
emissions. The Agency has initiated a
three-phased program under § 3004(n) of
RCRA to address air emissions from
hazardous waste management units
other than incinerators. The first phase
addresses organic air emissions as a
class from two types of emission
sources. The first source category is
process equipment (pumps, valves, etc)
that contact hazardous waste that
contain greater than 10 percent organic
compounds, including such as
distillation units and incinerators. The
second source category is certain vents
on various treatment technologies, such
as air or steam strippers. These
standards were proposed in the Federal
Register on February 5, 1987 (52 FR 3748)
and are expected to be promulgated this
spring.
The second phase of standards
development under section 3004(n) of
R RA addresses organic air emissions
as a class from tanks, containers, and
surface impoundments. Treatment
technologies that occur in tanks or
containers that are not controlled by the
Phase I standards would be controlled
by these standards. Wastes that would
be prohibited from land disposal may
continue to be managed in a surface
impoundment as long as the treatment
residuals that do not meet the applicable
treatment standards are removed from
the impoundment Within one year of
entry into the impoundment. These
standards will control air emissions
from the management of wastes in the
surface impoundment. These standards
are expected to be proposed in the
Federal Register this spring.
In the third phase of the section
3004(n) standards development, the
Agency will develop additionaL
standards for the sources addressed in
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 108 I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
the first two phases as necessary to
address residual risks.
In addition to the section 300ttn)
standards, general standards to control
both organic and metal emissions from
the combustion of hazardous waste In
Incinerators and other types of
combustion devices are under various
stages of development
In certain cases, waste treatment may
occur In treatment technologies that are
not required to obtain RCRA e u its .
Guidance for the control of air eujiasictis
from those auunxu, such as exempt
biological treutm ut tanks arid recycling
units, is being developed under the
CA
None of the regulatory efforts
discussed above address air emissions
from the land disposal of treatment
residue in landfills, land treatment units,
or waste piles becanse the Agency
presently presumes that these anita will
only receive wastes that have been
treated to meet the BDAT requirements.
The Age y is co dering whether to
propose r uIathms in a separate
rulemaking to limit air emissions from
land diaposalunitsseeking to land
dispose of wastes under a no mi alion
variance.
E. Clean Up Actions Under the
Comprehensive Envfronmentoi
Response. Compansation. artd Liability
Act
The land disposal restrictions may
have aignlllcant effects on the selection
and Implementation of response actions
that are taken under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act
(C CI A). There are three primary
areas in which these effects may occur.
One area that may be affected by the
land disposal r trictions is in the
selection of treatment standards at the
remedial action site. The cleanup
standards set at CERCLA sites are risk-
based, while treatment standards
developed under the land disposal
restrictions program are technology-
based. Therefore, the technology-based
treatment standards may be more
stringent than the risk-based cleanup
standards developed based on the
CERCLA selection of remedy aiteria,
and vies veraa Another matter that may
be affected is the treatment of I and
debris contaminated with wastes
restricted from land dispo aL
Con+2m,nated sod and debris are a
primary type of waste that must be
remedlated at most CERCLA sites. In
many cases, the soil matrix is different
from that of the Industrial wastes for
which treatment standards are set.
CERCLA site managers must either
comply with the treatment standards or
request and be granted a variance from
the treatment st dArd ( 268.44) or a
jj variance ( 268.83.
Finally, even though the hazardous
substances at a RCLA remedlatlon
site may have been disposed prior to the
effective date of RCRA. lithe action
Involves removal of restricted wastes
after the prohibition effective date, the
land disposal rostricliona are legally
applicable (51 FR 40577, Novewber 7,
1986). See also Chemical Waste
Management v..EPA. 8691. Zd at 1535-
37 (B.C. a . 1989). For example. if a
waste Is excavated from a unit. treated,
and redlaposed. EPA has Indicated that
“placement” (see RCRA section 3OO4(k )
of the waste in a land disposal unit has
occurred. and the applicable treatment
standards must be met (see 53 FR 51444
and 51445, December21. 1988).
However, If the waste is capped in
place, removal or “placement” has not
occurred, and the treatment standards
are not legally applicable.
F. Applicability of Treatment Standards
to Wastes f-rain Pesticides Regulated
Under the Federal Insecticide.
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
A number of generators of pesticide
waste that have heretofore been
comparatively unaware of the land
disposal restrictions stay be regulated
under today’s rulemaking. This will
require that the Agency develop
guidance materials and provide training
on how to comply with the requirements -
of the land disposal restuctiona.
Generators of significant quantities of
pesticide P and U wastes are farmers
and commercial pesticide applicators.
The provielorie of 40 CFR 282.70 and
288.1 exempt farmers from regulation
under the land disposal restrictions
progxam however, no such exemption
exists for commercial applicators. Such -
generators of hazardous wastes have
traditionally land disposed their
pesticide wastes. With promulgation of
today’s final rule. these generators must
comply with the requirements of the
land disposal restrictions If they dispose
a restricted hazardous waste.
G. Regalo-€ory Overlap of
Polyrhlorizmted Biphen ’yls (PCBs)
Under the Toxic Substance Centre/Act
(TSCA) and RCRA.
Certain P and U listed wastes contain
PCBs. The PCB component of such a
waste mLxtilre Is regulated primarily
under TSCA (although it may also be a
California list waste, and subject to
RCRA regulation (both substantive and
administrative as well)), while the listed
P or U component of the waste is
regulated under RCRA. Such a mixture
of listed/PCB waste must meet the
applicable requirements under both
statutes. Such a waste must go to an
Incinerator permitted nider both TSCA
and RCRA. Any ash residual from
Incineration must meet the treatment
standard for the listed waste component
prior to land disposaL
VL Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Ariclysis—Sur/ace
Disposed Wastes
In accordance with Executive Order
No. 12291, the Agency has reviewed the
costs and benefits of today’s final rule
and has determined that todays final
rule constitutes a Thrajor regulation”
because it results In an annual cost to
the economy in excess of $100 million.
Asa result of this determination, the
Agency has conducted a regulatory
Impact analysis (RIA) in support of
today’s final rule. The complete RIA
document. Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes Final
Rule (April 24, 1990), is available for
review in the public docket for today’s
final rule. The complete document was
also submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review, as
required by Executive Order No. 12291.
This section of the preamble -
summarizes the results of the regulatory
impact analysis of the final rule, as
detailed ip the RIA document, as well as
comments received on the regulatory
impact analysis for the proposed rule.
Section VLAI below describes the
universe of wastes and facilities
affected by today’s rule. Section VLA.2
below summarmes the analysis of
human health and environmental
benefits attributable to today’s rule.
Section VLA.3 summarizes the economic
cost and impact analysis performed for
today’s rule.
The Agency analyzed benefits, costs.
and economic Impacts using the caine
approach and methodology that was
used for the August 17, 1988, First Third
final rule (53 FR 3U38). 24 The effects of
the .flnal rule were estimated by
cotñparing post-regulatory management
practices and conditions with those
occurring under baseline conditions.
Two post-regulatory scenarios were
examined. Under the first scenario, the
“subtitle C” scenario, all treatment
residuals would be disposed of in
subtitle C units. For the second, “subtitle
D. scenario, all characteristic waste
treatment residuals would be disposed
of In Subtitle D mits. The baseline was
“For detwied udormetion on the cost
methodoio y, see Regv/0o17 Impact Analysis of the
Land D po dResir ct aaa ae Fits: Thud Wes es
Final Reporf A igusi 198& ICF incorporated
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22879
defined as continued land disposal of
wastes In units meeting minimum
technological requirements.
The Agency adjusted reported waste
management practices to reflect
compliance with the land disposal
restriction rules covering solvents and
dioxias, California list wastes, and First
and Second Third scheduled wastes. In
making these adjustments, A
assumed that facilities would comply
with these other rules by the least costly
methods allowable. However, though
First Third soft hammer wastes were
examined under the Pirat Third rule
Second Third soft hammer wastes are
Included in today’s analysis. Thus, all
First Third. Second Third. and Third
Third wastes have been addressed in
the land disposal restrictions rules
collectively.
1. Overview of Affected Wastes,
Facilities, and Management
The universe of waste and facilities
examined for the RIA was developed
from EPA’s “National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage.
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities”
(hereafter, the TSDR survey) and EPA ’s
1984 “National Survey of Hazardous
Waste Cenerators and Treatment,
Storage. and Disposal Facilities
Regulated under RCRA In 1981”
(hereafter, the RIA Mail survey). Data
from these surveys have been updated
as part of the capacity analysis
accompanying this rulemaking (see
discussion in Section 3B). The data used
for the final regulatory analysis reflect
this updated data base and are
consistent with the data used for the
capacity analysis accompanying the
proposed rule.
As with past land disposal restrictions
RIAs. the TSDR and RIA Mail surveys
provide an overview of the number of
facilities treating, storing, and disposing
of waste; the quantities and types of
waste (by RCRA waste code) managed
at each facllity and the current practice
or method of treatment The adjusted
Information contained In the two
surveys is accepted as the baseline (i.e..
pre-Third Third rule) practice for this
Several commenters noted that the
quantities of waste estimated do not
include non-hazardous waste that may
have been affected by the Agency’s
proposed dilution prohibition. In today’s
rule, however, the Agency is allowing
facilities that discharge their
characteristic wastes under a NPDES
permit or dispose of it In a IJIC well to
dilute. The Agency is also allowing
facilities that generate non-toxic
characteristic wastes (with the
exception of high TOC igrutable
nonwastewaters, reactive cyanide
wastes. and reactive sulfide wastes) to
dilute their wastes In order to achieve
treatment standards, Howeyer,
characteristic wastes discharged
pursuant to an NPDES permit, with a
specified method. cannot be rendered
nonhazardous through dilution alone.
The Agency believes, therefore, that It
has accurately analyzed the impact of
today’s rule.
Quantity of Affected Waste. Today’s
rule affects approximately V7 million
gallons of waste per year as shown In
Table Vl-i. An addItional 44 million
gallons (per year) of multisource
leachate may also be affected by today’s
rule.
TABLE VI-L—THIRO THIRD RuLE
QUANTITY BY WASTE TYPE
- tb nu 5Ionga l lonsperyew
U
c i.
Per.
cent
Ignitable (0001), mroave (0002),
andreac vewastns(D003)_
42
15
EP toxic wastes (0004-0016) and
mcdllses
Ifl
2
32
79
277
44
1
12
28
100
L lstedw astes
MIxtures otwastas___________
C8 lwastea ‘•
Total
Characteristic wastes constitute the
largest volume of wastes covered by the
final rule. In addition to the 59 percent
Identified as D001—D018, the waste
mixtures category Is dominated by
characteristic wastes. Table VI—2 gives
the volumes of the moat affected
characteristic wastes.
TABI.E VI-2.-—PREDOMINANT
CHARACTERISTIC WAs ’aS BY VOLUME
(In mdUon gaSons per year]
0008 (EP T xjc for lead)
0007 (EP Toxic for tcnuurn)
0002 ( 0oroa e)
0001 (tgnntble)
MIxtures ci 0006 and 0008
0006 (Ca&ma )
0003 (Reactive)
Affected FacjlThes. A total of 110
waste management facilities and nearly
1.700 waste generators are affected by
todays final rule. Table Vl—3 provides a
breakdown of affected facilities and
their volumes managed.
TABI Vl—3.—-THIRO THIRD RULE
VOLUMES BY FAcn.rrf Tw
(in millIon gallons per year]
FanSt lo s
‘
WflO
s...

v ’
No.of
feab-
lIes
Commercial FacilItIes —
Nc Con n e r c
Fac i l Ities________
212
65
NA
277
77
23
NA
100
37
73
1,688
1,798
Generator ’
Total__________
The affected facilities represent a
wide variety of industries in 22 major
industrial groups. A further examination
of the TSDR survey data reveals the
following Information about the range of
industries with large volumes of Third
Third wastes.
The volume of commercial process --
waste, which accounts for 77 percent of
the total waste volume, is distributed
across the following SIC groups:
• Electric. Gas. & Sanitary Services
(SIC 49)
o ServIces Not Elsewhere Classified
(SIC8 O).... ,
• Chemicals & Allied Products (SIC
281 —_________ _ . 7 percent
• CE! Facilities — 32 percent
The volume of nonconunercial process
waste, which accounts for 23 percent of
the total waste volume, is distributed
across the following Standard Industrial
Code (SIC) groups:
• Non-classifiable E tabhshments {S(C
99).__._......__..............,._. , ... 52 percent
• Primary Metals Industries (SIC 33) ..13 per.
cent
• Petroleum Refining & Related
Industries (SIC 23).. ..............io percent
• Chemicals & Allied Products (SiC
6 percent
Facillties........______ 10 percent
Waste Management Practices. Based
on the TSDR survey, the RIA examined
five land disposal baseline management
— practices: disposal in landfills, disoosal
53 by land treatment, disposal in surface
41 impoundments. treatment in waste piles.
17 and storage in waste piles. Table VI—4
17 provides a breakdown of these baseline
8 management practices by volume and
number of facilities. As shown,
— approximately half of the waste volume
covered by the final rule is currently
managed In landfills. Landfills are also
the most prevalent baseline practice,
occurring at just over one half of the
affected facilities.
percent
‘ ercent
•cai
-------
22680
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 100 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
T ai.E Vt-4.—THIRD THIRD Rut.E
BASEUNE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
(in mdfion gallons per werJ
Basdllne pracdca
Volume
Percent
Faa l lse -
LandfI l l_______________
212
8
28
27
- 3
77
2
10
10
Land llaateient_________..
Storage waste pIes
rream ent waste piles............
ce —
meñ
Total
277
- 100
• Excludes esllmatod 44 mllllon gallons of snufll.
eowco leacliata
The quantity of multisou e leachate
Is not well characterized at present.
However, the RIA estimates that over
150 million gallons of teachate are
generated (annually) creating up to 44
million gallons of leachate residue
subject to the land disposal restrictlonL
Treatment practices In compliance
with today’s final rule significantly
redistribute the quantities of waste
among managemnt practices. Most
important. while 277 million gallons of
waste per year are land disposed under
baseline management practices (of
which 212 million gallons are landfllled).
200 mIllion gallons of waste per year
would be disposed of In landfills under
the subtitle C scenario as a result of
today’s final rule and 208 million gallons
of waste per year under the subtitle D
scenario. Thus, the final rule results In a
28 percent reduction In the volume of
Third Third wastes being land disposed
under the Subtitle C scenario, and a 25
percent reduction under the subtitle D
scenario. Many of the wastes covered
by the final rule are treated by chemical
precipitation or stabilization.
2. Benefits of the Final Rule
The final rule would result in several
benefits including reduced human health
risks, lmroved safety at facilities. and
reduced ecological efl ecta. As with
previous land disposal restrictions. the
Agency quantified the human health.
benefits and conducted a qualitative
analysis of the other benefits.
Human Heafth Benefits. The
quantitative benefits analysis estimated
that over a 70.year lifetime, the final rule
reduces cancer cases by 318 and
reduces the number of people exposed
to at least one noncarcinogen above
health based criteria by about 5.400.
These results are the same for both
scenarios.
In general. the majority of cancer
cases averted i8 due to reduced
inhalation exposure to benzene.
acrylonitrlle phenanthrene.
fluroanthene, dichloromethane and
other carcinogenic constituents in 1)001
Ignitable wastes and mixtures of
ignitable and reactive wastes. The
majority noncarcinogenic benefits Is due
to reduced ingestion of cadmium (1)008),
chromium (1)007), lead (1)008), as well as
mixtures with these metals or mercury
and DOOl ignf table waste containing
pentac!orobenzene and methanoL
It is important to note that these
human health benefits are highly
sensitive to the facility (and population)
and waste characterizations used for the
analysis. In fact. the majority of human
health benefits Is due to a -limited
number of waste streams at a few
facilities. For example. over 4 000 of the
non-cancer “benefits” result from the
reduction of a highly concentrated
chromium wa8te that leaches to ground
water used as a drinking water source
for a populous Northeastern community.
And nearly 1.000 non.cancer”beneflts’°
are attributable to reducing high
concentration air releases of
pentachloroberizene and methanol in a
land application and a landfill unit.
Similarly, over 200 of the cancer cases
averted result from reducing air releases
of phenanthrene and fluroanthene in
land application units at two facilities.
What these examples reveal Is the
relationship between human health
benefits and the attributes of a facility.
Given any data base, the facilities with
highly concentrated waste In densely
populated areas will significantly drive
the. human health benefits results.
Therefore, we believe that the data
gives a true representation of reality by
the Inclusion of these few driving
facilities.
The Agency has not estimated
benefits attributable to treating
multisource leachate residue because of
a lack of characterization and facility
data. However, the Agency. by way of a
screening analysis, developed a
hypothetical characterization of
multisource leachate residue and
simulated releases at several well.
defined facilities. While the results are
extremely sensitive to the assumptions
and hypothetical characterization, they
showed the possibility of roughly 200
cancer and 200 non-cancer cases
avoided. Again, these results are highly
uncertain because of the lack of
sufficient data, but they do suggest that
the benefits associated with the
treatment of multisource leachate
residues misy be significant
The Agency believes that the overall
benefit estimates are uncertain and may
overstate or underestimate the human-
health benefits of the proposed rule The
RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis model does
not contain enough data to model all of
the constituents found in the Third Third
wastes. As a result, benefits of
regulating wastes with one or more of
these missing constituents may be
underestimated. This underestimate Is
most likely to occur for wastes
containing pesticides. the sole
hazardous constituent of D012—D017,
and about 18 “P°’ wastes. -
Human health benefits may also be
underestimated because the benefits
model only includes exposure via
drinking water or air. Not estimated are
the deleterious effects from consuming
of contaminated food, such as fish
caught downstream of releases.
recreation exposure. due to contact with
polluted rivers, lakes, or streams, end
the averting of public benefits due to the
destruction of these recreational areas.
At the same time, benefits may be
overestimated due to conservative
exposure assumptions. Exposure
scenarios are based on drinking 2 liters!
day for seventy years of contaminated
water or Inhalation of 20 cubic meters!
day of air for seventy years.
Safety Benefits. In addition to adverse
human health effects, ignitable (DOOl)
and reactive (D003) wastes may pose a
general safety hazard. In the past. land
disposal of these wastes has only been
allowed if the waste either is
deactivated or precautions are taken to
prevent accidental ignition or reaction.
Until the ignitable or reactive wastes are
deactivated, there is some continuing
risk that the precautions may fail.
resulting in fires, explosions, or release
of toxic gases. The final rule requires
deactivation of the approximately 24
million gallons of DOd and D003 being
land disposed. thereby eliminating the
safety risk. However, this benefit is not
significant due to the popular practice of
deactivation currently employed by
facilities. -
Environmental Benefits. The final rule
results in an overall reduction in toxic
releases to the environment, thereby
reducing adverse effects to ecosystems.
The resulting Improvement in ecologIcal
ieaith is extremely difficult to quantify
due to uncertainty in estimating
exposure levels and species populations.
However, the sensitivity of certain
species to hazardous constituents of
wastes covered by the final rule
suggests a very high potential for
ecological effects.
As an example, aquatic species are a’
least two orders of magnitude more
sensitive than humans to arsenic (D004J.
mercury (D009), silver (C ml ). lindane
(D013), methoxychior (D014J, and
toxaphene (D015). Therefore. aquatic
ecosystems may be at some risk even
- when there.is no human health risk.
I
-------
Federal Register / Vol.55 , No. 106 ( Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22531
Another way to look at the potential
for ecological effects Is to consider the
proximity of land disposal facilities to
waterbodles. A. recent Agency study on
ecological risks showed that for a
sample of 52 National Priorities 1.1st
sites, almost 90 percent of the sites
posed a threat to freshwater ecosystems. -
due to. their proximity to waterbodles. 55
Wastes removed from some of these
sites may be subject to the treatuient
standards promulgated In this rule.
Thus. the final rule reduces ecological -
risk associated with Third Third wastes
managed at these sites.
3. Costs
The final rule results in an annual
incremental cost of approximately $353
million under the Subtitle 0 scenario
and $440 million under the Subtitle C
scenario, and affects over 1,700 facIlities
in 22 Industrial 8ectore. Table ‘/1-5
summarizes the estimated incremental
costs associated with today’s final rule
by waste type.
TABLE Vt-5.—ThrnD Titmo Rut.E
VOLUMES AND INCREMENTAL COST
(1 0n ga6orss1 d nillfrji $I yJ
wee
dcfLwe
SuOSSo SuOSde
0 C
0001. 0002. 0003_..._
0004—0016
Listed waste_______
Mbc 5te&____
C8 lfec ,f itn s
Total__________
T 42
lfl
2
32
79
$61
123
15
93
61
$67
168
15
102
90
277
1353
$ 140
As expected, based on volumes, the
largest incremental cost is attributed to
the management of 0008 (lead) waste.
Although the listed wastes are a small
volume and have the lowest total cost,
expensive treatment technologies such
as Incineration result In a much higher
co8t per volume treated. Conversely, the
corrosive wastes and mixtures with
corrosive wastes are relatively
inexpensive to neutralize, resulting in a
low cost per volume treated.
Five characteristic wastes contribute
about 45 percent of the incremental cost
of the rule as shown In table Vl—6,
toxic wastes for lead (0008) arid
ignitable wastes (0001) are the tw
single wastes that Incur the most
incremental cost.
“SommaiyofEco1ogi J Risks. Aswsrment
Method& and Risk Management Decision in
Superft,nd and RCR.4 (EPA-Z3O-00-89-048) June
1989
TABLE V1-&—WASTES INCURRING THE
MOST INCREMENTAL COST
(In nalSon do9&?e1 3
Waste seeam
SuOtSe SuOlta
0 C
0008 —-
57
48
34
18
18
9
12
11
6
85
41
38
11
18
12
12
11
9
0001
0001
0009
0 004/ 0006/000710009
0003
000710000
000110002 10007/0008________
0002
The cost of treating 0002 corrosive
wastes attributed to the final rule may
be overestimated by as much as $5
mililon because some of these wastes
may be treated due to the California List
Land Disposal Restrictions rule (52 FR
25760). That rule established a
performance standard prohibiting land
disposal of wastes with a pH less than 2.
while the flnalrule establishes a
technology-based standard of
deactivation (La., neutralization). The
Agency does not have data on how
facilities are meeting the California List
standard. Without specific data about
the post California List practices, the
entire cost of neutralizing D002 acidic
wastes were attributed to this final rule.
4. Economic Impacts
Tables ‘/1-7 and V1-8 summarize the
cost and economic impact of the final
rule under subtitle 0 and subtitle C,
respectively. Compliance costs are the
tax-adjusted revenue requirements
needed to fund the incremental costs
discussed above. Significantly affected
facilities are those that either need to
Increase costs by more than 5 percent or
their compliance costs exceed 5 percent
of their cash from operations.
Economic
en9act
Noncom.
me ed
Q e,.
Total
C-
cost
($IM)
24
235
259
Affected
face.
73
37
1,666
1,796
s _
-
affected
3
NA
429
432
sted
Coaxes
0
NA
14
14
Affected
Industry
WouP,
12
9
16
22
TABLE fl-S —Suw v oF ECONOMIC
IMPACT BY TYPE OF FACUTY—SIJB-
TiTLE C
Ec ,ou.lc
- rTçact
Noncom.
metoal
atm-
Co mce
cost
C$M9)
30
410
299
329
Affected
face.
73
37
1,686
1.796
-
affected
4
NA
552
556
Es*knsted
Coaxes
0
IA
14
14
Affected
. I ndus ty
W° 3
12
9
16
22
The economic analysis estimates that
the final rule does not have a significant
effect on industry. The effects of the
final rule are distributed over a wide
range oflndustries in 22 major industruil
groups rather than concentrated in a few
Industries,
Generators are the type of facilities
that incur the largest economic Impact.
The analysis estimates that 91 percent
of the compliance cost are borne by
generators under both subtitle C and
subtitle 0 scenarios. Also, 33 percent of
the affected generators are significantly
affected under subtitle C scenario, and
25 percent axe significantly affected
under subtitle 0 scenario.
The analysis estimates that 14
facilities would close as a result of the
final rule. By comparison, the FIrst Third
rule was estimated to result in almost
200 closures. These 14 potential c!osures
represent less than 4 percent of the 429
significantly affected generators under
subtitle D scenario and less than 3
percent of the 552 significantly affected
generators under subtitle C scenario.
The TSDR survey identified only 2
small businesses that currently land
dispose Third Third waste. Neither is
significantly affected under the final
rule.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.. whenever an
Aj ency is required to publish s notice of
rulemaking, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
that describes the effect of the rule on
small entities (i.e.. small businesses,
small organizatIons, and small
governmental jurisdictions). This
analysis is unnecessary, however, if the
Agency’s Administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
_____ entities.
TABLE V1-7.—SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC B. Regulatory F! ext biLly Analysis—
IMPACT BY TYPE OF FACIUTY—SUBr Swfute Disposed Waste
Tm.E 0
-------
22682
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
EPA evaluated the economic effect of
the final rule on small entitles, here
defined as firma employing fewer than
50 persons. Because of data limitations.
the Agency was unable to include
generators of large quantifies of Third
Third wastes. The small business
population therefore Included only two
groups: all noncommercial TSDFs
employing fewer than 50 persons and all
small quantity generators (SQGs) that
were also small businesses. As a result.
the effect of the final rule on small
businesses Is underestimated.. However.
the Agency would not expect the
conclusions of the small business -
analysis to e’h inge significantly If the
generator data were available.
According to EPA’s guidelines for
conducting an RFA. If over 20 percent of
the population of small businesses.
small organizations, or small
government jurisdictions is likely to
experience financial distress based on
the costs of the rule; then the Agency is
required to consider that the rule will
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities and to perform
a formal RFA. EPA has examined the
final rule’s effects on small entities as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act.
The economic analysis Identified only
-2 small buslnes8es affected by the final
rule. Neither of the 2 would be
significantly affected. The At miniqtrator
therefore certifies that part 268 does not
have significant economic effects on a
substantial number of small entities. As
a result of this finding, the Agency has
not prepared a formal RFA.
C Regulatory Impact Analysis—
Underground Injected Wastes -
The Agency has completed a separate
regulatory Impact analysis far
underground Injected wastes affected by
today’s final rule. The completed RIA
document. Regulatory Impact Analysis
of Proposed Hazardous Waste Disposal
Restrictions For Class I Injection of
Third Thirds List Wastes; Is available In
the public docket for the final rule.
There are 65 injection facilities, of the
total number of Class! Injection -
facilities, injecting approximately 6
billion gallons of Third Third wastes
annually, Including over 4.7 bIllion.
gallons of characteristic wastes. These
Class I hazardous injection facilities are
required to either treat wastes. or file
“no migration” petitions as outlined In
40 CFR part 148 (See 53 FR 28118
preamble for a more thorough discussion
of the no migration petition review
process). The additional facilities
affected by today’s rulemaking
substantially contribute to overall
compliance costs already incurred by
Class I injection well owners and
operators managing hazardous wastes
regulated by previous rulemaking,
The Agency analyzed costs and
benefits for today’s rule by using the
same approach and methodology
developed in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Underground injection
Control Program: Proposed Hazardous
Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions
uaedfortheJuly26 1988flnalrule(53
FR 28118) and subsequent rulemaking.
An analysis was performed to assess
the economic effect of associated
compliance costs for theaddlfional
volumes of Injected wastes attrlbutable
to today’s final rule.
Total compliance costs for injected
wastes are estiniatedat $54 million
annually. Alternative treatment costs
are estimated at $53.7 million annually,
and no migration petition costs are
annualized at $0.3 million. The RIA
estimates that 17 facIlities will
eventually treat their wastes, and
therefore be significantly affected
economically by today’s final rule. All of
these costs will be Incurred by Class I
hazardous Injection well owners and
operators.
The benefits to human health and the
environment in the R.LA are generally
defined as the reduced human health
risk resulting from fewer instances of
ground-water contzrnlina don. In general.
potential health risks from Class I
hazardous waste injection wells are
extremely low. However, the RIA
references a few isolated cases where
risks to human health and the
environment may be greater. but are still
too low to quantify. These cases involve
possible grout seal failure around the
protective casing of an injection well.
and the occurrence of unplugged bore
holes around the injection well site. Of
studies conducted to describe Class!
well problems . only six wells. or less
than two percent of all Class I wells.
were reported to have experienced
malfunctions that contributed to any
contamination of the surface or an
underground source-of drinking water.
No health-related problems attributed to
Class I injection were reported.
D. Regulatory FleibilityAnoiysis—
Underground Infection Wastes
Owners and operators of hazardous
waste injection wells are generally
major chemical, petrochemical. and
other manufacturing companies. The
Agency Is not aware of any small
entities of Injection wells that would be
affected by part 148 of today’s final rule.
The Administrator therefore certifies
that part 148 and part 288 wIll not have
significant economic effects on a
substantial number of small entities. As
a result of this finding, the Agency has
not prepared a formal RFA.
£ Paperwork Reduction Act
All Information collection
requirements In this final rule were
promulgated In previous land disposal
restrictions rulemakings (Including those
for the Underground Injection Control
Program) and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) at that
time. Since there are no new Information
collection requirements being.,
promulgated today, an Information
Collection Request has not been -
prepared.
F Revfew of Supporting Documents
The primary source of Information on
current land disposal practices and
Industries affected by this rule was
EPA’s 1988 “National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment. Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities’ (the
TSDR Survey). The average quantity of
waste contributed by generator facilities
was obtained from EPA’s “National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
and Treathient. Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Regulated under RCRA in
1981” (April 1984).
Waste stream characterization data
and engineering costa of waste
management were based on the
following EPA documents:
• “Characterization of Waste Stream.
Listed in 40 CFR Section 261 Waste
Profiles,” Vols. I and II (August 1985);
• “Characterization of Constituents
from Selected Waste Streams Listed in
40 CFR Section 261.” Vols. I and Ii
(August 1985);
• RCRA background and listing
documents for 40 CFR Section 261;
• RCRA Section 3007 industry studies:
• “RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis ModeL
Appendix A Waste Stream Data Base”
(March 1984):
• Source assessment documents for
various Industries; and
• “1986-1987 Survey of Selected Firms
in the Commercial Hazardous Waste
Management Industry Final Report”
(March 1988).
Financial Information for the
economic impact analysis was obtained
from the 1982 Census of Manufacturers
and 1984 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers. Producer price Indices
were used to restate 1984 dollars In 1990
terms.
List otSubjects In 40 CFR Parts 148, 281,
262,284.285,268,270,271, and 302
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
Information, Designated facility,
Environmental protection. Hazardous
-------
Federal Re lster / VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22683
materials, Hazardous materials
transportation. Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations, Labeling,
Manifests, Packaging and containers,
Penalties. Recycling. Reportable
Quantities, Reporting and recordkeeplng
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution control. Water
supply.
Dated May 8. 1990.
F. Henry Hablcht.
AcdAminisLrijtor.
For the reasons set out In the
preamble, tItle 40. chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTFIICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authoz4ty Section 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq,
2. SectIon 148.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
148.1 Purpose, scope, sad applicability.
• • • • •
(d) Wastes that are hazardous only
because they exhibit a hazardous
characteristic, and which are otherwise
prohibited under this part, are not
prohibited if the wastes:
(1) Are disposed into a nonhazardous
or hazardous injection well defined
under 40 CFR 144.6(a); and
(2) Do not exhibit any prohibited
characteristic of hazardous waste
Identified In subpart C of part 261 at the
point of Injection.
3. Section 148.14 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs-(d), (e). (f). and
(g) as paragraphs (e), (g), (h). and U); by
revising the introductory text of newly
redesignated paragraph (I); and by
adding new paragraphs Cd), (f), and (I) to
read as follows:
§ 148.14 Waste specific prohibitions—first
third wastes.
* • . • S
(d) EffectIve August 8, 1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 281.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number F006
(wastewaters) and F019 the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K004, K008,
1(015 (nonwastewaters), 1(017 ,1(021
(wastewaters), 1(022 (wastewaters),
1(031, K035, K046 (reactive
nonwastewaters and all wastewaters),
1(060 (wastewaters), K061
(wastewaters), 1(069 (calcium sulfate
nonwasteweters and all wastewaters),
1(073,1(083,1(084,1(085,1(086 (all but
solvent washes), Kiln (high arsenic
nonwastewaters), 1(102 (high arsenIc
nonwastewaters). and K106 and the
wastes specified in 40 CFR part 281.33
as EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
POOl, 4,P0o5 P010, POll, P012, P015.
P018, P018, P020, P038. P037, P048, P050.
P058, P058, P068, P069, P070, P081, P082,
P084, P087; P092 P102, P105, P108, P110,
P115, P120, P122, P123, U007, U009, U010,
U012, U018. U018. U019, U022, U029 ,
U031, U038. U037, U041, U043, U044,
U048. U050 , U051, U053, U061, U063,
U064, U068. U067, U074, U077, U078,
U088 , U089, U103, U105, U108. U115.
U122, U124, U129. U130, U133, U134,
U137, U15 ,-U154 , U155, U157, U158,
U159, U171, U177, U180, U185, U188,
U192, U200, U209, 13210, UZil, 13219,
U220 . U228. 13W ’. 13228. U237, U238,
U248, and 13249 are prohibited from
underground injection at off-site
Injection facilities.
• C C C C
(I) Effective November 8, 1990, the
wastes specified in paragraph (d) of this
section are prohibited from underground
injection at on-site injection facilities,
(I) Effective May 8. 1992, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 and 281.33 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers 1(011
(wastewaters), 1(013 (wastewaters), and
1(014 are prohihited from underground
injection.
(J) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (I) of this section do not apply:
4. Section 148.15 Is amended by
redeslgnating paragraphs (d) and (e) as
paragraphs (e) and (g); by revising the
Introductory text of newly redesignated
paragraph (g): and by adding new
paragraphs (d) and (I) to read as
follows:
§ 148,15 Waste specific prohibftlans—
second third wastes.
. S S S S
(d) Effective August 8, 1990, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number 1(025
(wastewaters), K029 (wastewaters),
1(041,1(042,1(095 (wastewaters), 1(096,
(wastewaters), 1(097,1(098, and 1(105;
and the wastes specified in 40 CFR part
281,33 as P002. P003, P007, P008, P014,
P028, P027, P049, P054. P057, P060, P066,
P067, P072, P107, P112, P113, P114,13002,
U003, U005, U008, U011, 13014.13015,
U020, U021, U023, U025, 13028,13032,
13035, U047, U049, 13057,13059,13060,
U062. 13070. U073, 13080,13083,13092.
13093,13094, U095, 11097,13098,13099,
13101, U106, U109, 13110, 13111, 13114,
U118, 13119, U127, 13128, 13131, 13135,
13138. U140, U142. 13143.13144.13148.
U147, 13149, UlSO, U161, 13162, 13163,
U164, U165, U168, 13169,13170.13172,
13173, 13174, 13176, 13178, 13179, 13189,
13193, U198, 13203,11205, U208. U208.
13213, U214, U215, 11216, U217, 13218.
U239, and U244 are prohibited from
underground injection at off-site
injection facilities. *
(f) EffectIve November 8, 1990, the
wastes specified in paragraph (d) of this
section are prohibited from underground
Injection at on-site in jecti on. facilities.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (f) of thIs section do not apply:
5. Section 148.16 is amended by
redesignatlng paragraph (c) as
paragraph (g); by revising the
introductory text of newly redesignated
paragraph (g); and by adding new
paragraphs (c). (d), (e), and (I) to read as
follows:
148.18 Waste specific prohibitions—
third third wastes.
• S C C *
(c) Effective August 8, 1990, the
wastes Identified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Number F039
(multl.source leachate): the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.32 EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers K002. 1(003,
1(005 (wastewaters), 1(008,1(007
(wastewaters), 1(023, 1(026, 1(032, 1(033,
1(034,1(093,1(094 and K100
(wastewaters) the wales specified in 40
CFR 261.33 as P006, P009, P017, P022,
P023, P024, P028, P031, P033, P034, P038,
P042. P045, P046, P047, P051, P058, P084,
P065, P073, P075, P076, P077, P078, P088,
P093, P095, P096, P099, P101, P103, P109,
P118, P118, P119, IJOO1, 1J004, U008,
U017, 13024. U027, 13030. U033, 13038,
13034,13038. U039, 13042, U045, 13048,
13052, U055, U056, 13068,13071,11072,
13075.13076,13079, U081, U082. 11084,
13085, 13087, 13088, 13090, 13091, 11096,
13112, 13113, 13117, 13118, 13120, 11121,
13123, U125, U126, 13132, 13138, 13139,
13141, 13145, U148, 13152, 13153, 13156,
13160, U168, U167, 13181, U182. 13183,
13184, 13186, 13187, 13191. 13194, 13197,
13201, U202, U204, U207, 13222.13225,
13234, U236, U240, U243, and 13247; and
the wastes identified in 40 CFR 281.21,
281.23 or 261.24 as hazardous based on a
characteristic alone, designated as DOoi,
D0o4, D005, D006, D008 , D009
(wastewaters), DOW, Doll, D012. D013,
D014, D015, D018. D017 are prohibited
from underground Injection at off-site
injection facilities.
(d) Effective August 8, 1990, mixed
radioactive/hazardous waste in 40 CFR
268.10, 268.11, and 288.12 that are mixed
radioactive and hazardous wastes, are
prohibited from underground injection.
(e) Effective November 8, 1990, the
wastes specified in paragraph (c) of this
section are prohibited from underground
-------
22884
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 108 I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
injection at on-site lnj ct1on facilities.
These effective dates do not apply to the
wastes listed In 40 CFR 14&12(b) which
are prohibited from underground
Injection on August 8, 1990.
(I) Effective May 8, 1992, the wastes
Identified In 40 CFR 281.22. 281.23 or
281.24 as hazardous based on a
characteristic alone, designated as 0002
(wastewaters and nonwastewaters),
0003 (wastewaters and
nonwastewaters), 0007 (wastewaters
and nonwastewaters). and 0009
(nonwastewaters) are prohibited from -
underground injection. These effective
dates do no apply to the wastes listed In
40 CFR 148.12(b) which ale prohibited
from underground injection on August 8,
1990.
(g) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (f) of this section do not apply:
PART 261—IDEWflFICATION AND
U$T1NG OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a). 6921..
and 693&
Subpart C—Characteristics of
Hazardous Waste
2. In 281.20. paragraph- (b) Is revised
to read as follows:
*261.20 GeneraL
a a
* a a
(b) A hazardous waste which is
identified by a characteristic In this
subpart Is assigned every EPA
Hazardous Waste Number that Is
applicable as set forth in this subpart.
This number must be in complying with
the notification requirements of section
3010 of the Act and all applicable
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements under parts 282 through
265, 268. and V0 of this chapter.
• a a a a
3. In * 281.21. paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
* 281.21 3wactertatZc of Ignitab lllty.
• a a a a
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability has the
Hazardous Waste Number of 0001.
4. In § 261.22. paragraph (b) is revised -
to read as follows:
261.22 Charactedettc of coiroblv$ty .
• a a • a
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of corrosivity has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number of 0002.
5. Tn § 281.23. paragraph (b) Is revised
to read as follows:
§ 261.20 Cttar.cterlsdc of reactivity.
• a a a a -
(b) A solid waste that exhibits the
characteristic of reactivity has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number of D003.
6. In § 281.24. paragraph (b)
introductory text Is revised to read as
follows:
*26124 T xkilty chara .1 ,i6Uc .
• a • a •
(b)Asdlidwaste thatexhibith the -
characteristic of toxicity has the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number specified in
Table I which corresponds to the toxic
contrnmiflAflt causing it to be hazardous.
Subpart D—Usts of Hazardous Wastes
7. Sectfàn 261.31 is amended by
adding the following waste code In
alphanumeric order.
* 261.31 Hazardous waste. from no
—
• a a a
wasm N
H do
S
• S •
•
F039__ _
Leacliate resuIth g from
the Dwa 5nent. sterage,
ç ).
ord I s osaiotwasie3
cfesadod by more swi
one waste code under
S ai1 0. or from a
of w tos -
3Sed wsder Subperls C
w d 0 of Sea
(Laac atQ ma from
the m ageme fl of on.
or more of the fulu-s.9
EPA F s Waste,
and no osw hazardous
we,tes retaae
waste code(*
P020. F021. F022.
P023 F026. P027. and/
or P028.).
8. Paragraph (c) of * 281.33 Is revised
to read as follows: (the comment
paragraph remains):
§26133 Dlscardsd commercial chemical
producta, otf-.p.ctltontlon epedes,
container residue., end spill residues
thereof.
• a a a S
(c) Any residue remaining In a
container or In an inner liner removed
from a container that has held any
commercial chemical product or
manufacturing chemical Intermediate
having the generic name listed in
paragraphs (e) or (I) of this section.
unless the container is empty as defined
In § 281.7(b) of this chapter.
9. Appendix VII Is amended by adding
the following waste stream in
alphanumeric order to read as follows:
Appendix VU—Basis for Usting
Hazardous Waste
EPA haza,dous
waste Na
ka dous coi tuente for
Usted
.
S
S S S
P039
S
S
AS consthaeota tar whach frost-
mont standards are spoaSed
for mird.ecuive leachate
tewatere and no
wastewaters) under 40 C R
268.43(a). Table CCW.
S S
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 262
continues to read as follows:
Authorlty 42 U.S.C. 6900.6912.6922.6923.
6924.6925. and 6937.
Subpart A—General
2. Paragraph (c) Introductory text of
* 282.11 Is revised to read as follows:
*282.11 Hazardous waste determination.
• a a a a
(c) For purposes of compliance with 40
CFR part 288, or If the waste is not listed
in subpart D of this part, the generator
must then determine whether the waste
is Identified in subpart C of 40 CFR part
261byeither
Subpart C—Pro-Transport
Requirements
3. Paragraph (a)(4) of § 262.34 is
revised to read as follows:
* 262.34 Accumulation time.
(a) °
(4) The generator complies with the
requirements for owners or operators in
subparts C and DIn 40 CFP. part 285.
with *265.10. and with 40 CFR
288.7(a)(4).
• * S a S
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 US-C. 8905. 691 a). 6924. and
6925.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 1 Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules anu Reguations
22685
Subpart B—General FacUlty Standards
2. In § 284.13, the comment following
Paragraph (a)(2) Is revised to read as
fo llows
§264.13 Oenev&wasta analysis.
(a) ‘ *
(2) ‘ ‘
lComment For example, the facility’s
records of analyses performed on the waste
before the effective date of these regulations.
or studies conducted on hazardous waste
generated from processes similar to that
which generated the waste to be managed at
the facility. may be included In the data base
required to comply with paragraph (a)(1) of
this section. The owner or operator of an off-
site facility may arrange for the generator of
the hazardous waste to supply part of the
Information required by paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, except as othewise specified In
40 CFR 268.7 (b) and (c). If the generator does
not supply the Information. and the owner or
operator chooses to accept a hazardous
waste, the owner or operator Is responsible
for obtaining the Information required to
comply with this sectlon.I
• • • • •
Subpart K—Surface knpoundments
3. The Introductory text of § 284.229 Is
revised to read as follows:
§ 284.229 Special requirements for
lgnftable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be placed In a surface Impoundment.
unless the waste and Impoundment
satisfy all applicable requirements of 40
CFR part 268. and:
• • • • .
Subpart L—Waste Piles
4. The introductory text of § 284.258 Is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.258 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be place in a waste pile unless the waste
and waste pile satisfy all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 288. and:
Subpart M—Land Treatment
5. The Introductory text of § 284.281 is
revised to read as follows:
*264.281 SpecIal requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
The owner or operator must not apply
Ignitable or reactive waste to the
treabnent zone unless the waste and the
treatment zone meet all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, and:
• • , • *
Subpart N—Landfills
6. In § 264.312. paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (b) are revised to
read as follows:
* 264.312 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
(a) Except as provided in paragriph
(b) of this section. and In 284.316,
Ignitable or reactive waste must not be
placed In a landfill, unless the waste
and landfill meet all applicable
requirements of part 286. and:
(b) Except for prohibited wastes
which remain subject to treatment
standards in subpart D of part 288,
Ignitable wastes in containers may be
landfllled without meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
sectlon provided that the wastes are
disposed of In such a way that they are
protected from any material or
conditions which may cause them to
Ignite. At a minimum. Ignitable wastes
must be disposed of In non-leaking
containers which are carefully handled
and placed so as to avoid heat, sparks. -
rupture, or any other condition that
might cause ignition of the wastes must
be covered daily with soil or other non-
combustible material to minimize the
potential for ignition of the wastes; and
must not be disposed of In cells that
contain or will contain other wastes
which may generate heat sufficient to
cause Ignition of the waste.
7. In § 284.316, paragraph (f) Is added
to read as follows:
* 264.316 DIsposal of small containers of
hazardous waste In overpacked drums (lab
packs).
• • . • *
(f) Such disposal Is in compliance with
the requirements of Part 268. Persons
who incinerate lab packs according to
the requirements In 40 CFR 26&42(c)(1)
may use fiber drums in place of metal
outer containers. Such fiber drums must
meet the DOT specifications in 49 CFR
173.12 and be overpacked according to
the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section.
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACIL flES
1. The authority citation for part 265
contInues to read as follows:
Authozit 42 U.S C, 890L 6912(a), 6924,
6825,and6935. -
Subpart A—General
* 285.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
• • • • *
(e) The requirements of this part apply
to owners or operators of all facilities
which treat, store or dispose of
hazardous waste referred to in 40 CFR
part 288, and the 40 CFR part 268
standards are considered material
conditions or requirements of the part
285 Interim status standards.
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
3. The comment at the end of
paragraph (a) of § 265.13 is revised to
read as follows:
§ 265.13 General waste analysis.
(a)
(2) *
Comment: for example, the facility’s
records of analyses performed on the waste
before the effective date of these regulations.
or studies conducted on hazardous waste
generated from processes similar to that
which generated the waste to be managed at
the facility, may be Included In the data base
required to comply with paragraph (a)(1) of
this section. The owner or operator of an off-
site facility may arrange for the generator of
the hazardous waste to supply part of the
Information required by paragraph (a)(1) of
this section. except as otherwise specified in
40 CFR 288.7 (b) and (c). If the generator does
not supply the Information, and the owner or
operator chooses to accept a hazardous
waste, the owner or operator is responsible
for obtaining the Information required to
comply with this section.]
• • • • *
Subpart K—Surface Impoundments
4. The introductory text of § 285.229 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 265.229 SpecIal requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be placed in a surface impoundment,
unless the waste and impoundment
satisfy all applicable requirements of 40
CFR part 268, and:
Subpart L—Waste Piles
5. Paragraph (a) introductory text of
§ 265.258 is revised to read as follows:
§ 285.256 Special requIrements for
IgnItable or reactive waste.
(a) Ignitable or reactive waste must
not be placed in a pile unless the waste
and pile satisfy all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, arid:
Subpart M—Land Treatment
6. The introductory text of § 265.231 is
revised to read as follows:
2. Section 265.1(e) Is revised to read as
foll6ws:
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
265.281 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive weats.
The owner or operator must not appiy
ignitable or reactive waste to the
treatment zone unless the waste and
treatment zone meet all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, anth
Subpart N—LandlIlts
7. Paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (b) of § 265.312 are revised to read
as follows:
§ 265 . 312 SpecIal requirements for
Ign Itable or reactive waste.
(a) Except as provided In paragraph
(b) of this section. and in 265.316,
ignitable or reactive waste must not be
placed in a landfill, unless the waste
and landfill meets all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 268, anch
(b) Except for prohibited wastes
which remain subject to treatment
standards In subpart D of part 268,
ignitable wastes in containers may be
landfllled without meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section.. provided that the wastes are
disposed of In such a way that they are
protected from any material or
conditions which may cause them to
Ignite. At a minlmwn, Ignitable wastes
must be disposed of in non-leaking
containers which are carefully handled
and placed so as to avoid heat, sparks.
rupture, or any other condition that
might cause ignition of the wastes: must
be covered daily with soil or other non-
combustible material to ninimIre the
potential for ignition of the wastes: and
must not be disposed of in cells that
contain or will contain other wastes
which may generate heat su clent to
cause ignition of the waste.
8. In 265.316, paragraph (f) is added
to read as follows:
§ 265.316 DIsposal of small containers of
hazardous waste In overpacked drums (lab
packs).
• a a • .
(f) Such disposal is in compliance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 288.
Persona who incinerate lab packs
according to the requirements in 40 CFR
288.42(c)(1) may use fiber drums in place
of metal outer containers. Such fiber
drums must meet the DOT specifications
in 49 CFR 173.12 and be overpacked
according to the requirements in
paragraph (b) of this section.
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority 42 U.&C. . 691. a), 69 , and
Subpart A—General
2. In § 268.1, paragraph (c)(3) is added.
and paragraph (c)(5) Is removed, to read
as follows:
f26&1 Purpose, scope , and applicability.
(c)*.°
(3) Wastes that are hazardous oniy
because they exhibit a hazardous
characteristic, and which are otherwise
prohibited from land disposal under this
part. are not prohibited from land
disposal If the wastes:
(I) Are disposed into a nonhazardons
or hazardous injection well as defined in
40 CFR 144.6(a): and
(ii) Do not exhibit any prohibited
characteristic of hazardous waste at the
point of injection.
3. Section 288.2 Is revised to read as
follows:
§268.2 Definitions applicable In this pert
When used In this part the following
terms have the meanings given below
(a) Halogenoted oi ’ganic compounds
or HOCs means those compounds
having a carbon-halogen bond which are
listed under appendlx.I]I to this part.
(b) Hazardous constituent or
constituents means those constituents
listed in appendix VIII to part 281 of this
chapter.
(c) 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,
salt dome formation. salt bed formation.
underground mine or cave, or placement
in a concrete vault or bunker intended
for disposal purposes.
(d) Non waste waters are wastes that
do not meet the criteria for wastewaters
In paragraph (g)(8) of this section.
(e) Polychiormated biphenyls or PCBs
are halogenated organic compounds
defined in accordance with 40 CFR
761.3.
(I) Wastewateru are wastes that
contain teas than 1% by weight total
organic carbon (TOC) and less than 1%
by weight total suspended solids (TSS),
with the following exceptions:
(1) F 1. FtZ)2, R:03. FTx4. Fx
solves f-water mi.xtures that contain less
than 1% by weight TOC or less than 1%
by weight total FOOl. F002, F003. F004,
F005 solvent constituents listed in
§ 268.41, Table CCWE.
(2) KOll, K013. K014 wastewaters (as
generated) that contain less than 5% by
weight TOC and less than 1% by weight
TSS.
(3) KIW and K104 wostewoters
contain less than 4% by weight TOC and
less than 1% by weight TSS.
(g) Inorganic Solid Debris are
nonfriable inorganic solids that are
incapable of passing through a 9.5 mm
standard sieve that require cutting, or
crushing and grinding in mechanical
sizing equipment prior to 8tab llizatlon.
limited to the following Inorganic or
metal materials:
(1) Metal slags (either dross or scorla).
(2) Classified slag.
(3) Glass. -
(4) Concrete (excluding cementitious
or poolan.ic stabilized hazardous
wastes).
(5) Masonry and refractory brfcks.
(8) Metal cans, containers, drums, or
tanks.
(7) Metal nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps,
valves, appliances, or industrial
equipment.
(8) Scrap metal as defined In 40 CFR
281.1(c)(8).
4. Section 268.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§268,3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute
for treatment.
(a) Except as provided In paragraph
(b) of this section. no generator.
transporter, handler, or owner or
operator of a treatment, storage, or
disposal facility shall in any way dilute
a restricted waste or the residual from
treatment of a restricted waste as a
substitute for adequate treatment to
achieve compliance with subpart D of
this part. to circumvent the effective
date of a prohibition in subpart C of this
part. to otherwise avoid a prohibition in
subpart C of this part. or to circumvent a
land disposal prohibition imposed by
RCRA section 3004.
(b) Dilution of wastes that are
hazardous only because they exhibit a
characteristic in a treatment system
which treats wastes subsequently
discharged to a water of the United
States pursuant to a permit issued under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) or which treats wastes for
purposes of pretreatment requirements
under section 307 of the CWA is not
imperinissible dilution for purposes of
this section unless a method has been
specified as the treatment standard in
§ 268.42.
5. In § 288.7, paragraphs (a)(1)(ii).
(a)(2)(l)(B), (a)(3)(li) , and (a)(4) are
revised: new paragraphs (a)(7). (a)(8),
and (a)(9) are added; paragraph (b)(4j(ii)
is revlsed the certification in paragraph
(b)(5)(i) is revisech new paragraph
(b)(5)(iii) Is added: paragraph (b)(7) is
removed and paragraph (b)(8) is
redesignated as paragraph (b)(7): the
-------
‘F eral Re ster I Vol.55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
Introductory text b paragraph c) is
revlmd and paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4)
are removed. teread as foliows
§ 268.7 Wasts analysis and recordkeeplng.
(a) 0 0
(1) * * *
(II) l ’he cor esp idlng treatment
standards for wastes FO01—FUO5, Ft 39,
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 288.32 or RCR.A Section 3004 (d).
Treatment standards for afl other
restricted wastes may be referenced by
including on the notification the
subcategory of the waste, the
treatabifity group(s) of the waste(s), and
the R section(s) and paragraphs
where the treatment standards appear.
Where the applicable trea ent
standards are expressed as specified
technologies In § 288.42. the applicable
five-latter treatment code found In Table
1 of § 268.42 (e.g.. INCIN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
* 0 0 0 0
(2) *
(4) * •
(B) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes FOOl-FOGS, F039,
and wastes prolubited pursuant to
*288i2or RCRA Sêction3004(cI).
Treatment standards for afi other
restricted wastes may be referenced by
Including on the notification the
subcategoiy f the waste, the
testability group(s) of the waste(s), and
the CFR section(s) and paragraphs
where the treatment standards appear.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in §288.42. the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
I § 288.42 (e.g., IN WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
0 0 0 I •
(3)• -
(ill The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes FO01—F005, F039,
and wastes proh ibited pursuant to
§268.32 or RCRA s on 3004(d).
Treatment standards for nfl other
restricted wastes may be referenced by
Indading on the notification the
subcategox7 of the waste. the
treatability groupfs) of ti waste(s), and
the CFR section(s) and paragraphs
where the treatment standards appear.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in §288 42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found hi Table
1 of § 268.42 (e.g., INCIN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the noti alion.
(44 If a guneratorrs mesaguiga
prohibited waste in tanks oroonçainers
regulated waler 40 CFR 282.34. and Is
treating such waste in such tanks or
containers to meet applicable treatment
standards under Subpart D of this part.
the genPr .b r must develop and follow a
wñttea waste analysis plan which
describes the procedures the generator
will cany ot t to comply with the
lre.*Th,It standards. The plan must be
kept on-site In the generator’s records,
and the fo4kiwi g requirements mast be
met
(I) The waste analysis plan must be
based on a detailed chemical sad
physical analysis of a representative
sample of the prohibited waste(s) betag
treated. and contain all information
na ary b, treat the waste(s) In
accordance with the requirements of
this Part. including the selected testing
(ii) Such plan must be flied with the
EPA Regional Administrator (or his
designated representative) or State
authorized to implement Part 288
requirements a minilnum of 30 days
prior to the treatment activity, with
dellv ry verified.
(Iii) Wastes shipped c -skte pursuant
to this paragraph mast comply with the
notification requirements of §288.7(a)(2).
(7)11 a generator is managing a lab
pack that contains wastes identified in
Appendix IV of this part end wishes to
use the alternative treatment standard
under §268.42. with each shipment of
*aste the generator must submit a
notice to the treatment facility in
accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. The generator must also eomply
with the requirements In paragraphs
(a)(5) and (a)(6) of this section. and must
submit the following certification, which
must be signed by an authorized
representatlvm
I tlfy under penalty of law that I
personally have e nTnIned and am familtnr
with the waste and that the lab pack contains
only the wastes specified In appendix IV to
part 268 or solid wastes not subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 261.1 am aware
that there are significant penalties for
submitting a false certification. Including the
possibility of fine or Imprisonment
(8) if a generator is managing a lab
pack that contains organic wastes
specified In Appendix V of this Part and
wishes to use the alternate treatment
standards under § 268.42. with each
shipment of waste the generator must
submi.t a notice to the treatment facility
In accordance with paragraph {a)(I) of
this section. The generator also must
comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(5) nd (a116) of this
section, and must submit the following
certification which must ‘be signed by an
authorized representative:
I certify under penalty of law that I
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste through analysis and testing
or through knowledge of the waste and that
the lab pack ccnt only organic waste
specified in Appendix V to Part 268 or solid
wastes not subject to regulation under 40
CFR Part 281. 1am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certificatlos. including the possibthty of fine
or lmpdwnman*.
(9) Sinafl quantity generators with
tolling agreements pursuant tu 40 CFR
262.20(e) must comply with the
applicable notification mid certification
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section for the initial shipment of the
waste subject to the agreement. Such
generators must retain on-site a copy of
the notification and certification.
together with the toEling agreement. for
at least three years after termination or
expiration of the agreement. The three-
year record retention period Is
automatically extended during the —
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator.
(b)
(4) •
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes FOOI—F005, F039,
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 288.32 or RCRA Section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other -
restricted wastes may be referenced by
including on the notification the
subcategory of the waste, the
treatability group(s) of the waste(s), and
the CFR section(s) and paragraphs
where the treatment standards appear.
Where the applicable treatment
standards axe expressed as specified
technologies in § 268.42, Lhe applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
i of § 268.42 (e.g., INCIN. WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
(5) • •
(1) • • *
I certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the
treatment process used to support this
certification and that, based on my :nq iryof
those Individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining tins information. I believe that the
treatment process has been operated and
maintained properly so as to comply with the
performance levels specified in 40 CFR part
268, subpart D, and all appbcable
pi ohibrtiam set forth in 40 CFR 262.32 or
RCRA sectIon 3004(d) without impernussibte
dilution of the prohibited waste. I am aware
that there are significant penalties for
submitting a false certificatian. uidudirtg the
possibthty of flne and imprisonment.
* * I 0 0
(ui) Fox ’ wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste pursuant to § 268.43, if
compliance with the treatment
standards in subpart D of this past is
-------
22688
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
based in part or in whole on the
analytical detection limit alternative
specified in § 288.43(c). the certification
also must state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that I have
person.illy examined and am familiar with
the frea uent technology and operation of the
treatment process used to support this
certification andihat. based on my Lnqulry of
those Individuals Immediately responsible for
obtaining this Information. I believe that the
nonwastewater organic constituents have
been treated by Incineration In units operated
in accordance wIth 40 CFP. part 284. subpart
0) or4O R part 285, subpart 0. orby
combustion In fuel substitution units
operating In accordance with applicable
technical requirements. and I have been
unable to detect the nonwastewater organic
constituents despite having used best good -
faith efforts to analyze for such constituents.
I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting a false certification.
including the possibility of fine and
Imprisonment
• • • • •
(c) Except where the owner or
operator Is dlspo8ing of any waste that
is a recyclable material used In a
manner constituting disposal pursuant
to 40 CFR 266.20(b), the owner or
operator of any land disposal !acility
disposing any waste subject to
restrictions under this part must
• * • • •
8. Paragraph (a) of § 268.8 is revised to
read as follows:
§268.8 Landfill and surface Impoundment
disposal restrIctions.
(a) Prior to May 8, 1990. wastes which
are otherwise prohibited from land
disposal under § 288.33(1) of this part
may be disposed in a landfill or surface
Impoundment which is in compliance
with the requirements of § 268.5(h)(2)
provided that the requirements of this
section are met. As of May 8, 1990, this
section Is no longer In effect.
7. Section 268.9 is added to subpart A
to read as follows:
§268.9 SpecIal rules regarding wastes that
exhibit a characteristic. -
(a) The initial generator of a solid
waste must determine each waste code
applicable to the waste in order to
determine the applicable treatment
tmtandards under subpart D of this part
For purposes of part 288. the waste will
carry a waste code designation for any
applicable listing under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart D. and also one or more waste
code designations under 40 CFR part
281, subpart C where the waste exhibits
the relevant characteristic.
(b) Where a prohibited waste is both
listed under 40 CFR part 281, subpart D
and exhibits a characteristic under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C. the treatment
standard for the waste code listed In 40
CFR part 281, subpart D will operate In
lieu of the standard for the waste code
under 40 CFR part 281, subpart C.
provided that the treatment standard for
the listed waste includes a treatment
standard for the constituent that causes
the waste to exhibit the characteristic.
Otherwise, the waste must meetthe
treatment standards for all applicable
listed and characteristic waste codes.
(c) In addition to any applicable
standards determined from the Initial
point of generation no prohibited waste
which exhibits a characteristic under 40
CFR part 281. subpart C may be land
disposed unless the waste complies with
the treatment standards under subpart D
of this part.
(d) Wastes that exhibit a
characteristic are also subject to § 288.7
requirements. except that once the
waste is no longer hazardous, for each
shipment of such wastes to a subtitle D
facility the Initial generator or the
treatment facility need not send a
§ 288.7 notification to such facility. In
such circumstances, a notification and
certification must be sent to the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator
(or his delegated representative) or State
authorized to imp ment part 288
requirements.
(1) The notification must include the
following information:
(I) The name and address of the
subtitle D facility receiving the waste
shipment;
(ii) A description of the waste as
Initially generated, including the
applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s) and freatability group(s);
(lii) The treatment standards
applicable to the waste at the Initial
point of generation.
(2) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the language found In
§ 268.7(b)(5)(l).
Subpart C—Prohibitions on land
Disposal
8. Section 268.35 Is added to read as
follows:
§268.35 Waste specific prohibitions—
Third Third wastes.
(a) Effective August 8, 1990. the
following wastes specified In 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers F006 (wastewaters). F019, and
F039 (wastewaters); the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 281.32 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers 1(002; K003:
K004 (wastewaters); 1(005
(wastewaters): 1(006; 1(008
(wastewaters); 1(011 (wastewaters);
1(013 (wastewaters). 1(014
(wastewaters); 1(017; 1(021
(wastewaters); 1(022 (wastewaters);
1(025 (wastewaters): 1(028: K029
(wastewaters); 1(031 (wastewaters);
1(032:1(033:1(034: K035; 1(041; 1(042;
1(046 (wastewaters); 1(048
(wastewaters): 1(049 (wastewaters);
1(050 (wastewaters): 1(051
(wastewaters); 1(052 (wastewaters);
1(060 (wastewaters): 1(061
(wastewaters); 1(069 (wastewaters):
1(073; K083 (wastewaters): 1(084
(wastewaters); 1(085: 1(095
(wastewaters); 1(096 (wastewaters):
1(097; 1(098:1(100 (wastewaters): 1(101
(wastewaters); 1(102 (wastewaters);
1(105: and 1(108 (wastewaters): the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33(e) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers P001;
P002; P003: P004: P005; P006: P007: P008;
P006; P010 (wastewaters); Poll
(wastewaters): P012 (wastewaters);
P014; P015; P016: P017; P018
(wastewaters); P020; P022; P023; P024;
P027: P028: P031; P033: P034: P038
(wastewaters); P037; P038
(wastewaters): P042: P045; P046; P047;
P048: P046; P050 P051; P054; P056; P057.
P058: P056; P060 P064; P065
(wastewaters); P066; P067: P068: P089:
P070; P072: P073: P075; P076: P077: P078;
P081; P082: P084: P088; P092
(wastewaters); P093: P095: P096; P101:
P102; P103; P105; P108: P106; P110; P112;
P113: P114: P115; P118: P118: P116; P120;
P122: and P123; and the wastes specified
in 40 CFR 261.33(0 as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers 11001: 11002: 11003: 11004:
11005; 11008:11007; U008: 11009; 11010;
U011: 11012; U014: 11815; 11016:11017;
11018:11016; U020; 11021:11022:11023;
U024; 11025; 11028; 11027; 11029; 11030;
U031; 11032; 11033; U034: 11035:11036:
11037; 11038:11039:11041; 11042:11043:
U044: 11045; 11046; 11047: U048; 11049;
11050; 11051: U052: U053; 11055:11056:
11057; 11058:11060; 11061; 11062; U063;
U084: 11068: U067; 11068:11070; 11071:
11072:11073; U074; 11075:11076:11077;
11078:11078:11080; 11081:11082:11083;
U084: 11085: U088; 11086; U090: 11091:
11092:11093; U094; 11095; 11096:11097;
• U09& 11096; 11101:11103; 11105: U106:
11108: 11106; 11110; 11111; 11112: 11113:
U114; 11115: U116; 11117: 11118; 11119:
11120 (wastewaters); 11121: 11122; 11123;
U124: 11125; 11128; 11127; 11128; 11126;
11130; 11131: U132: 11133; 11134: 11135:
U136 (wastewaters): U137; 11138; 11140;
11141; 11142: U143; 11144; 11145: 11148;
U 147 11148: U146; 11150; 11151
(wastewaters); 11152; 11153; 11154; 11155;
11158: 11157: 11158; 11156; 11160; 11161;
U162; U163; U164; 11165:11168:11167:
U16& 11166; 11170; 1J171; U172: 11173;
U174; U178: 11177: 11178: U179: 11180;
11181; 11182:11183:11184; U185; 11186:
U187: 11188: U186; 11191: 11192: 11193:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 I Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
22689
1.1194: U198 U197: U20ft U201: U20
U203; 1.1204; U205; U206 U207; U208
U208. U21t U211; U213 Ufl4 U
U21 U217: U img U U22
U5 U 8. 13227: U228 UZ54 UZ3ft
U237; U23& U239 U240 13243: U24.t
U246 11247; U248 U24 and the
following wastes ldent ed as
hazardo,.g based on a. hara misUe
alone: Dool; D002 . D093, D004
(wastewaters), D005, D008. D007 D008
(except for lead materials stored before
secondary smelting). D009
(wastewaters). DOW. DOll. DOlL DOlL
D014. D015. DO18. andDOl7 are
prohibited from land disposal
(b) E ctive November 8.1290. the
following wastes 8pedfied in 40 (iR
281.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers X048 (nonwastewatars). 1(049
(nonwastewaters), 05O
(nonwastewaters). 1(051
(nonwastewaters), and 1(052
(nonwastewaters) me prohibited from
land dispoanL
(c) Effective May 8. 1992. the following
waste specified in 40 CFR 281.31 as EPA
Hazardoas Waste Numbers PtX39
(nonwautuwaters); the wastes specified
In 40 CFR 281.32 as EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers 1(031 (nonwaste’waters)
1(084 (nonwastewaters) 1(101
(nonwastewaters); 1(102
(nonwastewaters); 1(106
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
in 40 CFK 281.33(e) as EPA }fazardcuz
Waste Numbers POlO (nonwestewaters
Poll (nonwastewaters); P012
(nonwastewatere); P036
(nonwastewaters); P038
(nonwastawaters); P085
(nonwastewaters); P087
(nonwastewaters); and P092
(nonwastewaters); the wastes specified
In 40 CFR 261.33(f) as EPA Ifazardous
Waste Numbers 13136
(nonwaslewaters); and 13151
(nonwastewaters); and the fOlloWing
wastes identified as hazardous based on
a characteristic alone D004
(nonwastewaters); 1 )008 (lead materials
stored before secondary smelting); and
D009 (nonwastewaters) Inorganic solids
debris as defined in 40 CFR 2682(a)(7)
(which also applies to thrm
refractory bricks carrying the EPA
Hazardom Waste Numbers KO4&-KD52)
and RCRA hazardous wastes that
contain eat irally occurring radioactive
materials are prohibited from land
disposal.
(d) Effective May 8. 1992, hazardous
wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.12 that are
mixed radioactive/hazardous wastes
are pro] lbited from land disposal.
(e) Effective May 8. 1992. the wastes
specified in this section having a
treatment standard in snbpart 1) of this
part based on incineration, mercury
rebortlng. or viMfication. and which me
contaminated soil or debris, are
prohibited from land disposal
(1)Between May 8, 1990 and August 8,
1990, the wastes Included in paragraph
(a) may bedispoeedof in a landfill or
surface tmpoundm Ant only if such unit is
In compliance with the requirements
_____In § 288.5(h)(2). -
(g) Between May 8. 1990 and
November 8,1990. wastes Luctuded. In
paragraph (b) of this section may be
dispos sri of In a I ndfihl or _____
Impoundment only If such unit Is in
onpli wx with the requirements
specified in I 288.5(h)(2).
(h) Between May 8.1990 . and May 8,
1992. wastes l 1uded Ip paragraphs (c),
fd).and{e)of this section may be
disposed of in a landifil or surface
impoundment only if such unit is In
ri mrIInni.n with the requirements
specified in * 288.5(h)(2J .
(1) The uu ents of paragraphs (a),
(b), (c), (ci), and (e) of this section do not
apply th
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
standards specIfied In subpart D of this
part
(2) Persons have been granted an
erPYnpticn from a prob2itlon pursuant
to a petition under *268 .8. with respect
to those wastes and units covered by
the pafilion
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
a1t rn-a1e standards estah1{ ahpd
persuant to a petition granted under
1 288.44;
(4) Persons have been granted an
pytpnginn to the effective date of a
prohibition ptn’suantto I 268.5. with
respect to these wastes covered by the
extension.
if) To determine whether a hazardcms
waste listed In I 268.10,268.11, and
268.12 the applicable treatment
standards specified in § § 268.41 and
268.43. the nitiai generator must test a
representative sample of the waste
extrdct or the eutir . waste, depending
on whether the treatment standards are
expressed as concentrations in the
waste extract or the waste, or the
u, itur may use knowledge of the
waste. the waste contains constituents
In excess of the appli ble subpart B
levels, the waste is prohibited from land
and all requirements of part
268 are applicable, except as otherwise
specified.
9. Section 288.40 in amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read
as foflows -
* 268.40 AppIIcabIflty of treathiern
standards.
(a) A res ricted waste identified in
1 268.41 maybe land dispo8ed only if an
extract of the waste or of the treatment
residue of the waste developed using the
test method In appendix 1 of this par
does not exceed the value shown in
Table CCWE of § 268.41 for any
hazardous constituent listed in Table
CCWE for that waste, with the following
exceptions: D004. DOO8. 1(031. K084,
1(121.1(102. P010. POll, P012, P036, P038.
mid 131.38. Wastes D004, D008, 1 (031.
K084. 1(101.1(102. P010. POll. P012, P036.
P038. and 13138 may be land disposed
only if an extract of the waste or of the
treatment residue of the waste
developed using either the test method
in Appendix I of this part or the test
method In appendix II of part 281 does
not exceed the value shown in Table
CCW of § 268.41 for any hazardous
constituent listed in Table CCWE for
that waste.
• . • * .
(c) Except as otherwise specified in
288.43(c). a restricted waste identified
In § 268.43 may be land disposed only if
the constituent concentrations in the
waste or treatment residue of the waste
do not exceed the value shown in Table
CCW of § 268.43 for any hazardous
constituents listed in Table CCW for
that waste.
10. Section 288.41 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and Table
CCWE—Constituent Concentrations in
Waste Extract, to read as follows:
1268.41 Treatment standards expressed
is concentrations In waste extract
(a) Table CCWE identifies the
restricted wastes and the concentrations
of their aseocia ted constituents which
may not be exceeded by the extract of a
waste or waste treatment residual
developed using the test method in
Appendix I of thi8 part for the allowable
land disposal of such wastes, with the
exception of wastes D004, D008, 1(031.
1(084.1(101.1(102, P010, POll. P012, P038.
P038. and 13136. Table CCWE identifies
the restricted wastes D004, D008, K031,
1(084. KiOl, 1(102, POlO. POll. P012. P036,
P038, and 13136 and the concentrations
of their associated constituents which
may not be exceeded by the extract of a
waste or waste treatment residual
developed using the test method in
Appendix I of this part or appendix U of
40 CFR part 261 for the allowable land
disposal of such wastes. (Appendix U of
this part provides Agency guidance on
treatment methods that have been
shown to achieve the Table CCWE
levels for the respective wastes.
Appendix U of this part is not a
regulatory reqw.rement but is provided
to assist generators and owners/
operators in their selection of
appropriate treatment methods.)
Compliance with these concontratlons is
required based upon grab samples.
-------
22690 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCWE—CONSTTTUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
W de
Se. aleo
Regulated hazard us cons bient
ccnsbtuent
don (mg/I)
waSlewateI!
Non.
concen,a .
don (mg/I)
0008 -
0008 Meaty S-
• than 280 mg/kg Merciay).
0010
00*1
R301-F005 50e 50hallte
Cw
Qesola (and — tod)
C-
1 lc 1 roben1ef0
Table CCW I 288.43
Table W in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CON Il 268.43
Table CCW In 268.43
Table 2 In 288.42 end Table CCW In
288.41
Table CON in 268.43
Table COW In 268.43-
Table 2 in 268.42 and Table COW In
268.41
Table COW In 268.43.
Table COW in 268.43.
Table COW In 268.43.
— th
— eth l ono____
Me — no
N obe ene
ne
Te NoroethØene
To jen .
1,1 .1 .Thcfl loroelharie
1.12.Tnth loco.1.2.2.Tetifiuoretha no_
Tr lch loroethylene
tncNcrcf luoromethane
FOOT
-
•
F008
-
F 009
.
FOIl
,
F012
744o4 8 -
74.40—39—3
7440—43—9
7440-47—32
7439- 92—I
7439-97—6
7782-49-2
7440—22-4
67-64-1
71—36—3
75-15-0
58-20-5
108-98-7
108-94-1
95—50—1
141-78-6
100-41-4
60—29—7
78-83-1
87-56-1
75-9—2
78-93-3
108-10-1
98-95-3
110-88-1
127-18-4
108-88-3
71—55—6
76—13—1
79-01-6
75-69-4
7440—43—9
7440-47—32
7439-92—1
7440—02—0
7440-22—4
7440—43—9
7440-47-32
7439—92—1
7440-02—0
7440—22—4
7440—43—9
7440-47—32
7439-92—1
7440-02-0
7448-22—4
7440—43—9
7440-47—32
7439-92—1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440—47—32
7439-92—1
74.40-02-0
7448-22—4
7440-43-9
7440—47—32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440—22—4
7440—47-32
96-85-4
88-08—2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05
5.0
1.05
0.05
0.15
2.82
0.125
0.65
005
0.05
0.05
5.0
0.25
0.20
0.05
0.05
066
1.12
0.079
1.12
105
1 05
0.062
0.05
005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<1 xb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 POd
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55. No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations 22691
TABLE CCWE.—CONSTTTUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT—COntinUed
Waate code
See alee
Pi g . .¼tnd hazaidous constItuent
hazardous
conactuem
COflC8flV •
boil (mg/fl
Non-
waSt ewfltOlg
concen e-
don (mg/fl
Table CON In 268 .43
VOTUI I (Total).
‘—4
c won (Total).
Laod
F 039
S
KOOl
K002
K
K 004
KOOS
ooe ( ó
.
1(006 y ata
1(007
.
1(006
.-
.
1(015
1(02 1
K022
K025
S
•
1(031
1(048
1(048
1(049
1(050
1(051
K052
TCCWIn28&43________
Table CCW In 268.43
Table CCW In 268.43
.
Le _
C lvomlian
—
CPvon m
Laed_
Table CCW in 268.43-
C1v omkm
Laad_
Table CON In 268.43
QYon*an
La _
Table CON In 268.43—
Chromsan
Table CCW In 268.43
Table W In 268.43
Table CCW In 268.43
Table CCW In 26&A3
Table CON In 268.43
Table WH In 268.43
-
Leod_
NlmflOOy_
CNon inn
Mdod
-
Table CON in 268.43
Qiromün (Total).
cnrom m (r I1
IA 4
OvomkAm (tobo)
L
chmlTI ,
Laod_
87-88-6
7440—47—32
14:39-92—1
7440-02-0
7440-36-0
7440—38—2
7440—39—3
7440-43—9
7440-47—32
143 9 -92—I
7439-97-6
7440-02—0
7782—49—2
7440-22—4
7439-92—I
7440-47—32
1439—92—I
7440-47—32
7439-92—1
7440-47—32
7439—92—1
7440—47—32
7439-92-1
7440-47—32
7439-92—1
7440—47—32
7440—47—32
7439-92—I
74.40-47—32
7439-92—1
7440—47—32
7439-92—1
7440—36—0
7440-47—32
7440-02-2
7440—47—32
7439-92—1
74.40—02-0
7440—38—2
7439-92—1
7440—41—32
7440—02—0
7440—47—32
7440-02-0
7440-47—32
1440—02—0
7440-47—32
7440—02—0
7440-47—32
7440-02-0
7440-43—9
7440-47—32
7439-92—1
7440-02-0
7440—47—32
1439-92—1
7440—43—9
7439-92—1
7439-97-8
7440-02-0
7440—38—2
7440—47—32
7439-92—1
7439-92—1
7440—43—9
7440—47—32
7439-92— 1
7440-38—2
7440—38—2
7439-97-8
7439-97-8
Chmiraum (Total).
<0.05 ppm
<0.01 ppm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.05 ppm
<001 ppm
0.073
0.021
0.088
020
5.0
52
0068
52
031
0.025
0.32
5.7
0072
Os’
O 094
0.37
O 094
037
O 094
0.37
0094
0.37
O 094
0.37
52
O 094
0.37
O 094
0.37
1.7
02
5 .2
0.32
0073
0021
0088
5.80
0.18
‘7
0.20
1.7
0.20
17
0.20
1.7
0.20
1.7
0.20
0.14
5.2
0.24
0.32
O 094
0.37
0.14
0.24
0.025
O 088
5.60
0.094
0.37
051
0.068
5.2
0.51
5.60
560
020
O 025
Ovon*an (Total).
K081 (thw Zinc Subcategory—4ese
than 15% Total Z inc .
In ’ .,
O um
Chromlmi (Total).
Teble CCW In 268.43
Table CCW In 268.43
Table CCW m 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43 -
Table CCW In 268.43-— -
Table CON In 268.43
Table CON In 268.43
Table CON In 268.43 -
Table CON In 268.43 -
Table 2 In 268.42 and Table COW In
Table COW In 268.43
Table CON In 268.43
Table CON In 268.43
Table CON In 268.43
Table CON In 268.43
Table CCW In 268.43-
Table CON In 268.43
Table CON In 268.43
Table 2 In 268.42 arid Table CON In
268.41
Table 2 In 26842 and Table CON In
268.41
K069 (Calekan S ata S cbleg
1(071 (Low Monasy. S categor —
baa than 18 mg/kg Mercwy).
1(083
1(094
1(088 - -
nA7
ch um
Leod_
Laed_
flIr.L _A
1 n1
1no
1(108 (Low Morc*ay Subcategoiy—
Ieee than 260 mg/kg Mercuiy—resi.
does from RMERC).
1(108 (Low Meicuiy Subcatego.y—
lo u than 260 mg/kg Mercasy—that
are not resIdues from RMERCl.
Lead
Lead
CaWn m___
ClYondom (Total)
Lead

kee
M s y
-------
22692
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TAULE CCWE.—GONSTTUENT CONCENTRATONS se WASTE EXTRACT—ContinUed
P065 (Løw Mnc ay Subcate-
gc y-laes than 260 mg/kg
from
RMERCJ
P085 (Low Il&nay Sub
go -4.ss than 260 mg/kg
Merciy.iloneratcr rod-
thies (and e not maduas
from RI BCD.
P073
P092 Qcw Merc ay & cata-
gory-4es than 280 mg/kg
Merney s es from
RMERq.
P092 (Low Me y &ibca
gory-lees than 260 mglkg
Mererotor ro
dues (ant era not masdues
from RI4ERC .
p.
P104.
P110.
P114,
U032.
U051.
U138.
U 144.
U145.
U 148.
U151 ow Mernay &thco
gory-lois than 280 mg/kg
Morony—. es.dues from
RMERC).
Lj15I (Low Mercury Subcata-
gory-loss n 260 mg/kg
Mercwy—ltnI era not re
dues from RMERC).
U204.
U205.
Tebin CCW in 268.43
Tablo ccw i 26&43
Ta01e W In 268.43
Table W in 268.43
Table CCW in 268.43
Table CCW In 288.43. —
Table 2 I, 268.42 wö Table
W In 268.43.
Table 2 in 268.42 an Table
“XV I in 258.43.
Table CCVI In 288 .A ’
Table CCVI I 26t4 ’
Table 2 in 260.42 an Table
CCW in 268.43.
Ta 2 260.42 an Table
CCVI In 268.43.
Table J 288.43__
Table CCVI in 26&4 1
Table C I in 268.43
T CCN er 268.43
Table V in 268.43 -
TablsGCWn26&43
T a C( l in 268.43 -
Table CCIV iT 268.43
Table in 268.43
fable er 0 43
In 26843
Table CCW er 268.43 and m
Table 2 260.42.
Table CCIM In 268.43 and
Table 2 In 268.42.
Selon m_
Se m
7440—38-2
7440-38—2
7440-38-2
74.40—39—3
7440-38—2
7440—38—2
74 19-97-6
7439-97-8
7440—02-0
7440-02-0
7439-97-6
7440—22—4
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7439—92—1
7782-49-2
7440—47-32
7439—92—1
7440-38—2
7439-92-1
7439-92—1
7439-92—1
7439—97-6
7782-49—2
7782-43-2
S S S S S
Section 268.42 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a) Infrothictory text and
(a)(2), by removing paragraphs (a)43)
and (a)(4), by revising paragraph (b).
and by adding paragraphs (c), (d), and
(e) to reed as foUows
268.42 Treatment standards expressed
specified tedv o4ogles .
(a) The following wastes In
paragraphs (a) 11 and (a)(2} of this
section and in Table 2 and Table 3 of
this section must be treated using the
techno1o or technologies specified in
paragraphs (aJ{1) and (a)(2) and Table I
of this section.
• S • S S
(2) Nonfiquid hazardoes wastes
containing halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs) in total
concen ation greater than or equal to
1.000 mg/kg and liquid HOC-containing
Waste cods
See stee
Regulated I aes(dous omedeient
CAS number
wut
. Non.
westewatom
c OnCentla-
eon (mgiI)
KilS____________________
Table CON -
‘8d
7440-02-0
NA
0.32
—T Peeeoorl ndsrds hem been besed on EP Leaebato enstyala b V dees not pre de the t ol TCLP anstyna.
-Theee wSSto codes era not mbcategcr d mte teweters and nonwasteeeloi -
NA-Not -
- TABt.E CCWE.—COPISTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR WASTE EXTRACTS
Waste code .
See also
CTur w a& wn.
Re atedba doue
conattuoni
(mgil)
wastewaters
concenfra on
(mg/I)
Polo.
Poll.
DflII
A ener —
blonde
Ber m —
—
A rIc
Banww__
on __
e na
— ate
Mercury hlsnmate-
Md ber
k c__
M
Merasy
N ___
- -
N
Ptten t ma ry _
me tste_
alver — -
Mercwy
Mercury
S2 er___
Sblenowoa__Sble n_
C h 0 e
Sever___________
7419-97-6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tetraethyt teed
Tha —__
alclwn ctworna’
5,6
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.8
020
o 025
032
0 . 32
020
o 025
0.072
5.7
0072
051
5.7
o 094
0.51
5.8
0.51
0.51
0 .5T
020
0 025
5.7
5.7
S m
Ovomium (Total)_
aco caod
1
Mercury
Table CCVI IT 268.43 Setenkan c 5o .idde______
Table CC ii 28843 Selenerm iulfide_______
7439-97-6
—These Sesbnent sbl th have been based on EP Leachate anaiyera bot die does not pr ide the tee 01 TCLP onal coa.
-Thass waste codes era riot I Mq Itzed into wastewaters and nowastewaleis.
NA-Not
-------
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 108 I Friday, June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22693
Wa8te8 that are prohibited under 0 or 40 CFR part 285. subpart 0. These specific HOC (such as a hazardous
* 288.32(e)(1) of this part must be treatment standards do not apply where waste chlorinated solvent for which a
Incinerated in accordance with the the waste is subject to a part 288, treatment standard is estabinhed under
requirements of 40 CFR part 254. subpart subpart C treatment standard for § 288.41(a)).
TABI.E 1.—TECHNOLOGY CODES AND DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS
______ 0esa on c i technclogy.based stenderd
ADGAS Venting of compressed gases kilo an absorbing or reactIng meda n.e, solId or U d)—venthg can be accomplished through physical release utilizing
vaptpaig physical penetIation of the container and/or penet allon through detonation.
AMLOM Amalgamason of liquid. ekirnental mera,y contaminated with radioactIve materials utl ng inorganic reagents such as copper. zinc. nickel, goid. and
sitif i s that result in a nonliquid, aeri il.eolld amalgam arid thereby reducing potential emissions of elemental merci.,y vapors to the ak
61000 BIodegradation of crgar or non .metalilc Inorgerics (La., degradable b’iorganlcs that contain the elements Cf ph spflcvus, nifrogen. arid sulfur) ii units
operated tinder either aerobic or anaerobic conditions such that a surrogate compound or indlcatcr parameter has been sizbstar.liaily reduced in
concentration in the residuals (e.g.. Total Organic Carbon can allan be used as an indicator parameter I Cr the biodegradation of many organic
coreithuerita that cannot be directiy analyzed in wastowater esidues).
CARBN Carbon ( anulated or powdered) of non.metaluc siorganics. organo .metallIcs. and/or organic coristibjents. operated such that a surogate
compound or indicator parameter has not undergone breakthrough (e.g.. Totel Organic Carbon can often be used as an indicator para’nerai or the
adsorption of many organic constitoents that cannot be directly analyzed in wastewater residues). Breakthrough occiss when the ca.bon has
become satoratad with the constituent (or ind Icator parameter) and substentlai change ui adsorption rate associated with that consbt cnt occurs
CHOXO Chemical or electrolytic oxidation uttilang the following oxidation reagents (or waste reagents) or combinations or reagenu (1) Hypochlonte (a 9
bleach) (2) chiortne (3) chlorIne dIoxide (4) ozone or L IV (ultraviolet lIght) assisted ozone (5) pero,cdes; (6) persulfates; (7) critorates; (8)
pennanganles; and/or (9) other o dtsng reagents of equivalent efficiency, performed fri wets operated such that a surrogate compound or indicator
parameter ha bean substantially reduced in concentration in the residuals (e.g.. Total Organic Caiton can often be used as an indicator parameter
for the oiddatlon of many organic consatuents that cannot be dfrectly analyzed in wastewater residues). Chemical oxidation speCtf.cally neludes what
le commonly referrud to as alkaline clilonnation.
Chemic,I reduction utithaig the following reducing reagents (or waste reagents) or combinations of reagents: (1) Sulfur dioxide. (2) Sothim, potass.um.
or alkaS salts of stiffites, bisuffites, metabisulfites, and polyethylene glycol, (eg.. NaPEG and KPEG) (3) sodami hy&osulfede; (4) ferrous salla and/
or (5) other reducing reagents of equivalent efficiency, performed in units operated such that a surrogate con’ipcw’d or indicator parameter has been
aubstanlla2y reduced in concentration In the residuals (e.g.. Total Organic Halogens can often be used as an indicator parameter for die reduc on of
many halogererJed organic constituents that cannot be dfrecvy analyzed vi wastewatar residues). Chemical reduction a commonly used for the
- reduction of hezevalerit crironeum to the tiwalerit state.
DEACT Deactivation to remove the h dous charactanstlcs of a waste due to its Ignitabtity, corrosivity. and/or reactivity.
FSUBS Fuel s*thstitinlon in units operated in accordance with applicable teclirticai operating regiarements.
HLVIT Vlthflcat lon of high level traced radioactive wastes In units in compliance with all applicable radioactive protection requirements under control of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
IMERCl Incineration of wastes containing Orgaria and mercury in units operated in accordance with the technical operating requrrements of 40 CFR pail 264.
subpart 0 arid 40 CPA pail 265, subpart 0 AS wastewater and nonwasteweter residues derived from this process muSt then comply ‘rith the
corresponding treatment standards per waste code with consideratIon of any applicable subcategories (eg., High or Low Mercu-y Subcategones)
INCN Incineration In units operated In accordance with the technical operating roqurreinents of 40 CPA part 26e, subpail 0 and 40 CFR part 265. sutipail 0
LLEXT Llquid-liqurd extraction (often referred to as solvent extraction) of organics from liquid wastes Irito an rnmactile solvent for which the hazardous
constituents have a greater solvent affinity, resulting vi an extract high in organics that must undergo other incineration, reuse as a fuel, or other
recover//reuse arid a rafltnate (extracted liquid waste) proportionately low in organics that trust undergo further treatment as speafled in the
MACRO Macroencapsulation with surface coating materials such as polymeric organic, (e.g. resins and plastics) or with a lacket of mart inorganic materials to
st stwalajly reduce surface mposwe to potential leaching media. Macroencapsulatlon specifically dces not Include any material that aculd be
classified ass tank or contain& acc id .. .g to 40 CFR 260.10.
NEUTR Neutralization with the following reagents (or waste reagents) or combinations of reegents (1) Acids; (2) bases; or (3) water Cuicluthng wastewaters )
resulting in a pH greater than 2 last less than 123 as measured In the aqueous residuals.
NLDBR No land disposal based on recycling.
PRECP Chemical precipitation of metals arid other inorganic, as insoluble predgitates of oxides. hy&oxides, carbonates. Sutfides. sulfates, chlorides. Itot,r,des,
or phosphates. The following reagents (or waste reagents) are typically used alone or in combination; (1) Lime ( I a., containing oxides and/or
hydroxides of calcium and/or magnesium; (2) csi stIc (I.e.. sodium and/or potassium hydroxides; (3) soda ash (le., sodium carbonate). (4) sodium
sulfide; (5) fenle sulfate or femc chlorIde; (6) ahm or (7) sodium sulfate. Additional Iloculatirig, coagulation, or similar reagentsfprocesses that
enhance sitidge dewatenng characteristic, are not precluded from use.
RBERY Thermal recovery of Berytaan.
RCGAS Recovery/reuse of cOmp ed gases including techniques such as repr000se .rjg ovme gases for reuse/resale, filtering/adsorption of tmpuntjes
remlang fqr,direct reuse of resale; and use of the gas as a fuel source.
RCl)RR Rocowiry of acids or bases utlibing one or more of the following recovery tuthnologtes (1) Orstlllaticn (I.e., thermal co centrabon ) ’ (2) ion excttanlge,
(3) ream or solid adso., tiQn ; (4) reverse osmose; and/or (5) incIneration for the recovery of acid—Note’ this does not preclude the use of othor-
physical phase separation or concentration techniques such as decamation, filtration (thtlufflng ultrafiltration), and centrifugabon. when used 1.
Con)wiction with the above listed recovery technotogie&
RLEAO Thermal recovery of lead in secondary lead smelters.
RMERC Retorting or roasting ins thOrn .al processing wit capable of volathbing mercury and subsequently condensing lila voIaD ed mercury for recovery The
retorting or roasting wet (or facility) must be subject to one or more of tile followingi (a) A National Emissions Standard for hazardous Al Pditutznts
(NESHAP) for morcwy (b) a Best Available Control Technology (BAC’l) or a Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) standard for mercury
Imposed pursuant to a Prevention of Significant etenoration (P50) permr or (c) a sute permit that establishes emission limitations (within meaning
of Section 302 of the Clean Al ‘Act) for mercury. AU wastewatar and noriwastewater residues derived from live process must then comply with the
corresponding treatment standards per waste code with consideration of any applicable subcategories (e g.. High or Low Mercury Subcategone
RMEfl. Recovery of metals or viorganics utilizing one or more of the following direct physicalf removal technologies. (1) Ion exchange; 2) resin or solid (le.
zoolltes) adsorption; (3 ) reverse osmose; (4) chelation/solvent extiaceon;. (5) freeze aystallzatlon; (6) ultrafiltration; and/or 8 simple precrpitation (i.e.
cata tion)—Note; U does not preclude the use of other physical phase separation or concentration ‘echniques Such as decaritatlon, filtration
(including ultrafiltration), and cenlrifugallon. when used in conlunction with the above listed recovery technologies.
RORGS Recovery of organics utilizing one or more of the following technologies: (1) DistIladori: (2) thIn film evaporation; (3) steam sti,ppmg (4) carbon
adsorption; (5) critical l’sild extractloni (6) tiqurd-llqiad extraction; (7) pr on/crystallization (Including freeze Crystailcabon): or (8) chemical phase
separation techniques (i.e.. addition of acid,, bases, demuisrflens, or smiler chemicals), Plots. This does not preclude the use of other physical p1 isse
separation techniques inich as decantation, liltraaon (including ultrafiltration). and centi’ifugationi, when used in conjunction with the abo’ie listed
RThRII Thermal recovery of metals or inorganics from nonwaslowaters In u nits defined in 40 CPA 260.10. paragraphs (1), (6), (7’), (II), and (12). uridar the
definition of “Industria l fui7iaces”.
-------
228M
Fedei aI Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE t.—TEcHNoc.OGY CODES AND DESCR1PYTON cc TEChNOLOGY-BASED STANDAROS—ConttnUed
1 !
Oe.uI n of tsctmoloqy .øased standard
RZINC
R UalUI W for the purpose of recom y of nc Ngh temperaflse me re eiy unto.
and
STABI
Ste tton wifit the toOowi g reagents (or wSets reagents) or co. , inathon 5 Cf reagen (1) Pordaiid oomet* or (2) tme/po cfans (a g.. fly ash
comet kfn st)— ss does ao l pNCtode file addiSon 04 r gento (e.g., fran sefto, ed tas, and days) designed to enhance the set/Owe time andi
or con a.,s strength, or to overal ret ce d leed t y 04 toe muba or
SSTRO
Stesjn xilpp .g 04 organócs from hO lM wastes utlthng app9caXn of steam to the wastes àgorated such that Ii nd and vapor flow rates, as wOO
as, baapOraate and pressure ranges have been montorod, and maintamed. These ogeratfng parameters are dependent upon the design
pauametars of the urto e as. the er of aeperadan stages and the vne so imn deegra Thus. resutbag te a conderwed extiact Ptg$I in
crgai ce that must isidergo eWwu’ lnwieiul (on , rem. as a ie or other recoverylrees. end an L zad wastovetor that ITs at undergo
truatinent as spedfied lithe standard.
WETOX
Wet afr ciddadon paiforrand li nds operated such that aanrog caspowid or kdcato parameter has been si sbo Zy radused li concenvation
Ii thi reai ats (e.g.. Totat Orgai Carbon osn . often be used as en li astor parameter for the ti td 1frvi of many organic conabtoente that cannot
be ukectty analysed r westewetar rk )
WTRRJC
Conbofted resodon with water for bl 1y re a uiorga or orgarsc cheraiods with preosietenary con ols foe protectIon of workers from poton ai
lofet re Sons as wea as precautionary conuols or poteneat of bo I ateble levels of gases dueng the recctost
NoNE 1 When a conibmaflon 04 these technologIes g.e. . a beatmant Sam) e epeafled as a single Seetinerd standard. the order 04 applIcation si specified fl
268.42. Table 2 by mdtcebng the five totter tecIlnolo code that must be appded lSst. then the designation “th.” (an abtoeealzon for lofiowed by”). then the ftiie
letter technology code cr toe technology Slat must be applIed neat, arid so on.
NoTE When more than one technology (or Veabnent baji) ore specified as affanathor flesSnerd standards. the five letter technology codes (or the treaIw.en&
batna) are separated by a senscdon ( with the test technology preceded by the word “OR ”. Ths iedcatei that any one of these BOAT technologies or bea n’ent
bans can be used for cen iIano . eat the ate
TA8t .E a—TECt ISIOWGY.BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CooE
0001
0001
0001
0001
0002
0002
0002
0002
0003
Does
0003
0006
0008
0012
0013
0014
0015
0016
0011
F005
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7440-43—9
7439-82- I
NA
NA
NA
0E
OE T
DEACT
DEACT
0E
DEACT
NA
DE
NA
6 10061 1 1 0 ff
CMBPt or 111011
WETOX or 11.1011
BIOOG or tNctN
o1o a 8100G or INON
CH0XD or 111014
(WETOX or ChOXO) to CAP8N
or 111011
FSUBS, RORGS, or
INQ 1
D€ACr .
DEA d.
OEACT.
D ACT.
DE .ACT.
DEACT.
DEACT.
CEACT.
DEACT.
OE.ACT.
RThRM.
ALE AD.
NA.
NA
11 k
NA.
NA.
NA.
0001
-
Se. also
-
Waste de tIons andf or beaflutent ethcategovy
CAS No.
h
con
Technology code
N t W O S
NA
NA
DEACT
NA
Nk
DEAd.
h nu(able Uqi ds based on 201.21(a) 1)—
Wastuwaters.
?grncable U ids based on 261.21(aXl)—t.cw
TOC ble U de Sebcategory—Less than
10% tOtal carboft
1 w ” ° LIqI ds based on 261 21(a) (1}—Htgli
TOC Uqmds agory-Greater
San or equolto 10% tend organic carbon.
lgi to . 5 aed gases based on
261 -21(aW l).
Ignitable reastivas 28t.21(aX2)
Oxdzeu5 based on 261 .21 (aJ44)
Acid eubcategory based on 261 .22(a)(1)
Alkethe subostegoly based on 261.22(aKt) —
Other corno Nes based on 201 . (a)(2)
ReactIve sulfidee based on 6l.22 (a (5)
ExplosIves based on 26tV(a ( , (7), and ( 6 ’
Water reactives based on 26t. (a) (23 . (33. arid
(43. - -
Other reactives based on 261.23(a)(1)
Cedmarm oorltairung batteries
Lend ead’badsdes Motr T derd only
appdes to lead acid batteries that are dentthed
as R0 A ti doris wastes anti that are nat
eacfuded elseehars born agutedon w the
led d*po t reasteaons o440 CFR 268 or
u 1 tud wider other EPA regulations (see 40
FR 26&803.
Mercia ttc) tearasy &thcategocy—geeter
than or equml to 260 mg/’sq total Mercisy—
cei s mercury end orga uos (and are not
ki04ier readri ’fl
gh Maicisy &thcatugory- etai
than or equal to 260 mg/kg total Menciy-.
— — lionerator __and
— fr . RMERC
0009
0009
Table CCWE It 268.41
end Table CCW It
26t43.
Table CCWE It 268.47
and T bla CCW
26t43 .
Tabli W It
Table CCW It 288A3_
Table CC J It 26&43_
Table ,
table CCW ‘
Table CON r
Table CONE Ii 268.41
witi Table CCW as
268.43.
NA
NA
7439-97-6
7439-97—8
72—26-8
59-89-9
aa t
IMER O,RMERC
RMERC.
M ethci ryc b lc
- __ - To xaphene
. .-._ 2,4.0 94-75-7
2.4.5 -TP ________________________________ 93.-72—t
79-49-9
-------
F024
1(025 -
1(026
1(027
1(039
1(044
K045
1(047
1(061
1(069 -
1(106
1(113
1(114
1(115
1(116
Pool
P002
P003
P005
P006
Pool
P008
P009
P014
P015
P016
P017
P018
P022
P023
P026
P027
P028
Feda a1 Register I VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TAa .a a—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STh1 IDAPDS sy RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JA
81—81—2
591—08—2
107-02-8
107-18-6
20859-73-8
2163-96-4
504—24—5
131—74—8
108-98 -5
7440—41—7
542-88—1
538-31—2
357-57—3
75—15-0
107-20-3
5344-82-1
542-76—7
100-44—7
INOtt
IN G
22695
INON.
FSLJBS. or INON.
FSUBS. or INON.
OEACT
DEACT.
DEACT.
NLDBR.
PLEAD.
RMERC.
FSUBS. or INCIN
FSLJBS. or INGIN.
FSUBS. or INCIN
FSUBS, or INCIN.
FSUBS. or INCIN
INCIN
FSUBS. c i - INCIN.
FSIJBS. o r INCIN
cHOXO -. CHRED or
INCN.
INC IN.
IN ON.
FSUBS, CHOXD.
c 4PEoor INCIN.
INCIN.
RMETI_ or RTHRM.
INCIN.
NON.
INCIN
INC 1N.
INC N.
IN C IN.
INC 1N
INCIN.
F005
- -
‘ fj ’
- See alco
Waats desalpUofle and/or oebl or go’y
GAS No. far

const
Teclmology code
WeeteWatera
Nonweatewatars
T e WE In 268.41
and Table 00W In
TabIGCWE In 268.41
and T e V lc
288.41
110-80- 5
DlatIIa cn boftores om th. produc a of ndro-
be ins by 6w r*adon of benww .
abil tails m the o iction of math l
ethyl
Cenfrdege and dle a6on reaithaes from toluene
— —
coiw frcm the SIltatIon of phosphora-
dlthioc ea d the productIon ci pliorete.
Table 00W In 268.43_
Table CCWE In 288.41
and Table 00W In
268.41
Table CCWE In 268.41
and Table (XW In
268.41
mng and proceseing of exploarvee.
Spetd c bon bvm the beateient of wastewater
— -t
P md wa xer from TNT o9
EmIssIon coi d dlxsUsludgo from the pthiwy NA
of steel in elec benacex QtIglt
Zinc Subcalegory—greater than or equal to
15% total Zinc).
Enasace ccnfrl dustFsludgo from aoccndary NA
lead 5meftm Nori-Caicnan Suflate Subcatego .
fy.
Wastewater Veabnent aludge from the mercwy NA
cell piuc In dilonne prodlxctIoia (HIgh Mer.
ewy S cetego.y .gieater than or equal to 260
mg/kg to mero .
Condensed Uqwd 5gM ends from the pimficotion NA
of toluenedlamine in the productIon of teluene.
dianane via hydrogenatIon ci diniltotolueno.
Vlcmalsfrom the punfication of toluenedlame In NA
the productIon of toMienethamine wa hydrogen.
alien of dinitrotoluene.
Heavy ends from the purrftcatlon of toluenediame NA
the production of teluenedlamine via hydra.
genalton of dlmtrotoluene.
gwac condensate -from the soNeri recovery NA
column in the produ on of totueno i sccyan-
ate via phosgenadon of toluenedlamme .
Warfwvi (> .0 .3%)
1-Acetyt.2-tha uree
8 1000. or INCIN
NON
LLE(T lb SSTRP lb CARBN or
NON
CARBN or INON
CAPON: or INCIN
DEACT
DEACT
DEACT
NA
NA
NA
CAPON: or INON
CAPON; or INCIN
CARBN or NON
CAPON: or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN,
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON.
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAR8N;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARON;
or NON
CHOXO: CHRED or INCIN
CVETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN:
or INC1N
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON,
or NON
CHOXD CHP CAR ON,
BICOG. or INCIN
(WETOX or O-$OXD) lb CAPON;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or C1fOXD) lb CAPON.
or INCIN
CNETOX or CHOXD) lb CAPON.
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN;
or2 4 ON
NA
(WETOX or O4OXD) lb CAPON:
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or Cl-IOXD) lb CAPON,
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN;
or INCIN
R OWfl1____________
A1 1y3 alcohol____________
—
5 .Manoetpiyl 3.I osazolol_____________
a oopyyidsie
,
M onn —
Thlc — biph
B as diab________
8 ch I ommothyqeth
Table CCW in 268.43_
-------
Table CCWE h 268.41
and Table CCW fr.
268.48.
Table CWE 268.41
and Table CCW In
268.48.
Table CCWE le 268.41
and Table CCW In
288.48.
Table CC iE tn 268.41
and Table CCW In
268.48.
N o
Nifrogtyo
N o
oc
Osm m
Endo
757—68—4
624 -83-9
54—1 1—5
10102-43-9
10102-44-0
55 - 63 - 0
82—75-9
152—16—9
20818-12-0
145-73-3
82-38-4
.cl4oxo WETOX. or INC1N
CHOXD WETOX. or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON:
or INON
CARBN or INC1N
CARBN or INON
(WETOX or OIOXD) lb CAPBN
or INC1N
CARSN or INCIN
CARBN or NON
çWETOX or CI4OXD) lb CAPON.
or INC1N
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON.
or INC1N
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN;
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON:
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON;
or NON
NA
(WETOX or C140X0) lb CAPON;
or INCIN
(WETOX or Cl 4OXD) lb CAPON.
orINCIN
CAPON o rINC1N
(WETOX or CIIOXD) lb CAPON;
or INON
NA
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARON
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAPON:
or INCIN
cHOXD CHRED CARON
BIQOG. or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPBN
or INON
(WETOX or C1IOXD) lb CARBN
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN,
or INON
(WETOX or CI4OXD) lb CAPON:
or INON
ADGAS
ADGAS
OIOXD cHRED CARBN;
8 100G. or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON;
or INCIN
CARBN or NON
NA
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAPON;
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX.or CHOXO) lb CAPON:
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON;
or NON
O40XD CHRED, or NON
IME C.
NON.
INCIN.
FSUBS. CHOXD
O4RED or INCIN.
NON.
INCIN.
NON.
NON.
ADGAS.
ADGAS.
FSLJBS. CHOXO
OIRE or INC:N
IN ON.
IN ON.
FSUOS. or NON.
RMETL or RThRM
FSU8S. or INON.
RMERC.
IMERC. or RMERC
22896
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1900 / Rules and Regulations
TAB.E a—TEcHNOLOGY-BASED flo R0S BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
See also
Wasle des , . i4lUono and/or freabnent ‘ “g0 ’Y
CAS No. for

cons
Technology code
Non astowaters
0,0.0leth 1 0.p ’gTa n l phosçJhOrofrUOate
— —
460-19-5
506-77-4
131-89-5
297—97—2
311—46-6
51—43—4
55-91-4
60-51-6
3919 6 -18-4
1 -09-8
& e p afl
46-Db*o .o .cresol salts
..n. .. F ’f ”di L.. D Al
•4• Cl
CH0X0 WETOX. or
IN IN.
ci iOxD WETOX. or
IN C IN.
NON.
FSUBS. or INCIN.
FSUBS. or NON
INCIN .
FSUBS. or NON.
FSUBS. or INCIN.
NON.
NON.
NON.
NON.
NON.
ADGAS lb NEUTR
NON
NON.
FSUBS. or NON
INCIN.
AMEAC.
151-58-4
7782-41-4
P 0 31
P003
P034
P040
P041
P042
P043
P044
Pa ls
Pa l s
P047
P049
P054
Po se
P057
P068
P062
P004
P068
P068
P068
P097
P068
P069
P070
P072
P075
P078
P078
P081
P082
P 0 84
P085
P 088
P092
P092
P068
P095
P096
Mercury ftdmrsate: (High Mercury Subcategory—
eater than or equal to 280 mg/kg total Mar-
airy— .e ther Inanarator resdues o. r aes
from RMERC’J.
Mercury fulminate: (All nonwastewaters that ate
not inanerator residues from PMERC regard
less at Mer sy Content).
Mm
2.Methytannd lne
Meth -
Methytlacton iblle
16752—77-5
75-55-8
75—86—5
115-08-3
Table CC In 28&43_
Phenyl mercury acetate: (High Mercury Subcato-
goly—greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg total
Merasy—aither Incinerator residues or resi.
dues from RMEPC).
Phenyl mercury acetate: (All nonwastewaters thai
are not widlnerator residues and are not rest.
dues from RMEPC. regardless of Mercury Con.
Phen
NA
62-38-4
103—85—5
75—44—5
7803-51-2
INC IN.
INCIN
cHOXD CHRED oi
INCIN.
-------
P102
P105
P108
P109
P112
P113
P115
Pile
P118
P119
P120
P122
u001
U003
u006
u00i
u008
u010
u011
U014
U0 r5
U016
U017
U020
U021
U023
U028
U033
U034
U035
U038
U041
U042
U048
U049
u053
u055
U056
U ’57
U058
U059
U082
U064
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday. June 1. 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TAa .a 2 .—TEc**4ot.oGv-BAsEo STANDARnS BY R RA WASTE Ccoe—Continued
107—19—7
26828-22-8
3889-24—5
509-14-8
314-32-5
7448—18-8
79-19-8
75—70—7
¶314-82-1
1314—84.-i
75-07—0
05
75—38—5
79-08-1
79-10—7
50-07—7
61—82—5
492-80—8
115—02-8
225—51—4
98-87-3
98-09-9
92-87-5
98-07-7
4 9 4 -03- I
353-50-4
75 8i-6
305-03-3
510-15—8
106-89
110-is-S
107-30-2
3165—93—3
4170—30—3
98—82—8
110—82—7
108-94-I
50-18-0
20830-81-3
2303-16-4
189—55—9
22697
PSUBS. or INCIN
FSUBS: c8OXD
cIIRED or IN IN
INCIN.
FSUBS. or INCIN.
FSUBS. ciioxo
HRED or INCIN.
RTHRM or STABL
RThRM: or STABL
INCff 4.
INCIN
STA BL
STARL
CHOXD C) lRE0 or
C IN.
FSUBS. or INC1N
INCW(
INCIN
INCIN
FSUBS. or INCIN
INCIN.
INC N.
INCIN.
INCIN
FSUBS, or INCIN.
INCIN
INCIN
INCIN
FSUBS. CHOXO
CHREO or INCIN
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INCIN
INCIN
INCIN
FSU8S. or INCIN
FSUBS. or INCIN.
FSUSS, or INCIN.
FSUBS. or INCIN
FSUBS. or INCIN.
INCIN
INCIN.
FSUBS. or INCN
See also
Waste deecnpdors and/or Vestment s* categoly
C.AS No for

c on ente
Technology code
W v s
NeaStOWa IerI
SoG
Te ba n drcmeth sno
Ta W hi 43_
W hi 268.43_
ThaSic aside
Thafikua (I)
T n A
Ththloronisb neflXt__________________
An o m va, thta___________________
Vanacf um pmito de. .. . . . .. . . . . ..
Zinc Phospthde (<10%)
A
rablo CCW In 268.43.....
Table W In 268 43._
.
T*blo W v i 288 .43_
.
Ac -
Ac fc add_________
,
Mitomydn C_____________________
A n d _____
Aia o
A e____
Bn
-
.
Be e
londo___
-
Be e____
8e blth l onde_____
C orste____
Thditcroecc otiydo (Qiloral)
C orai buc8___
Table CCW In 268.43......
C?ilorobenzff ate__________________
t blyo .23 .ep ano (
2-Odoroethyl in I ether_____________
C oroa ethyl methyl ether.______
hydrothlonde
Table CCW In 268 _
-_____
Table CC V In 268.43......
...
Cyctohexanixie_
Cydo
Daunowycm
Diallate
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN;
cHOXD CIIRED CARBN
BIOOG or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN
or IN IN
CARBN or INCIN
cHO RE CARB
BIOOG. or INCIN
NA
NA
(WETOX or Q4OXD) lb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CI4OXD) lb CARBN
oriNc iN
NA
NA
CHOXD CI1 lED or INC1N
(INETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN.
or IN IN
NA
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAR8N
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN:
or 1V4CIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN;
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAPBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN.
or
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN.
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN,
or 1NCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN,
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN,
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARON.
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN.

cHOXD cHRED. ARBN,
B100G; or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN,
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAPON.
or 1NCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARON;
or II9CIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON.
or INON
NA
(WETOX or C1IOXO) lb CARBN,
0 IN 1N
NA
(WETOX or C#OXD) lb CARON,
or I?4CIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON,
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN,
or INC 1N
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAPON.
or INCIN
(WETOX or CI-IOXO) lb CARON.
or INCIN
NA
CAPON, or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAR8N.
or INCIN
(WETOX or CIIOXD) lb CAPON,
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON.
or INCIN
-------
22698 Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 I Friday. June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
U073 __________ - - 91-94-1 INON.
U074 ______________ 1410-11-6 INCtN
IN ON.
U065
w oo
U0a7
woo
U090
U091
U092
U093
U094
U095
U098
U091
woo
U099
U103
Ulog
Ui 10
Ui 13
Ui 14
VI 15
Ui 18
UI 19
U122
U123
U124
U125
U126
U132
U133
U 134
U135
U143
U147
U148
U149
Ulso
1464-63-6
181680-1
58-53-I
119-00-4
124—40-3
621-90-9
57-97-6
119—93—7
80—15—9
79—44—7
57—14—7
77-78-1
122-60-7
142-84—7
140-88-5
111-54-6
75-21-6
96-45—7
02-50-0
58-00-0
84-10-8
110-00-9
30-4
302-01—2
7664—30—3
30344-4
108-31-8
12343-1
109-774
148-82-3
FSUBS. or INCIN.
FSUB cHOX
cHRED or INC N.
FSUBS, or IMON.
FSUBS or NON.
FSUBS, or INCIN.
INC PL
INON.
IN ON.
FSUBS, or INCIN.
NON.
FSUBS. -foxo
O RED. or NON.
NON.
FSUBS. CHOXD
c* lRED or INCIN.
FSUBS. CHOXD
O RED or NON.
FSUBS. CHOX
C$RED or INON.
FSUBS. CHOXD
CHRE or NON
INCIN.
FSUBS. or INCIN.
INC N.
cHOXD or INON
INCIN.
INOM.
FSUOS, or NON
FSUBS. or NON.
FSUBS. or INCIN
FSUBS. or INON.
FSUBS. or INCIN
INCIN.
FSUBS: C}IOXD
CHRED or INCIN.
ADGAS lb NEUTR, or
NEUTR.
C 110X0 CHRED or
INCIN
NON.
FSUBS, or INON.
NON.
INCIN.
INCIN.
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
So. also
Waste de Uons and/or Irealment si catOQory
CAS No. for

Tedi oloq code
wa s t
con _____
Nonwastewaters
d*i,oro4 bu1e
b ans .1,4 .Dsch loto2 bU lefle
1 4 ep dane
0,0 .0leth 1
Dleth sttoso bl
Oro l e
33 .0fmethox ben fle
D e
7.12-Olmethyl be(a)an Vacane__.—. — —- —— -—
i .Dbn thytb m_del0
&a - O_ — —
Table CCW In 26&43_
1.l.0 eth y lhno
1 .2.Cfmethy0iy w O
D e ate_____
1 .2.C iienythydrazfle
(WETOX or cHoxo) lb CARBN:
orINON
C*ETOX or cHOXO) lb CARBN
or INC 1N
(WETOX or QIOXO) to CARBN
or INON
CWETOX or Q4OXD) to CARBR
orINON
cHOXD O4RED CARBN
9lOCG or INCIN
CARBN or INCIN
CWETOX or CHOXO) to CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) to CA BN
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON.
orINON
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CAPON:
or INON
NA -
(WETOX or CHOXD) to CAPBN
or NON
(INETOX or CI4OXC) to CAPON:
orINCIN
OIOXD CHRED. CAPON;
BIODG or NON
(WETOX or CHOXC) to CAPON;
or NON
CHOXD CHRED CARBN
B 100G. or NON
CHOXD CHRED CAPBN
9I00G or NON
CHOXO CHREO CARBN;
8 100G. or NON
CHOXD CHRED. CAR8
8100G. or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON;
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBN;
or NON
(WETOX or ClIOXO) to CAP8rt
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAP8N;
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON.
or INON
(WETOX or C3IOXD) to CAPBN
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBN
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN:
or NON
(WETOX or CI4OXD) lb CAPON.
orINON
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CAPON;
oi OICIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON;
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON;
or INON
040X0 04RE0 CARBN;
8 (0 0G. or (NON
NA
OIOXD CHRED. or (NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPBN:
or INC1N
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAPON.
or (NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON;
or (NON
(NETOX or HOXD) lb CAPON;
orINCIN -
(WETOX or CHOXO) to CARBN:
or INON
ul 1 yiaw
Ethylene b oooth aod
Ethyleneoxide -
Ethylene th (o ae
Ethyl methane sulfonate
._Fonn
FonT c ac
Table CC In 268.43_
Hy&ogen Roudde
&ogen Suffide
-------
U151
U153
u154
U158
1 )160
1)163
1)164
1)166
U 161
1)168
u171
1)173
uiie
U1’7
1)178
U182
U184
1)188
1)169
1)191
1)193
U194
1)191
U200
U201
1)202
1)206
1)213
1.3214
U215
U216
1.3217
U218
U219
u
U222
un3
1)234
1)238
1)237
1)238
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 / FrIday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
7439—97—6
74—63—1
87- 56-I
79-23-1
1336-23-4
5 6-04-2
138-15-4
134-32-7
91—59-8
79-46—9
1116-64—7
759-73—9
684-63-5
615—53—2
123-63—7
76-01—7
504—60—9
1314—80-3
109-06-6
1120—71—4
107-10-8
106-51-4
106-48-3
81-07—2’
109-99—9
6533—73-9
7791—12-0
10 102-45-1
82-55-5
62-56-6
25376-45- 4
636-21-5
26471-62-6
72-57-1
66-75-1
51—79-8
RMERC.
22699
!NCJN.
FSUBS or lNO &
INON
FSUB C O
04RE0 or INC1N.
INON.
INCIN.
FS*JB$; or INON.
INC1N.
INCIN.
IN C IN .
NON
INc IN.
INCIN
iNCU &
FSUBS. or NON.
INC 1N.
FSUBS. or lNC
CHOXD OIRED: or
IN 1N.
INCIN.
INCIN.
INC 1P I.
FSUBS. or INCIN
NON.
FSUBS or INC:N.
IN C IN.
IN ON.
FSUBS or INCIN.
RThRN: or STABL
RThRM: or STABL
RTHRM; or STA8L
RThRM; or STABL
NON.
IN C IN.
FSUBS. or INCIN.
IN C IN,
FSUBS. or INfIN .
INCIN
IN4 IN
IN ON.
NON.
See also
Waste and/or beam ent subcategory
CAS No. for

Technology code
Wastewatars
.
Nonwastewatars
l. . — tago -ea
i or equal te 280 mg/kg total Merc*ay).
M
Table CONE k 268.41
and Table W l
26&4
d caibo na t a -
th W t oO d e
N-Meth 4 N’nltT N-P4froogue,b ne
,
Methd -
1.4 8-
1 ap ammo -
2 ap -
Table CON k 268.43_
-
N4 N_-
N fro N n_
N o ede_
._Pe___
PontecNo eth __
.
3Pentnd1ene__
•
Ph
j tool e_____
1 .3 -PTopane sultono__________
-
—
Reseiplne
Roeeicinol -
NA
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXD) fo CARBN
or NON
WETOX or Q4OXD) lb CARBN
or
CHOX0 CHRED CARBN
91000; or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CP$OXC) lb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN
or INON
(WETOX or C$OXD) lb CARBN.
or INCIN
NA
(WETOX or C340X0) lb CARBN:
or INCIN
(WETOX or C}40X0) lb CARBN:
or INCIN
(WETOX or CIIOXO) lb CARBN
or U4ON
(WETOX or CPIOXD) lb CAPON;
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAP8N
or NON
( WtTOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN
or INC1N
(WETOX or C31OXD) lb CARBN;
or (NON
(WETOX or (>IOXD) lb CAR8N;
or INON
CHOXD CHRED or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAP8N
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN
or (NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON:
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAR6N
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPBN;
or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAR8N;
or INCIN
(WETOX or ClIOXO) lb CAR8N;
or NON
eNETOX or C140X0) lb CARBN,
or NON
(WETOX or CIIOXO) lb CARBN:
or NON
NA
NA
NA
NA
(WETOX or CI4OXD) lb CAR8N
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAPON;
or INON
CARSN or INON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARON.
or INON
CARBN . or (NON
(WETOX or cHOXD) lb CAR8N;
orIN ON
(WETOX or CPIOXD) lb CARBN;
or INCIN
CNETOX or CHOXD) lb CARBN;
or NON
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CAPON:
or (NON
Table CCW i 268.43_
Table CCW In 268.43.....
Table CON In 288.43.....
Table CON in 288.43.....
Thaithim (I) acetate
Tha m (Q ce m
Thafllum (
afi (I)
__j. .______1__
s imTrIrvbobenzene
-
TrWan Blue________________________
acd mue d______
Ethyl carbamate_________________
-------
70o
Federal Register / VoL 55, No. 106 / FrIday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY .8ASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE—Continued
See also
Waste deseli tions and/or eabnei1 aubcataoory
CAS No. for

consatuenra
Technology code
NW SStOW S L —

U240
11244
U248
U248
U249
&4-0lcttloroØiencx) 1lc (salts and e 5ter 5)_
l l t eajn
94-75-P
137-26-8
508-68-3
61-81-2
1314-84-7
VETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN
or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXO) lb CARBN;
or INQN
CHOXD. WETOX or INCIN
(WETOX or CHOXD) lb CAR8Ni
o rINCIN
CHOXD CIIRED or INCIN
INCIN.
INCIN.
CHOXD WETOX, or
INC 1N.
FSUBS. or INON.
CHOXD CHRED or
IN C IN.
Cyanogen b , , .iitide
-
Warfarli (greater ttwn or equal to 3%) -
-
Zinc Phos *fde (<10%)
,
• CAS Number given for parent compowid o y.
This waste code exists in gaseous fOon end is not categorized as wastawater or nonwastawater forms.
NA-Not Øcataa -
TABLE 3.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC RADJOAC11VE HAzARDOuS MIXED WASTE
Waste code
Waste de end/cr ochnent subcategory .
GAS Number

Technology_code
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
0002
0004
COOS
0000-
0007
-
0008..
CO08
0009
0009
0009
0010...
0011.....
U151_.......
RadIoactive High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
gory.
RadioactIve High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
gory.
Radioactive Nigh Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcata-
gory.
Radloacts e High Level Wastes Generated During the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
gory.
Radioactive High Level Wastes Generated During the Reproces&nq of Fuel Rods Subcato.
gory.
Radioactive Lead Solids Subcategory (Note these lead solids include, but ore not limited to,
aS lomis of lead shielding, and other elemental forms of lea&. These lead solids do not
include Dealnient residuals such as hydroxide sludges. other wastewater Deavnent
residuals, or v nevatef ashes that con widergo conventional po olan ic abilIzabon, nor
do they include organo.lead materIals that can be incinerated and stabilized as ash.).
Radioactive HIgh Level Wastes Generated Owing the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcato-
go
Elemental mensay contaminated with radioactive materials
HydraulIc od contaminated with Mercury Radioactive Materials Subcategory
Raaioactive High Level Wastes Generated Owing the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcate-
gory.
RadIoactive HIgh t .avel Wastes Generated Outing the Reprocess.ng of Fuel Rods Subcale-
go
Radioactive High Level Wastes Generated Outing the Reprocessing of Fuel Rods Subcaxe-
g o
Mercw Elemental mercury itanw1ated with radioactive matenais
NA______
NA_______
NA______
NA
NA
7439-92-1........
NA___
7439-97-6_
7439-97-6_
NA__
NA
NA
7439-97-8_
NA______
NA_______
NA
NA
NA__
NA .
NA
NA ..__...
NA
NA
NA ..........._
I
NA -. . . . .. -
NA —____
HLVIT
HL.VIT
l&VIT
HLVIT
HLVIT
MACRO
HLVff
AMLGM
INCIN
HLVIT
HLV IT
HLVIT
AMLGM
(b) Any person may submit an
application to the Administrator
demonstrating that an alternative
treatment method can achieve a
measure of performance equivalent to
that achievable by methods specified In
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this
section. The applicant must submit
information demonstrating that his
treatment method is In compliance with
federal, state, and local requirements
and Is protective of human health and
- the environment Ott 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
measure of performance equivalent to
that achieved by methods specified in
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) 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 approval is Issued must comply
with all limitations contained In such a
determination.
(c) As an alternative to the otherwise
applicable subpart D treatment
standards, lab packs are eligible for
land disposal provided the following
requirements are met:
(1) The lab packs comply with the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR 264.316
and 40 CFR 285.316;
(2) All hazardous wastes contained in
such lab packs are specified in appendix
IV or appendix V to part 26&
(3) The lab packs are incinerated in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR part 264, subpart 0 or 40 CFR part
265. subpart 0; and
(4) Any Incinerator residues from lab
packs containing 1J004, D005, D006,
D007, D008, DOlO. and Doll are treated
In compliance with the applicable
treatment standards specified for such
wastes in subpart D of this part.
(d) Radioactive hazardous mined
wastes with treatment standards
specified lii Table 3 of this section are
not subject to any treatment standards
specified in § 268.41. § 268.43, or Table 2
of this section. Radioactive hazardcus
mixed wastes not subject to treatment
standards in Table 3 of this section
remain subject to all app1icabl
treatment standards specified in
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 108 I Friday. June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations 7O1
§ 288.41, § 288.43, and Table 2 of this § 268.43 Treatment standards expressed an extract of such waste or residual) for
section. the allowable land disposal of such
12. Section 288.43 is amended by (a) Table CCW identifies the waste or residuaL Compliance with
revising paragraph (a) and Table restricted wastes and the concentrations these concentrations Is required based
CCW—Constituent Concentrations in of their associated hazardous upon grab samples, unless otherwise
Wastes, and by adding paragraph (c) to constituents which may not be exceeded noted in the following Table CCW.
read as follows: by the waste or treatment residual (not
TAot. cCW.—CONSTITUENT
IN WASTES
Waste code
See also

.
Regulated he dous conattuent
0 0r
,
conabtuent
Wastowoters
concentrabon
(mg/I)
Non.
wastewate r s

(mg/kg)
ee —
0003 (Reactfw. cyani e. subcatego.
ry—based on 261 .23(a)(5fl.
0004
0005
0006
0007
0008
0009_ -
0010
Doll
fl012
w 3
0014
0015
0016
0017
FO01-F005 spent sotventa___
F0O1-F005 spent sblvonta
ceulical Industly wastewater st .
F 0 08
Table CCWE In 268.41
Table CCWE 11268.41
Table CCWE 11268.41
Table CCWE In 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE in 268.41
Table CCWE In 268 41
Table CCWE in 268.41
T ablo2ln 268.42
Table 2 In 268.42
Table 2 In 268.42 .
Table 21126842
Table 2 1i 268.42
Table 2 In 268.42
Table WE In 268.41 and Table 2
11268.42.
Qwon*on (Total)
Laad
Me
Soten ___
-
Texapflene
2.4-0
2.4.5-TP Sltvex___________
1j2-Tr lct tioi’oe
Benaene
Cy tfdes)
C m___
Table CCWE in 288.41
Table CC#IE UI 288.41...._______
N
Table CCWE n 268.41 0
57-12-5
57-12—5
7440—38—2
7440—39—3
7440—43—9
7440—47—32
74 .39-92—1
7439407-8
7782-49-2
7440-22—4
720—20—8
58—89-9
72.43-5
8001-35-1
94—75-7
93—76—5
71—55—8
71—43—2
75-09-2
57—12-5
57—12-5
7440—43-9
7440-47-32
7439—92-I
7440—02-0
57—12-5
57- 12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
57- 12-5
57—12—S
7440-47—32
7439-92—1
7440-02-0
57—12-5
57— 12-5
7440—47-32
7439-92-1
cyamdes (Amenable)
lvcniuni (Total)
Owan -
Lend_______
Nickel
Table CCWE 11268.41 Cyanides
Rese,ved
088
5.0
100
10
50
50
0.20
10
50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
o 030
o oio
044
1.2
0.88
1.6
032
0040
0.44
19
0.1
032
0.04
0.44
19
01
0.32
004
04 -4
19
0.1
032
004
044
19
01
19
0.1
032
004
044
19
0.1
032
004
044
12
088
0.32
• 0.28
‘028
‘0014
‘0014
0014
0014
‘0014
# 590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.13
0068
0.13
13
100
79
‘78
.37
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
110
91
NA
NA
NA
110
9’
NA
NA
NA
•590
‘30
NA
0.28
‘0.28
‘0014
‘0014
‘0014
0014
00 14
FOlS
F019 ..._ ..______________________
F024__.
57—12-5
57—12-5
57—12-5
57— 12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
Table CCWE In 268.41
Table CCWE In 288.41
Table CCWE UI 268.41
Table CCWE UI 268.41 Wld Table 2
I I 26842 (Not F024 organic
standards n at be treated ia a
caloraltun (INON)).
Cyanleas (Amenable)
c o m___
Lead
Nickel
Cyanidas (Total)
Cyanidee (Amenable)
Cy das (Total)
C es (Amenable)
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
0y edes (Total)
C tfdso (Amenable)
‘ Total)
Nickel
Cyw as (Amenable)
QWIXTSWTT (Total)
2 -Qtfo ro -1.3-butad lene
1.1 ometh a ne
1.2-Did loroetftane__________
12-O lcfllo rogropane
a s -1 OtcblorOprXene
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439—92-1
7440-02-0
57-12-5
74.40-47—32
12-99-8
107-05—1
75—34—3
107-06—2
78—87-6
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.—CONSrrTUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
CAS wut Non.
See . o concen8 6on
conaUtuent __________ (mg/kg)
ut .( -e 1nex 1pnmaIate 117—81-7 ‘0038 ‘1 8
H iacflIeroethane 61-72—1 0 036 1 8
Cven iait r ’ 7440-47-32 035 NA
N Ick _______________________ 7440-02-0 0.47 NA
F025 (Ligt* ends category) — CN un1 1 61-88-3 • 0 048 ‘62
1,2 .Ctcfltotce lhane 101-06-2 ‘0.21 62
1,1 - CflIo oe t h 1ene 75-35-4 • 0.025 • 6.2
Methytene thloflde_____________ 75-9-2 • 0.089 ‘31
Ca,bon te achIcndo 56—23- 4 0057 ‘62
1,1 .2-TrlcNcroethane 19-00-5 • 0.054 6.2
Tr No roeth 4ene 19-01-4 • 0.054 ‘53
Vbiy dilodde __________________ 75-01—4 • 0.21 33
F025 (Spent titers/aids and des o- ___________________________ O v&.m 6146-3 • 0 046 ‘62
- e_____________ 75-9-2 • 0 089 ‘31
Cerbntetracfl4cnde___________ 56-23-5 0057 62
1.12 -Trich4oroe thane 79-00-5 ‘0054 ‘32
Tsithiomethylene 79-01-8 0054 ‘56
Wlck i lc r lde_________________ 75—01—4 .021 ‘33
He i Pdorobenzene 116-74-1 ‘0.055 ‘37
t4exectiIoro0ute ene 81-68-3 • 0.055 28
______________ 67—72-1 • 0055 ‘30
F039_________________ Tab’e CCWE k 266.41 - - Acetone_______________ 67-84.1 • 0.28 ‘160
Acenapnt&ene 208—06-8 ‘0059 34
Aoenaphthene 83-32-9 ‘0059 ‘40
Acetenitnte_________________ 75-05-8 • 017 NA
Acetoøt ancne 96-88-2 ‘0.0 10 ‘9.7
53-96-3 0059 ‘140
AcryIoft9lta 107—13—1 0.24 ‘34
A td ilv’____________________ 309-00—2 ‘0.021 0066
4-Aftw lobdienvl 92-67—1 ‘013 NA
____________________ 62-53—3 ‘381 ‘14
N U W1U__________________ 120—12—7 ‘0059 4.0
Ar od 1O16 12874-11-2 ‘0013 ‘092
Amd 1221 _____________-— 11104-28—2 0014 ‘092
Moctorl232 11141—16—5 ‘0013 ‘092
A,ocIor l242________________ 53469-21-9 ‘0017 ‘092
Moder 1248 12672-29-8 ‘0.013 ‘092
Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1 ‘0.014 ‘18
Arodor 1260 11096—82-5 0014 1 S
elpfla -8HC 319—84—6 • 0.00014 ‘0 0e6
bete -8NC___________________ 319—85—7 000014 ‘0066
daJte-8HC 319-88-8 ‘0023 ‘0066
genm a .8I4C 58—89-3 ‘00017 00S6
Benzene _______________________ 71—43—2 • 0 14 ‘28
Be O(a)antflracene 56—55-3 .0053 ‘82
Ber o fl?uoranthene 205-99-2 ‘0055 ‘3.4
____________ 207-08-9 0.059 34
191—24—2 00055 ‘15
e! Ota)pyrene 50—32-8 • 0 061 ‘82
8rsmodict omethane - 75—27—4 ‘335 ‘15
8 romoloim 75-25—2 •053 ‘15
Bromcinethare (metilyl bror de) 74-83—9 ‘0.11 ‘15
48imOpflen y lp l len y tethor 101—55—3 ‘0055 ‘15
n.Bu?ylalcoflol 71-36-3 ‘5.8 ‘2.8
Buryl benzyt ptithalate 85-68-7 • 0.017 ‘78
2 -eeo. jtyI.4.6 -dInhlropnenoI 68-85-7 • 0.068 ‘2.5
Caiton tebachlonde_________ 56-23-5 0057 • 5.5
Caieondaidf lde ______________ 75—15-0 ‘0.014
D 57-74-9 00033 ‘019
_________________ 106—47-8 048 ‘16
0 ir M ene _______________ 108-90-1 0057 ‘57
0 510-15-8 ‘0 10 ‘NA
Croderomomethane 124-48—I ‘0057 ‘16
ONoroothane 75-00-3 0.27 ‘6.0
b (2 .CPdoroethoxy) methane________ 111—91—1 0026 ‘7.2
e(2 .Ctoroethy1)etfter 111—44—4 0033 ‘72
2-Qiloroethyt Wi pI eth __________ ‘0.057 NA
C liiorofonn___________________ 67-66-3 ‘0048 ‘56
b(2sopropyl) ether______ 39638-32-9 • 0 055 07.2
p -Ct o ro -m -ctesoI .. 59-50—7 0.018 •14
Q $oromethane (Methyl chIoride) _ 74-87-3 ‘010 033
2 . aptithaIene 91-8-7 • 0 055 ‘56
2.O4oroph enol 95-57-8 - 0.044 ‘5.7
3 -CNoropn,penu 107—05-1 • 0.038 ‘28
C l irysene 218—01-9 00 59
o -Oeaol 95—43—7 • 0.11 • 36
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22703
TA6LE IXW.—CONSTmJENT CONCENTPATIONS IN WASTES—ConUnued
Wa3te code
See also
Regu’ated h dous constduent
CAS No.

ConsDtuenl
Wastew ters
concenDacon
(mg/I)
Not’-
wastewetecq

(mg/kg)
Oesc l(m-andp-Lsoineua) ‘071 ‘3 . 2
C ,doñ . ,none 10 8—94 —i ‘038 NA
1 .2 .O romo-3-d 1Ioropropano 96-12—8 011 ‘15
1,2 .D romoethane (EtI y$ene d8xo- 106-93-4 0 328 ‘15
mId . ).
Obomomethane 74-95-3 • 0.11 0 15
24-CIcfl1oro flenoxyeceX acId (2 ,4- 94-75-7 0.72 ‘10
0 1 .
o ,p .ODD 53-19-0 •0 023 0. 067
p,p ’-ODD 72-54-8 • 0023 ‘0087
3424—82-6 • 0031 0087
p.p-OOE 72-55-9 • 0031 ‘0067
o.p’-COT 789-02-6 • 00039 ‘0087
p.p’-OOT 50-29 .4 •00039 ‘0087
O er o(a .h)anthracene 53—70—3 • 0055 • 82
m .O lch larobenzene__ 541-73—1 • 0038 062
o . O lcNoroCenzene_____________ 95—50—1 0088 62
peJ X nz n e 106-46-7 • 0 090
O lcNcm8fluoromethene 75-71-8 •023 ‘72
1 .1-O cflioioethane 75-34—3 • 0.059 ‘7 2
12 .Clchloroelhane 107-08—2 • 021 ‘72
1.1 .O oroethytene. 75-35-4 • 0 025 ‘33
fret -12-Q Icj t lcr o eth ,nq 0.054 ‘33
doçheno l 120-83—2 • 0 044 • 14
O I)befI0I 87-65-3 •00.44 ‘14
l lcfl lomgroparie 78-87-5 • 55 ‘18
-t ,3cNoropropono 10061-01—5 • 0.036 • 16
8rts-1.3- O IcNoioprcpene 10061-02-6 •0036 ‘18
0 leI D ___________________ 60—51—i ‘0017 0013
Olethyt pflthalate 84—66-2 0.20 ‘26
pethy lajmnoazobenzene 60-11-3 0.13 NA
Z4-0 (meU yt phenol 105-61-8 • 0036 ‘14
Cethy lplithalete 131—11—3 0047
. .. .. . . ityIpflthaiate 84—74—2 ‘3 057
t,4- OfmDoberzene______________ 100-25—4 • 032 • 23
46-Ok tro-o-cresol 534-52-1 ‘0.28 ‘160
2 ,4Onttiopheno l 51-28-5 012 ‘ IC C
— 121—14—2 032 140
.!6-0mIDotoluene 606-20-2 055 ‘29
DI .n .Octy lphthaiate 117—84—0 0017 ‘29
0 1-n pro ytnrtroaoamme 621—64—7 040 14
12-01phen )i fr ‘0087 NA
i.4 -0I ne___________________ 123-91—1 ‘012 ‘170
298—04—4 0017 ‘82
Endosu ltar, I___________________ 939-98—8 ‘0 023 0 086
Endoa tjJfan l l 33213—6—5 0029 0.13
Endo fan sulfate ______________ 1-31-074 • 0029 ‘3 13
En&tn_____________________ 7-29-8 00028
7421—93—4 0025 ‘0.13
Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 034 • 33
Ethytcyamde.._____________ - 024 NA
Ettvytbe ene 100-41—4 0057 ‘60
Ethyl ether___________________ 50-29-7 • 0.12 • 160
bls(2-Ethythexyl) pflthaIate 117-61—7 • 0.28 23
Ethyl rnethacrytate 97-63-2 .0 14 ‘160
Ethyteneotode 75-21-8 012 NA
Famph*, ‘ 52-85—7 ‘0017 ‘15
Fb’anthe no____________ 206-44-0 ‘0068 ‘62
Rucrene 8 8 - 73—7 0059 “40
Ruoroetch lcromethar ,e 75—69-4 ‘0020 ‘33
76-44-8 00012 ‘0066
r OptachIct opojcjde 1024-57-3 0016 0066
115-74—1 • 0055 ‘37
Hex acD loroDutadjene 87-68—3 0055 •28
Hexachtcrocycfopentet9ene 77-47-4 0.057 ‘38
I4exac tucrodtbenzo -fwans . _ .. ‘0000083 ‘0001
NexacNorodtbenzo.p.dloxins. _. ... 0000063 • 0001
Hexachlomethane_____________ 67—72-1 0055 ‘28
Ile uc roprcpene 1888—71-7 0035 ‘23
Mdeno(12,3, .c4)pyiene 193-39-5 00055 ‘8.2
lodomethane________________ 74—88-4 ‘0019 ‘65
78—83-1 ‘56 170
Iso 1n _.. 465—73—6 ‘0021 0066
Isosafrole______________ 120-58-1 ‘0081 ‘2.8
Kepone 143-50-8 ‘00011 ‘013.
128-98—7 • 0 24 84
91—80-5 •0C81 ‘is
-------
22704
Federal Register 1 VoL 55, No. 106 f - Frfd y, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TAai cCW.—CONSTITUENT CONcENTRATIONS IN WASTES—COflthlUOd
We te code
See efeo
.
Regu a1ad hazwdoi constituent
CAS

cons jent
wastewatar
conceflttabOfl
( 9
(mg/kg)
4 ,4 Me lene 2 Ow&I lk 1O —
— — ketone
Ueti —
— me
72-43-8
101—14-4
75-09—2
7 8 -
108-to-I
80-62-6
91-20—3
91—59—8
100-01-6
98—95-3
99-55-8
100—02—7
55-18-S
62-75—9
924—16—3
10595—95-6
59-89-2
100—75—4
930-55-2
56-38—2
608-93-5
82-68-8
87-86-5
62—44—2
85-01-8
108—95—2
No
od
osom
.9I ocomc ph me
P a
e oi Oe 8ne
Vortoct1orodtbenO*dOm 3_ _-._ .
FentacNons *obo OflO
Fentoc Jomphen
Fhenacetin.
enenthmne
P end
c Pa (eth l amde)
107—12-0
: - -
Sdvex (2 .4,5-TP).
2 .4,5-1
1.2 4 ,5,.Te UorObe1 ofle
Te acfl$ood1be O-Iurw 1S
Te acNctodiben2o+dIOmIS —.—- -
• .0.25
0.0055
• 0.50
• 0.089
• 0.28
•0.14
0.14
0.018
‘0.014
0 059
• 0.52
‘0.028
0.068
• 0.32
0.12
• 0.40
• 0.40
• 0.40
040
• 0.40
0013
0013
0.017
•0 055
• 0.000035
• 0.000063
•0.055
• 0.089
0081
0059
• 0.039
0021
024
0093
‘0067
0014
0.081
0.72
072
• 0 055
•0 000063
•0 000063
•0.000063
•0 057
0 057
• 0.056
• 0.030
• 0080
0.0095
0 055
0 054
• 0.054
0054
• 0.035
0.85
• 0.057
• 0.27
• 0.32
‘12
088
.35
14
1.9
5.0
• 12
• 0.82
• 0.20
- 0.37
13
• 0.28
0.15
055
• 0.82
• 0.29
0 042
•ooni
‘0.18
‘15
• 35
.33
38
.33
• 160
NA
‘4.6
‘3.1
NA
‘28
•14
‘29
‘28
NA
•17
‘2.3
‘2.3
.35
‘35
•4.8
.37
• 0001
0001
46
‘74
• 16
‘3.1
‘62
‘46
‘380
‘15
‘82
• 18
‘22
.79
‘79
‘19
‘0001
‘0.001
NA
•42
•42
‘SO
‘37
‘28
‘1.3
‘19
‘SO
‘5.8
‘56
.37
‘37
•28
•28
.33
‘28
• 1.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
‘1.5
128-00-0
110-86-1
94—69-7
93-72-1
93—76—5
95-94-3
830-20-6
34
127-18-4
58-80-2
108-88-3
8001-35-1
1 2 0- 6 2-I
71—55-8
790
79-01-6
95—98-4
1 ,1.12 -Teti -ech IoroedWle
1 ,1.2.2.Te acflIoroelhane
TeVacttioroeti lene
2 .3 .4,6-Te OgflenQI
To ueno
1.2.4.Tdc l11oIvbof One
1,1 .1.Tr lcNoroethano
1 ,12.Ti lcfl loroethane
ThchlocoetI1ylene. _ —
2.4,5.Tr lchlorogI lenoI
.4 ,8 .TcIch1otopI eM
1 ,Trh loio po gan e
1,12.Tf l fl1uw1 ,2.24If kJOIQOth8?
X 1enGs)
y .,idee (Total)
ee
96-18- 4
78-13-1
75-01-4
57—12-S
57— 12-5
16964-48-8
7440—36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39—3
7440-41—7
7440-43—9
7440-47—32
7440-50-8
7439—92—1
7439-97-8
7440-02-0
P82-48-2
7440-22—4
7440-62—2
91-20—3
labte ccw 26&41.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 55, No. 108 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TABLE
CCW.—CONSTTTUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Conth’ued
CAS No. for was
Se. atao Regulated hazatdci cor @8ient
conedt2jegn ( n9/ ) (mg/kg)
W te code
22 ’O3
‘In ’,
st aRs
T Io cCWE 1 268.41
Table CONE k 268.41
87-86-5
85-01-8
129-00-0
108-88-3
n ene
rr
T pens
Xylsnes (Total)
OlmmAJm (Total)
I-mt
cli um (Total)
I. ,d
wtY ’ ,
Table CCWE i 268.41 C VOITIan (Total)
‘— 4
K007.
K0 08 -
K009
Table CCWE b 288.41 en (Total)
Lead_
cyai*fe. (1
Table CCWE In 268.41 Cteon*im
Leed_
Ct,ronwm (Total)
Lead
Table CONE In 268.41 Ovoniwn (Total)
Lead
c nn
QIlu. ,4ufm —
Ace e
‘ c_ I’—
Aa
C8e (Total)._
Ace e
Aa
Ac e
Se ene
cyanide (Total)...
Aa onMe_
cyanide (Total)....
_An c a n
Bev al thloflde_
Swn of 8enzo
Banzo onin
P ne
To ene ________
C1aoi,iun (Total)
Table CCWE In 268.41
KOll
-
1(013
K014
1(015
1(018
1(017
1(016
K0t9
‘0.031
0 031
0.028
• 0.028
•0 032
• 0.037
2.9
3.4
2.9
.3.4
2.9
3•4
• 2.9
14
•0.74
2.9
• 3.4
2.9
3.4
‘074
2.9
34
01
01
38
0.06
19
002
21
38
0.06
19
0.02
21
38
o a
19
002
21
to
0.29
0029
027
015
032
04.4
• 0.033
‘0.007
0007
0033
‘0007
085
• 083
033
‘0 007
•0007
• 0 007
‘0 007
‘0033
‘0007
•0 007
‘0 007
• 0.007
‘0006
0 007
• 0 308
• 0 007
• 0 007
•0 033
‘0007
0.007
‘0 017
• 0.007
‘0.028
‘0007
0.007
as d
7439—92-1
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-47—32
7439-92—1
1440-47-32
7439-92-1
1440—47-32
7439-92-1
57-12-5
7440—47—32
7439-92-1
7440—41-32
7439-92—1
57—12-5
74.40—47—32
7430—92-1
67—68-3
67-66 -3
75—05—8
107—13— I
79-06-1
71—43-2
57—12—5
75—05-8
107—13—I
79-06-1
71—43-2
57-12-5
75—05-8
107—13—I
79-06—1
71—43—2
57-12-5
120—12—7
98—87-3
205-99—2
207-08-9
85-01-8
108-88-3
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
118—74—I
87—69—3
77—47—4
67—12-1
127-18-4
76—87-5
96-18-4
111-44-4
75—00-3
75—34—3
107-08—2
8 1—72-I
87-68-3
67—72-1
78—01—7
71—55—6
111-44-4
108—90—7
67-66-3
106-48—7
107-08-2
86-73—7
87—72—1
9 1—20—3
85-01-8
95 -04-3
127—18-4
120-62-1
71-55—6
106-93-4
‘15
‘is
‘1.5
• 29
.33
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
r)
NA
NA
NA
‘NA
NA
NA
‘60
60
13
14
23
003
57
ale
14
‘23
003
57
‘19
023
‘003
57
‘24
‘62
—. 34
.34
‘60
NA
NA
‘ : 8
‘6.8
‘53
• 28
‘60
• 18
‘28
• 7.2
‘60
‘60
‘60
• 28
‘58
‘56
‘5.0
‘5.6
‘80
‘80
NA
‘60
NA
‘23
56
• 5.6
NA
‘8.0
• 19
‘8.0
60
He fltorobenzene
robu e_
Hexad l emcydopen t aotere
To ec l 1lo ,Oethene
i20chtoroçrcpane
1 .2.3 -T licf l loropropane
1.1,1 -TnchioroeV ane
8Eoeifl 4)e8 er -_______
c obe eea_
1(020 . -.
1.Z4 ,5 -Tet’athtorcbenzene
Tebacbloroethene
1,2 .4 .Trt Ior ob et en e
1 .1 ,1-Tr lthtcroeiNane
12-C lctfome8 ane______________
-------
22706 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE CCW.—C0NSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS JN W*sms—Condnued
wast. -
Si, sb
.
Rigulafad hasardo s consSi aef It
.
CAS NO. br

co. tasnt
WaSWwaters
con abon
(mg /I)
Non.

(mg/Icg
1 .t.2 .2 .T.8ichiovoethwi 19-34-6 0 007 ‘56
Te kui8 sn 127—18-4 •0.007 ‘60
K021 , Tsbs CCWE m 268.41 CfaO.u(ulm 87-65-3 - 0.048 ‘8.3
C tont.OadiIoi1ds 56-23—6 ‘0.057 ‘62
Anbony — 7440-38-0 ‘060 NA
T 4 CCWE ki 268.41 ToIa.n.________________ 108-88-3 • 0.080 0.034
Asafogti inan 96-86-2 0.010 ‘19
Dusr 4sn s 22-39-4 0.52 NA
D fleribssm 86-30-6 •0.40 NA
Sum oi 01 1usn,4amm. and Olpfleny$-
rv ltoumm.. NA ‘13
P lisno4_________________ 106-95-2 0.039 ‘12
CNOn an(Tofa$) 7440-47-32 035 NA
NIc li01____________________ 7440-02-0 0.47 NA
1(023 ——_____________ Pttthaic inIlydflde (m ,aaumd as 85-44-9 ‘0.54 ‘28
P th c a d
1(024 ___________________ — PIIt1 StIC a,I y&ldO (measwod U 0.54 2 3
P thaHc sod)
K028 Table CCWE m 26841 1.1O ld loioethane___________ 75-34-3 •0007 ‘8.0
•0Q33 ‘60
uieas iorooutsciene 87-68-3 ‘0007 ‘56
He C loroethana 67—72—1 ‘0033 ‘23
P fa l orp than i 76-01—7 ‘0.033 056
i.1.1.2 Ta flloroeIt anu 630-20-6 •0007 ‘56
1 .1 .2 .Te sch lo roetb ans 79-34-6 •0007 ‘56
1,l.1.Tncfl loethana 71—55—6 ‘0007 ‘80
1. 12.Tr lch lor ethan e 79-00-5 •0007 ‘60
T l r*Cfl l OruBwyIun5 127-18-4 ‘0.007 ‘6.0
Csb uum 7440-43 9 6.4 NA
ChromJum (Total) 7440-47-32 035 NA
Lsad_____________________ 7439-92-1 0.037 NA
Nickel______________________ 7440-02-0 0.47 NA
K029_________________ CNoro(om 87-68-3 048 ‘6.0
l .2-0 lct r osthane. — 107—08—2 0.21 ‘60
1 .1- O lcnoro athy lene 75—35—4 0025 ‘80
1,1.1-TdUdoroethane 77—55—6 0054 ‘60
Vb l cfllcnds 75-01-4 0.27 ‘80
____________________ ________________________ oOld lombai ne 95-60-1 ‘0008 NA
p. Oich la robanz ,ne 106-48-7 0 008 NA
I4ex1oroOut s 5ene 87-68—3 ‘0 007 ‘5 6
HexaclItorcbutadlen. 67-72—1 ‘0033 29
H.xacblorogrcpena...._.._.. 1888-71—1 NA ‘19
Pw iioruberusn._____________ 608-93-5 NA ‘28
Penfach loroeU a ns 76-01-7 ‘0007 ‘5.5
1.2.4.5-Ta h1orober ens_______ 95-94—3 ‘0017 ‘14
Te8scNorosthani 127—18—4 ‘0007 ‘80
7.2 .4-Trlctuoiobenzeni 120—82-1 •0023 ‘19
1(031 __________________ Tabl. CCWE In 268.41 Az eai 7440-36-2 0.79 NA
voo ________________ H a fl lo r openta en. 77-47-4 •0057 ‘2.4
Cblordan._____________________ 57-74-9 • 00033 ‘0.26
Heofacfi lor 76-44—8 0012 ‘0.066
r ’eptacfUor .Oox de 1024—57—3 0016 ‘0066
1(033 He 1oio cpenben. 77 .47.4 . 0057 ‘2.4
1(034 om looentadiene 77-47-4 ‘0057 ‘2.4
1(035 Acenaphthane 83-32-9 NA ‘34
An wacane ,,,. ...... ,. . . - 120-12-7 NA ‘34
Banz(a)airacene 58-55-3 • 0059 ‘3.4
Ba o(a)p ien. • . 50-32-8 NA ‘34
Cbvys.ns 218-01—9 0059 ‘34
0t sJitanttw.cane 53-70-3 NA ‘34
. _ . . 206—44—0 0068 ‘34
F luorsns___________________ 86-73—7 NA ‘34
I n d ano(1 .2 .3-cdIpyr e n 193-39-5 NA ‘34
Cmsols (m- and p .usomam —__ ‘077 NA
flthaiane 91—20—3 ‘0059 ‘34
______________________ 95-48—7 ‘Oil NA
________________ 85-01—8 0059 ‘3.4
Fhenol_________________ 108-96-2 0039 NA
_______________ 129-00-0 0067 ‘6.2
1(038 ____________________ . D u lfoton 298-04-4 0025 ‘0.1
1(037 Dbsutfoton 298-04—4 0025 ‘01
Toluene __________________ 108-85-3 0 080 ‘25
1(038 PPiomte 298-02-2 0025 0 I
1(040 ______________________ __________________________ PIlorate_____________________ 296-02.2 0025 0.1
K041 Toxaphene. 8001-35-1 ‘00095. •2.6
1(042 ____________________ • ‘a c Tetrachlorobanzene 95-94-3 • 0.055 ‘44
95-50-I 0088 44
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22707
TABLE CCW.—C0NSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste code
See also
Re 4a1ed h dous constItuent
haza, ,
conastuent
wastewate,
concenlrabon
( ‘)
Non-
wastewate s

(mg/kg)
p0 lct4oiuCenaene 106—48—7 009Q ‘44
Per r- - -- n , 608-93—5 • 055 ‘44
,2 .4-Trlcblo r a 8 4nzene 120-82 - I • 0 55 e
1(043 2 .4-loieg l enol 120-83-2 ‘0049 ‘038
2.8 .C lctdoropflenol 87-86-0 ‘0013 ‘0.34
Z4.5Trattb p I teno l 95-95-4 ‘0016 ‘82
2.4 ,6-Trlchloroçbeno l 88-06-2 •0 039 ‘76
Te eac t uorogheno le(Totai) ‘0.018 ‘068
PentacltIotoØeno l 07-86-5 • 0.22 ‘1 9
Te hloroethene___________ 79-01-8 ‘0006 ‘1.7
Hexach4orodftier .p .dIosins ‘0 001 ‘0.001
•0001 ‘0001
Pen t acfltorod enzo-pdoxins ‘0.001 ‘0001
Pei taci lorod Ibe -fwan s ‘0001 ‘0001
Te achlorod be, -odorjns _... ...... ‘0.001 ‘0001
ieb o oenzo .risan , ‘0001 ‘0001
1(048 ____________________ Table CCWE In 268.41._________ .____________________ 7439-92-1 0.037 NA
Table CCWE i 268.41 ___________ 9e ane_____________________ 71-43-2 ‘0011 ‘14
enzo(a)pyrene 50—32-8 ‘0.047 — ‘12
117-81-7 ‘0 043 ‘73
Ty aene 218-01—9 ‘0.043 ‘15
D.n.lut 1 pflthalate 84-74-2 ‘006 • 36
.. eflzene 100-41—4 ‘0011 ‘14
Pucrene__________________ 88-73-7 ‘005 NA
Napmhaiene 91—20-3 ‘0033 ‘42
Pflenan wene________________ 85-01-8 ‘0039 ‘34
PI o nc l ____________________ 108-95—2 ‘0047 ‘38
P ene 129-00-0 ‘0045 ‘38
Toluene 108—88—3 ‘0011 ‘14
Xylene(s) -. ‘0011 a 22
Cyen3des(Totai) 57—12-5 ‘0028 013
Clvon um (Total) 7440-47-32 02 NA
Lead.____________________ 7439-92-1 0037 NA
K049_ Table CCWE In 268.41... Anthracene ... .... 120-12—7 ‘0039 ‘28
Benaene __________________ 71—43—2 ‘0011 ‘14
Benzo(a)pyrene 50—32-6 •0047 ‘12
B )s(2-ethythex 1)pPithaiate 117-81-7 ‘0043 073
Catheadeujfide S 75-15-0 •0011 NA
(2 11) aefle 2218-01-9 ‘0043 ‘15
2.4-0 lrneth 4pI enol 105-87-9 ‘0033 NA
Ethy lbenzes,e 100-41—4 ‘0011 ‘14
Napflthalene 91—20-3 ‘0033 ‘42
P enan irene 85-01-8 ‘0039 ‘34
.-Mnol 108-95—2 ‘0047 ‘38
129-00—0 ‘0045 ‘36
108—88—3 •0011 ‘14
X 4ene (s) ‘0011 ‘22
57—12-5 ‘0028 ‘18
Clvossojm (Total) 7440-47-32 02 NA
Lead_______________________ 7439-92-1 0037 NA
Table CCWE In 268.41 Benao(a)p ene 50-32-8 ‘0047 • 12
108-95-2 ‘0047 ‘38
ywuue (Total) . 57-12-5 ‘0028 ‘1 8
Chroimwn (rota)) 7440-47-32 0.2 NA
Lead 7439—92-1 0037 NA
1(051 Table CCWE 288.41. — Acenaphthenu 208-98-8 ‘005 NA
Anacene, .._____ . _ 120-12—7 ‘0.039 ‘28
Be, ene 71—43-2 ‘0011 ‘14
Benao(a)aninracene 50-32-8 ‘0043 20
Benso(a lpyione 117—81—7 ‘0047 012
Bls(2 .ethyfherviio llthaiata 75—15-0 ‘0043 073
C li sene ._ 2218—01-9 •0043 15
04-n.øvtyl pflthalate 105-67—9 ‘006 036
Emylbe nzene 100—41—4 0011 14
Fluorene 5$ 7 % . .7 ‘005 ‘NA
Napfltha )ene . - ‘0033 ‘42
PPienanthxeno____________ 85—01-8 ‘0039 034
Pbenol 108-95-2 ‘0047 ‘38
____________________— 129—00—0 ‘0045 ‘26
Toluene 108-88—3 ‘0011 ‘14
Xy$ene(s) ‘0011 ‘22
Cyanides (Total) _______ ... 57—12-5 ‘0028 ‘1 8
Chronm rn (Total) 7440-47-32 02 NA
Lead - 7439-92-1 0037 NA
Kfl Table CCWE In 268.41 ___________ Benzene ___________________. 71—43-2 ‘0011 ‘14
50-32-8 0047 ‘12
95-48-7 ‘0011 ‘62
-------
22708
Federal Register / Vol 55, No. 106 / FrIday.. June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulatioi3s
TABLE CCW.—CONSTTTUENT CONCENTRATiONS IN WASTES—Continued
Wee eeds
See a)so
Reg Mted h ardo . e cone8wen*
S No. l

constituent
Wastewat 3
concontaDon

wstewatef

(mg/kg)
-
oth .,lpheno l
c vonuum’Crotao
Le
o(a)p’ iune
udes (rotaQ
Ca mum
Qv aa m (TotaQ
Lsad
‘ 1
6c-
IWSI —
1W62.....______________
Ta ie c 4E 26841 end Table 2
b 266.42.
Table C Ei a 268M
T Ie E 266.41 and Table 2
I 2 6&42.
Table CCWE ho .286.41
1W69_________________
..
1c071
1c373
W83________________
TabtO-cCWE ha 266.41
1 (084
1(085
105-87-9
100-41-4
91—20-3
86-01-8
108—95—2
108-884
57—12—5
7440—47—32
7439- 92—1
71—43—2
50—32—8
91-20-3
108—95—2
57—12—5
7440—43—9
744 3 -47-32
7439-92—1
7440-02-0
74.40-47-32
7439-02—1
74.40-02-0
7440-43—9
7439-92—1
743847—6
56-23-8
67-66-3
87-72-1
127—18—4
71—55-8
71—43—2
62-53-3
22—39—4
86—30—6
98-95-3
108—95—2
108—94—1
7440-02—0
7440—38—2
71—43—2
108-90-7
95—50—1
541-73-1
106—46—7
12 0 - 6 2- I
95—94—3
608—93—5
118—74—1
12674—1. 2
11104—28—2
1114 1—16—5
53469—21—9
12872—29-8
11097—69-I
11098-82-5
67-84-I
96-16—2
117—81—7
71—36—3
86-68—7
108-94-1
9 5 -5 0 -I
84—68—2
131—11—3
04-74—2
117—64-0
141—78-6
100-41-4
O romaan (Total)
Lead
Ca m
bon ta len
H cothane
1,T1-Trtct Ioroethane
B ene
0
osatn e
S of Dpflen 1anune and D phen,I-
osansno.
N e e
0e e ne
cXe ene
n O hioobe ene
1 .2 .4-TflcNorobenzene
1 .2 .4.5-Te t iactdorobeflzene _
Pe ombenzene
Hexac Uomtie ene
M dor 1016
A,octor 1221
Aiodcr 1232
kcdor 1242
1248
Mod 1254
Arod 1260
10011
• 0.033
•0.011
• 0.033
• 0.033
• 0.047
‘0.011
‘0.011
‘0.028
0.2
0031
‘ ‘0 17
•“ 0035
• .• 0.028
•.• 0.042
1.9
1.61
0.32
05 1
044
032
004
044
1.6
051
0030
‘0057
0.048
0055
‘0058
0 054
‘0.14
•081
052
‘040
NA
• 0 068
0 039
036
047
0 79
.014
‘0057
‘0088
‘0038
‘0090
0.055
‘0055
0.055
‘0.055
0013
0014
013
•0017
‘0013
‘0014
‘0.014
028
0010
‘023
56
0017
036
0088
3.20
0047
• 0 057
‘0017
‘034
‘0057
‘56
014
028
0089
• 62
• NA
• 14
142
.34
3.8
• 14
‘22
18
NA
NA
0071
‘3.8
•3.4
•3.4
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
‘8.2
62
• 30
‘62
‘8.2
‘66
• 14
NA
NA
• 14
I 14
‘56
• 30
NA
NA
444
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
.44
• 0.92
092
•092
‘022
• 092
‘18
‘18
‘160
.97
• 29
• 2.6
.79
NA
82
• 29
• 28
a 23
• 28
• 33
060
NA
.33
.33
Tab leCCWEin 268.41 —
eth Thex 4)pIithaJate
8u 1)4benzy lplithalate
c-one-----
I2- O lcfl totcber lzene.
O p thaLate -
Dtme8 I phthalate
-tiut 1 phthalato
______-
MP8I 4 isobutyt ketone___________ 108—to—I
— et yt ketune — 75-93-3
MeS’iytene cNonde.........___________ 75—09—2
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 I Friday, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 22709
TABLE CCW.—CONSTTTUENT CONCENTRATiONS IN WAsTES—Continued
Wasto cods
So. also
Regulated hazardous conse ient
conaStuent
Wastewatera
collcentrahon
( ‘N /I)
Na ,.
wastewaters

(mg/kg)
91-20-3 ‘0059 ‘31
98-95—3 ‘0068 ‘14
108—88—3 ‘0080 ‘28
I,1.1.Trl iIeroethane 71-55-6 0054 ‘56
Tnchleroethy ene 79-01-6 0.054 .56
Xylenea (Total) •0.32 ‘28
Cyarudes (Total) 57-12-5 1 9 I 5
Chromium (Total) 7440-47-32 032 NA
Lead____________________ 7439-92-1 0.037 NA
1(087 Table CCWE In 268.41 Acenagfllt iatene 208-96-8 ‘0028 34
Benzene ____________________ 71—43—2 •0014 ‘0071
Chrysene 218 .-01-9 ‘0028 ‘34
r tUOrW Ithefl e__________________ 206-44-0 ‘0028 ‘34
Indeno(1 .2.3 -cd)pyrene........._. . . ......_ 193—39-5 ‘0.028 ‘3 4
Na hthalene ________________ 91—20—3 ‘0.028 434
rnm anmrene______________ 85-01-8 ‘0028 ‘34
Totuene __________________... 108-88-3 0 008 ‘065
Xy$enea ______.._. ‘0014 ‘307
7439-92-1 0037 - NA
1(093 ___________________ — __________________— PhthSflC Qflh fljfldØ (measured 55 85-44-9 ‘054 • 28
PhthaUc a .
1(094.___________________ ______________________ Phthallc anhy&lde (measured as 85-44-9 ‘054 ‘28
PlIthalic add
l,1.1,2 .Tetracl9o roethane 630-20-6 0 057 ‘56
1,1,2 ,2 -Teø-actUoroethane —. 79-34—6 0057 ‘56
Tetractiloroethene____________ 127—18—4 0056 ‘60
1.1.2 .Trtciitoroethane 79-00-5 0 054 ‘60
Tdch loroethyteno 79-01-6 0054 “56
I4esact lotoethane — 67—72-1 0 055 “28
Pent acfltoroethar o__________ 76-01-7 0055 “56
1,1,1,2 .Tetrachlooethaj e_... ._.._ 630-20-6 0057 ‘ 56
1,1,2,2 -Tetrathloroett iane ..... 79-34—6 0.057 ‘5 6
Tebactiloroethene . 127-18-4 0056 ‘60
1 ,1 ,2-Tncl i loroethane .._.. 79-00-5 0054 ‘60
Tnctiloroethene____________ 79-01-6 0054 • 56
1.3-Dt Uorobenzene_______ 541-73—1 0036 ‘56
Pentacflloroethane ........ 76-01-7 0055 ‘56
1.2 ,4-Tncl ilorober izene 120-82-1 0055 “19
Hexactilorocyc lopentadJene ... 77—47-4 ‘0057 24
CNordai e ___________________ 57—74—9 ‘00033 “026
Heptacfl lor —— 76-44—8 00012 ‘0066
Heptach lcrepoxide ._..._. 1024—57-3 ‘0016 ‘0066
K098..... — Toxaphene . . ... 8001-35-1 •03095 ‘26
1(099... —— _____- _..._ 2 .4-Otcfl phonyacetic sad .._ . .... 94-75-7 •1 1
achtoroC ibenzo-p-dioxins_._.. -. ......... .... ... ‘0001 ‘0001
‘0001 ‘3001
PeICM Or OCIbOrIZOP -C IOWL............ ...._.......... . .. ‘0001 ‘0001
Pants lorod ibenzofurans__ —_ .. ._ ..._ ‘0001 ‘0001
Tetracwdiberzo-p-dloxms_._. ....._. __...... ... ... ‘0001 ‘0001
Tat n ct , t or od_ b enz ot r a n s. ...... .. ‘0001 ‘OCOI
1(100 — ___________.._... Table CCWE in 268.41 Cadmium ..._ _. . 7440-43-9 1 8 NA
Chromium (Total).... . ..._.. ... .... 7440-47-32 032 NA
Lead — ... 7439—92-1 051 NA
1(101 —- .... . . . ... —— oNitroa nthne..... . .. . ......... ‘027 ‘14
7440—36—2 079 NA
Cadmium . . ..... - . . 7440-43-9 024 NA
— . . ....... 7439-92-1 0 17 NA
Mercury _...... ..._. . . ..... 7439-97-6 0 082 NA
1(102. . Table CCWE in 28841.. ______....... o N i ophenol _ -. - . _.. . . ..... ‘0028 ‘13
7440-38-2 079 NA
Cadmium ............ ____ . .... __ ... 7440-43-9 024 NA
— 7439—92-I 0 17 NA
Mercury 7439-97-8 0082 NA
— ____________ ... ______. . . ...__ Aniline .__ ________..__._ —. 62—53—3 4 5 . 5 6
Benzene ________. . ._ . _.... 71—43—2 ‘0 15 ‘60
2 .4-0boen _.. . .. . . . .. . . . .. _.... 51—28—5 “061 ‘58
Nitrobenzene ... - ... 98-95-3 ‘0 07 . 5 6
Phenol _.______. —. ..___... ...... 108-95—2 ‘ I 4 ‘5 6
1 ( 104 ..._______ - ._.... ._ . .. .. Anitlne.........___ ....... 62-53-3 ‘45 ‘58
Benzene .__ _.. .._._.__. -. . 71—43—2 ‘015 “6
2,4-Omutropheno l ... ... . ,.... ... 51—28-5 ‘081 5 6
Nitrobenzene . —. . . . 98—95-3 ‘0073 56
I Phenol ... . ... ........ ... ... _.. . 108-95-2 I d ‘56
Cyanidea (Total).... .. .. .... . . 57-12-5 2. i 8
1( 105 .___..... . ., ..._. ,___ ..Benzene.. ..._.._ . . .. .. 71-43-2 01
Q Iorcbenzene .. ... ...... ........ 108-90-7 0 05 4 4
o-Oichlorobenzene... _. _.... . . 95 —50-I 00& • 44
-------
22710
Federal Register I Vol. ! 5. No. 108 I Friñay, JuDe 1. 1990 I Rules and Regu1atio i3
T I.eL.E cCW.—CONSTITUENT COIIcENTR.AT 1ONS WASTES—ConthUed
Waale code
So. ae
Regulated hazardous Ae tuert
CASNo t ar
gIM
Mzwoous
consatuent
Wastewaters
concenirauon
(mg/I)
0.090
wastowaters
conce 1 1 8°°fl
(mg/K9J
•4.4
k 195_________________
-
Table CCWE I 268.41 and t s 2
It 268.42.
Table CCWE It 268.41
.Odedmøenz.ne
2.4.5 .Tn ,tUwQ i leIlOl
Z4 .6.Tnch lOrOonefld
2Cf o rophevinl
100—46-7
95-95—4
88-06-2
95—57-8
108—95—2
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
0.10
0.035
0.044
0.039
0.030
0.47
•4.4
44
4.4
‘44
NA
NA
PI o l
Meicisy
-
No I
K 116
-. Treatmeet 1dards for s tIC consbbjerd were astablialied d ianerabcfl in ursta operated It ecoordanCe ‘ th the te.. .Ist .cal reouirements ci 40
CFR Part 264 S& * Ocr Part 265 S inpa1 0. or based upon comousliO n ioju S itiWut’O” unite ooerstwtg in accordance wan applicable taCflr liCaJ requireit%efltS. A
laaley may ceraty compliance wan mese treatment standards according to prowaions m 40 CFR Secaon 268.7
Based on wta w of compoerta as pies.
• As anafyted SW-846 Method 9010 sample slzw 05-1 cfisdila i Wne ace hour to one how and fIfteen minutes.
NA-Not s.
TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
-4
W e
Commercial chemical name
See also
Regulated hazardous constrbjent
regulated

concenua-
eon (mg/I)
Arsenic
Arsenic
Table CWE in 268.41
Table CCWE m268.41 _..
Table CCWE in 265.41_
Table CCWE It 266.41_
Caloum — -
Carbon d sulflde
Non-
wasteweters
concentra-
Don (mg/Kg)
Cyai ss (Total)
c (Amenable)
2.sec. it ’v$.4.8-dlfllttO9heflOI (Dmcsab)_
Table 2 in 268.4’
C_ — salta
Table CCWE in 268.41._
Table CCWE in 268.41..
C—
P004
Polo
Poll
P012
P013
P020
P021
P022
P024
P029
.P 0 30
P038
P037
P038
p039
P047
P048
P050
P051
P056
P059
P050
P063
P065
P071
P073
P074
POT?
P082
P089
P092
P 0 04
P097
P098
P099
P 101
P103
widce (Amenable)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyaredes menatae)
Arsenic_--
A m e
Disulloton
4*a e 5bl -
2.4. O lnI tTOPheflO l—
Endo n I_
Eado an l1
E ifan sulfate
Endna —-
Rucodo
He
He —
‘I .—”.
Fluoride Table 2 in 268.42
Ho_or
Isc&m -
021
079
0066
NA
0.79
NA
079
NA
19
110
0.1
91
0066
‘2.5
19
110
01
9,1
0014
NA
046
‘16
19
110
0.1
91
19
110
01
9.1
079
NA
0017
‘013
0.79
NA
0017
‘0.1
•028
‘160
012
‘160
0023
0068
0029
‘013
0.029
•013
0002 8
‘0.13
0025
013
35
NA
•00012
‘0068
0018
‘0066
•0021
‘0.066
1.9
110
010
91
0.030
NA
0.025
‘01
044
NA
19
110
010
91
044
NA
0.020
‘28
040
NA
0025
‘01
0.030
NA
0025
‘0.1
0.025
•0 1
19
110
010
91
1.9
110
01
9.1
0.29
NA
024
‘36C
10
NA
309-00-2
744048—2
7440—38—2
7440—38—2
57-12—5
57-12-5
88—85—7
57-12-5
57-12—5
75—15—0
106-47—8
57-12-6
57—12-5
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-38 .2
60-57-1
7740—38—2
534—52-1
51—26—5
939-98-8
33213-6-5
1031-07-8
72—26-8
7421—93-4
16064-48-6
76—44—8
1024—57-3
465-73-6
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439 -97-6
290-00-0
7440-02-0
57-12-5
57- 12-5
74.40-02-0
100-01-6
62—75-9
56—38—2
7439-974
298—02-2
52-85-7
57— 12—5
57—12—5
57—12—5
57-12—5
74.40—22—4
107—12-0
7782—49-2
Table CCWE in 268.41
wtd Table 2111268.42.
Mercury Lulimnate
Mettt 1 perauiuii. .
NIclal car on11’ —
Nicital ceenide.....
p a riree
N .N 4 r .. iwd. r e ethy tl
Pl terrØatrcwy acetate
Table CCWE in 268.41...
Table CCWE in 28841...
LI. ——
Table 2 In 26842
Cyarades (Table)
Cya es able)
Table CCWE In 268.41
arid Table 2 at 26842.
Doscdanethy1amme
Farnpl av
Pots—
Potasatim wiver cyanide.
Ethyl sde (PropaneflltTtte)
Table CCWE at 288.41. .
Cya ides (Total)
C (Amenab
Cyanides (Total)
— tae)-
S aver -
E8 cyanide (Propaneratnia)
Table CCWE i 268.41_J SelenasTi
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TA&E cCW.—CONSTmJENT Cosc w iious u WASTES—Condnued
1 j
Coim,ierclal chelTical name
See alee
Re 4atod haz dous consdtuent
CASN0.for

ccns8b1e fl
w
ncenV -
boil (mg/I)
Non-

.
22711
Table CCWE In 288.41_
Tharun
Th-
Cya idee ( ToIa9
ee —
Table GCWE In 268.41
d Table 2 In 288.42.
Tab l e2I 26&42_
Table CO ’4E ol 268.41
Table 2 In 268.42._....... ,.
Table 2 I 268.42.............
Table 2 ii 288.42
ee —
Selen
Thal
Table 2 In 28842
Vana aTI
ZInc wm
Acetone
2 ca en
A e
8et (a) iI
Be ane
Be o(a)p 1
R I,.. lop
cu5 .cNcr
BIs 2-d loi
—
Oromomethane (Methyl bmn
4 om yl ether
— al -
C d m _
Table GORE in 268.41_
P104
P 106
P110
P113
P114
P115
P119
P120
P121
P123
1)002
0083
0004
0005
1)009
U012
U013
1)019
1)022
U024
(2025
U027
002$
U029
0030
0031
1)832
0038
u037
0088
( 2089
1)042
0043
0044
0045
1 ) 047
1)048
0060
(2051
0052
U057
0060
0061
1)063
0066
0067
0068
U069
0070
0071
0072
0015
1 1016
0017
u078
0079
U680
0081
11082
Table 2 In 268 42.
Table 2 In 268.42_
cNcrometh ne (Methyl
2-Q9omn htha (ene_
--
Oeosote ____________
r.. . ,r..a._
8Ia(2-ethylllexyf pJial8te
3mmometh e Ø4ethyf b .w M$
4-6 1 4Th,Ø o.Tyl — ether_____
— al06 ____
‘ cmasn (Total)
Non ene a(gha d gamma)
ch lombenz8ate_____________
a sd
2 methyl —
VInyl
2 Norc
2 .c b l e rc
Nap
PNe
P ene
Toluena
Table CCWE tn 288 41_
57—12-5
57—12-5
7440—22—4
57—12-6
51-12-5
1439—92-1
7440-28-0
1782-49-2
7440-25-0
7440-62-2
7440.42-2
57— 12—5
57—12-5
8001-35-1
67-84-1
75—05—8
98-88-2
53-95-3
107—13—1
62-53-3
56—55—3
71.43-2
50-32-8
111-91-1
111-44-4
39638—32—9
117—81—7
74—83-9
101-55—3
71—38-3
74.40-47-32
57—74-9
108-90—7
510—15—6
59—50-7
110—75-8
75—01—4
67-66—3
74—87—3
91—58—7
95-57—6
218-01-9 -
91-20-3
07—86—5
05-01-8
129-00-0
100—88—3
7439-92-1
95—46-7
108-94-1
53-19-0
72-54—8
789-02-8
50-29-3
53-19-0
72—54—8
3424—82-6
12-55-0
53-70-3
96—12-8
106-93-4
74—95—3
84—74—2
96-50-1
541-73-1
104—46—7
75-11—8
75-34—3
107-06—2
75-35-4
156—60—5
75-09-2
129-83—2
87 .45..
19
0.10
0.29
19
0.10
0.040
‘0.14
1.0
014
28
‘28
19
0.10
00095
028
017
0010
‘0059
‘0 24
081
‘0059
‘014
‘0 061
0036
0033
‘0055
054
‘011
‘0055
56
0.32
• 0.0033
• 0.057
‘010
018
0057
‘0046
0.19
‘0055
• 0.044
‘0059
‘0331
•018
‘0031
‘0028
• 0.029
‘0032
‘0037
‘OIl
077
038
0023
0.023
• 00039
• 0.0039
‘0.023
• 0.023
‘0031
•0 031
• 0055
.011
‘0028
.011
054
‘0088
0036
‘0090
•023
•0 059
0 21
‘0025
0054
‘0089
‘0044
‘0.044
. 1 . . .
110
91
NA
110
9.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
113
9-I
‘13
• 160
NA
.34
• 14
o 8.2
• 36
‘6.2
72
72
098
• 15
O
‘26
NA
0.13
‘57
NA
‘14
NA
033
‘5.6
033
‘5.6
d
‘15
.74
015
29
033
NA
‘56
‘32
NA
0087
‘0087
• 0087
• 0087
‘0 087
• 0.087
‘0087
• 0.087
• 8.2
• 15
15
15
‘28
‘82
62
‘6.2
‘7.2
72
• 72
.33
‘33
‘33
‘14
‘14
Table 2 in 268.42_
Q 1ber o(a .h)as ithrao
12-0Oomo .3-th l e t
1 ,2-Obomoethane
0 monethane
D phthab
0ch lo enzer
0 o be e
0 orob
o oro
1 ,1 .0cblo ethw
12- O lchlomethar
4 I
pj’-oco.
o.p’OOT
p COT
o 0O0
p p .00D
op O0E.. . —
p.p’-OOE
0the i o(aj i)enthvacene
1.2 ’Obomo-3-dilorog i-ogane,._. ,_ , ._
____ (Ethylene bmmde
1.1 . 1 c h l eoe t h e._-
1 ,2 .0 1L , th e ne -_________
1 , l e 4en ___—
ber -12-0ict itoroetNyIene
Me l enecm de_
2.6- OicflloropNeno l
-------
22712 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 I FrIday, June I, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
- T ai.E cCW.—CONSTmJENT CONCENTRATiONS IN WASTES—COntinued
- Commercad cho ,r1c nwo So. abe . Reg ated do e cens eet
UQ83 12-0Sccpr ww , .z - oi pivpene 78-87-6 ‘0.85 ‘18
U084 1,chtorop pefle cts.l .3 -O lcfltotoprop lene 10061—01-5 ‘0.038 ‘18
ie -1 .3.Ci Io.oxcpylene 10061-02-6 ‘0.038 ‘18
U088 pim a ,aie DIOthyI phthaiats - 84-664 ‘0.54 ‘28
U093 methytamlno ceI Table 2 I 268.42 pC lmeth ylasnnca ber oflI 60-11-7 ‘0.13 NA
UlOl .. flel_____________ ________________ _____________ 106-67-9 $ 0.038 ‘14
*1102 0le elphthaIatn l *d tM 131-114 ‘0.54 ‘28
UlOS 2,4.Olnjbotcbjone .,-uu.u t ebj e n 121-14-2 ‘0.32 ‘140
U108 2 .6 -Olrvtrotcluene . - WI ene 806-20-2 ‘0.55 ‘29
U107 0l .n -octylpflthalate OI -n-octylphthatate 117-84-0 ‘0.54 ‘28
U108 - lO loxane 1 .4 -0 l 1e 123—91—1 ‘0.12 ‘170
Ulli 0l.n-orapy uThoanwia Ogm l3 ylI050 0fl**e 621-64-7 ‘0.40 ‘14
U112 ,. .icetate Ethyl acetete__________________ 141—784 ‘0.34 ‘33
Ul11 Ethyl ethos Ethyl ether___________________ 60-29-7 ‘0.12 ‘160
U118 Ethyl methactylate Ethyl mediaaytate 97-83-2 ‘014 ‘160
U 20 Fhiotanthene_____________ Fluorasithene 206-44-0 ‘0068 ‘82
U121 Trlclitoromonofluommethane T,lcNoromonothio iomethane 75-69-4 ‘0 020 ‘33
U127 *4exacobe1 ene...—. —.... Kexacfl1ombenzene .____ . . . .. . .—.- 118-74-1 ‘0055 ‘37
U128 Hexact Iorobuta ene____________ Hexachiorobutadlen e 87-68-3 ‘0.055 ‘28
U129 Undano a lpha- S I - IC 319-84-8 ‘000014 ‘0 066
bete-8)- IC____________________ 319-85-7 0.00014 ‘0068
De lta-BHC 319-88-8 0023 ‘0068
ganuna - SHC(Lindane) 58-89-9 00017 ‘0068
*1130 Hwwthioocydopentad*eflO Hexachlo rocyclepentad lene 77-47-7 ‘0057 ‘38
U131 Dethane ________________ __________________ Hexachtoroethane ________________ 67-72—1 ‘0.055 ‘28
U134 Hydrogen Iluoride Tab Ie2 1 268.42 FluolIde_________________ 16964-48-8 35 NA
U136 Cacodylic acid____________ TabLCCWEV*28&41_ A senlc________________ 7440-38-2 079 NA
U137 Indeno(1.Z3-c,d)pyrene undono(1,2.3-c,d)pyienO 193-39-5 ‘0 0055 ‘82
U138 lodomethane ____________________ __________________ lodomethane ____________________ 74-88-4 ‘0.19 ‘65
U140 ,Ic oho l Isoblstyl alcotiuu________________ 78-8 3 - I 56 ‘170
U141 vole ts aafro4o 120-58-1 0.081 ‘2.8
U142 I(epone Keáon— 143-50-8 0.0011 ‘0.13
U144 Lead acetate Table CCWE i 26&41. .. 7439-92-1 0 040 NA
U145 Lead phoophate Table CCWE i 26&41_ Lead___________________ 7439-92-1 0 040 NA
U148 Lead aubocetate___________ Table CONE 26841.... Load_________________ 7439-92-1 0.040 NA
U151 Mercurf Table CONE e* 268.41 Mercuiy 7439-974 0.030 NA
- w ,dTab le2 ln268.4Z
U182 Methaaytoiab8e Mothacr y lOnsou e 128-98-7 ‘024 ‘64
U155 Me6 pyi,$ene Methapyhtene 91-83-5 0.081 ‘15
UI 57 3-MethylchIoanthrene._____. . .. . . -——— 3-Mathylchotanevone__________ _ ____ 58-49-5 ‘00055 ‘15
U158 . r-Methytenebl3(2-d 1 owawiu, 4,49 ’4ethyteneCss(2-ChtO(Oafl’8fle) .. 101—14—4 ‘050 ‘35
U159 Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl ethyl liutone__________ 78-93-3 0.28 ‘36
U161 Methyl sobutyl ketor-. Methyl toocutyl ketone____________ 108-10-1 0.14 ‘33
U162 Methyl methaa tato Methyl methacrylate 80-62-8 0.14 ‘160
U165 Naphthalene Na Ol ,thajono 91—20—3 ‘0.059 ‘3.1
U168 2-Naphthylanane Table 2 n 268.42 2.Nap hth ylan ne 91-59-8 ‘052 NA
U169 N obenzono__________________ N obenze r*__________________ 98-96-3 ‘0068 ‘14
U170 4 -N ,trophenol 4 -N ophenol 100-02-7 ‘0.12 ‘29
U172 nNztmoodl-n-bulytWT$fle n-N 8oeod l-n .butytamine 924-18-3 ‘0.40 ‘17
U174 N-Ndroaodletilytamine n-N1 oacdlethytamine__._____.___ _ 55-18-5 ‘040 ‘28
U179 N.Nl oscgipend1ne n-Nleesog pendlne 100-75-4 ‘0.013 ‘35
U180 N-NltroeopywoHdlne nNI oaopyiroUdtne_____.___. . ..___..__ 930-55-2 ‘0013 ‘35
U181 5-N ,bo-o .tokedme______________ SNo4blsadutO 99-55-8 ‘032 ‘28
U183 PentachIorober one___________ Pentach lorobemene 608-93-5 ‘0055 ‘37
UIB5 PentachlorendrobenzenO P er ,tecfl Ioro ra 8o b e ene__________ 82-88-8 ‘0055 ‘48
U187 Phenaceen .. . . - . . . 62-44-2 0081 ‘16
wee Phenol_________________ Phenol_________________ 108-95-2 0.039 ‘6-2
U190 pImielic anhydnde ( ieested ex Phihal- - Ptitha8c anhydnde (mea*ured ae PP ,6’a I- 85-44-9 ‘054 ‘28
U192 Pronemido ________ P . is&..84 23950-58-5 0.093 ‘1 5
U196 Pyfldlne Pvndme______________________ 110-88—1 ‘0.014 ‘18
U203 Safrole - ________________ .. —_____________________ 94-59—7 0081 ‘22
U204 Selenium dlo ,dde_____________ Table CONE m 268 41_ Selenium_________________ 7782-49-2 1.0 NA
U205 Selenkao eulfele Table CONE e 268 4*- ... Selenium__________________ 7782-49-2 1.0 NA
U207 1,2 .4.5.TeeecNorcber ene.___....__.. . . 1.2.4 5-Tetrachioroberwene_._......--— 95-94—3 ‘0.055 ‘19
U208 1 .1,1.2.Teuachloroelhane 1,I .I.2-Tet rachloroethano 630-20-6 0.057 ‘42
U209 1.I.2.2-Te achloroethane I,1 .2.2,Tetracflloroethane 79-34-5 ‘0057 ‘42
U210 Teeecflloroethylane_____________ .________________ Teoodldoroethylene.._____._.______ 127-18-4 ‘0.058 ‘56
U21 I Caiton tebochiorido Cathon Ii do_____________ 56-28-5 ‘0057 ‘5.6
U214 Tailluni(t)acemte Table 2 v* 268.42 ThallIum 7440-28-0 ‘0.14 NA
U215 ThaJIluml)carbonatu Table 2 In 26842 ThallIum________________ 7440-28-0 ‘014 NA
U216 ThallMn(I)cftlonde Table 2 tn 268.42 Tha l laun_________________ 7440-28-0 ‘0.14 NA
U217 ThaiTh4m(I)nifrate Table 2 26842 ThallIum___________________ 7440-28-0 ‘0.14 NA
U220 Tolueno_________________ Totuene__________________ 108-88-3 ‘0080 ‘28
U225 T ,I w. ,.umethane (Bromofomi) Tr ,bromomethono (Bromoforvn) 75-25-2 ‘063 ‘15
*1226 1,1.1-T ..UHuroethane I,1,I-Tnchtoroethane. 71—55-8 ‘0.054 ‘56
U227 1.12-Tflchloroethatte I,1 .2 .Tncfltor oethane 79-00-5 $ 0.054 150
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
227 ’13
T ccw.—CONsTITuENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—COnthued
w
c
dionuc 1 0
SOO 5150
5Wdous con tient
CAS Ir
sdai rd
lion
Non-
wQ$*eWatOTS
lion (mg/kg)
U228
t1256
U239
U240
U243
U247
TticNo.aed, jons
7 5-01-6
128-72-7
94-75-7
1885—71—7
72-43-5
‘0.054
0.025
‘0.32
0.72
‘0.035
‘0.25
‘5.8
‘0.10
‘28
‘10
28
‘0.18
lirncop*pho,_
X)lenes
X)1en
24-CId osu sdc -
4Oii o . ux odc acid_____
He dilorop ens
Hemthbvpvperie
Medioxyddar
th ydu lor
‘ Tra.Sber* e idada or a o.qw c consdlijent were estabUslied liseed on eralion V i *x operated lii accordance with the ted mcaI requirements 0140
CFR Pat 264 ibgw1 0 ar Pert 285 &ibpw* 0, or based upon coiWdon I, fuel aitisda 5on lists operadng wi accordance with epØc e tecMtcai requirenients. A
facOt ney cerdly compliance with these licolinent standards eccordaig to ‘140 CFR Sechon 268.7.
$ 8esed on an& on ot coreqosite
‘As anetyxed ussig i5-846 Methed soto; sempte slze o.s-to; atla5on Iliner one how to one hoer tltteen nsnutes.
NA-NbU Apo
• • • • •
(c) Notwithstanding the prohibitions
specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
treatment and disposal facilities may
demonstrate (and certify pursuant to
* 268.7(b)(5)) compliance wfth the
treatment standards for organic
constituents specified In this section
provided the following conditions are
satiifled
(1) The treatment for the organic
constituents were established based on
incineration In units operated in
accordance with the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 264. subpart
o or 40 CFR part 285, subpart 0, or
based on combustion in fuel substitution
units operating In accordance with
applicable technical requirements;
(2) The organic constituents have been
treated using the methods referenced In
paragraph (c)(1) of this section: and
(3) The treatment or disposal facility
has been unable to detect the organic
constituents despite using Its best good..
faith efforts as defined by applicable
Agency guidance or standards. Until
such guidance or itandards are
developed, such good-faith efforts may
be demonstrated where the treatment or
disposal facility has detected the
organic constituents at levels within an
order of magnitude of the treatment
standard specified in this section.
13. AppendIx IV is added to part 268
to read as follows:
Appendix IV—Organomotallic Lab
Packs
Hazardous waste with the following
EPA waste codes may be placed In an
“organometallic” or “Appendix IV lab
packf’
P001, P002. P003. P004, P005. P008. P007.
P008. P009, P013, P014. P015, P016,
P017, P018, P020, P022, P023, P024,
P025, P028, P027, P028, P031, P034,
P036 1 P037, P038, P039, P040. P041,
P042, P043. P044. P045. P047. P048,
P049, P050, P051. P054. P058, P057,
P058, P059, P060. P062, P063, P064,
P0 P068, P067, P068. P06 9, P070.
P071, P072, P073, P074, P075. P077.
P081. P082, P084. P085, P087. P088,
P089, P092. P093. P09 P095, P096,
P097, P098, P099, P101. P102, P103,
P108, P105, P108, P109. P110, P112.
P113, P114, P115, P116. P118, P119,
P120,P122,P123
U001, UOOZ U003. U004. U005, U008,
U007, U008, U009, UClO, U011, U012,
U014, U015. U0161 U017, U018, U019,
U020, U021, U022, U023. U024, U025,
U028, U027, U028, U029, U030. U031.
U032, U033, U034, U035, U038, 1.1037,
U03& U039, 1)041, U042, 1)043,1)044,
U045, U048, U047, 1)048, U049, 1)050.
U051, 1)052,1)053, U055. U058. U057,
1)058,1)059, U060, U061, 1)063,1)063,
1)064.1)06611)067,1)068,1)069, 11070,
U071, 1)072, U073, U074, 11075,1)078,
U077, 1)078,1)079,1)080, U081, U082,
1)083.1)084,1)085,1)086,1)087,1)088,
U089, U090. U09i. U092. U093, 1)094,
U095, 11098,11097, U098. U099, 1)101,
U102, 11103, 11105, U106 , U107, U108,
U109, U11Q, Uiii, U112, 1)113, 1)114,
U115. Utla, Utt7, Ulls, U119, 1)120,
U121, U123, 11123,1)124, U125, 11128,
1)127,1)128,11129,1)130, U131, 1)132.
U133, U134, 1)135, U136, U137, U138,
U137. 11138,11139, U140, U141, U142,
U143, 1)144, 11145, U140, 1)147, 11148,
U149, 1)150,11152, U154. 11153,11154,
U155. U158. U157, U158. 11159, 11160,,
1)161,1)162,11164,1)165. U 168. U16?,
1)1681)169.1)170.1)171,1)172.11173,
U174. 1)176, U177, U178, U179, U180.
1)181, U182, 11183, U184, U185, U186
U187, 1)188,1)189,11190, U191. U192,
1)193, U194, 11198, U197, U200, U201,
U202, U203. U204, U205. U208. U207.
U205. 1)209. U210, U211, U213, U214,
U215, 1)218. U217, U2 18 , U219. U220.
1)221,1)222, U223, 1)225, U226, U227,
1)228, U234, 1)235,1)238, U237, U238,
U239, U240, U243, U244, 1)248,11247,
1J248, 1)249, U328. 1)353, U359
Fool, F002, F003, F004, FOOS, FO061 Fob,
F020, F021, F023, F024, F026. F027,
F028
1(001, K002, K008, 1(009,1(010,1(011,
K013,K014,K015.K016.1(017,Kolg.
K019. 1(020,1(021, K022, 1(023,1(024,
K025,K026,K027,Ko28,Kozg,K030.
1(031, K032, 1(033. K034. 1(035.1(036,
K037,K038,K039,K040,K041, K042.
1(043, K044, K045. 1(046,1(047,1(048,
1(049, KOSO. K051, 1(052,1(054,1(060.
K061,K064.K065,K066,K069,K071,
K073,K083,K084,K085,K086,K087,
K093.K094,Kogs,Kog8.K097,x098,
1(099.1(101. K102, 1(103,1(104,1(105.
Kill, 1(112. 1(113. 1(114, 1(115, 1(115.
1(117, 1(118, 1(123, 1(124, K125, 1(126,
1(138
DOQI, D002, D003, D004. D005, D006,
D007, D008, DOW, Doll, D0 12, D013.
D014, Dais. D018, D017
11032.11138.1)144,11145,1)148,1)163,
1)214, 1)215, 1)216. 1)217
14. AppendIx V is added to part 68 to
read as follows:
Appendix V—Organic Lab Packs
Hazardous wastes with the foiow ng
EPA Hazardous Waste Code No. may be
placed in an “organic” or “Appendix V:”
P001, P002. P003, P004, P005. P006. P007.
P008, P009, P013, P014, P015, P016.
P017. P018, P020, P022. P023, P025.
P024, P026, P027, P028, P031, P034,
P036. P037, P038, P039, P040. P041,
P042, P043, P044, P045. P046 P047.
P048, P049, P050, P051, P054, P057,
P058, P059, P060, P062. P063, P064.
P084, P085, P086. P067. P088, P 0 6 9.
P070, P071, P072, P073, P074, P075,
P077, P081, P082. P084, P085. P087,
P088, P089, P092. P093. P094, P005,
P098. P097, P098. P099. P101. P102,
P103, P104, P105, P108, P109, P110,
Pill, P112, P113, P114, P115, P118,
P118. P119, P120, P122, P123
1)001,1)002,1)003,1)004,1)005,1)008,
11007,11008,1)009,11010, UGh, U012.
U014, 11015,1)018,11017. U018. 1)019,
U020, U02i, 1)022, 1)023, 11024, U025,
U026, U027, 1)028, 11029, 1)030. 1)0:31,
U033. U034. 1)035. 0036, 11037. 1)038,
-------
Federal Register I Vol 55. No. 106 / Friday, June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22714
U039. U041. U042. U043. U044. U045.
U048. U047. U048. U049. U050. U051.
U052. U053 , U055 , U058 , U057, U056.
U059, U060 , U081. U062. U063 , U064.
U06& U067 , U068. U089. U070. LTO7I.
U072 , U073, U074. U075, U076. U077.
U078. U079, U080, U081. U082, U083,
U084, U085, U086. U087, U088 , U089 ,
U090. U091, U092, U093, U094. U095,
U096 , U097, U098 . U099, UlOl. U102.
U103, U105 , Ul06. U107. U108. . U109,
UllO, Ufli, U112 , U113, U114, U115,
UllO, U117, U118, U119, U120, U121.
U122. U123, U124. U125. U128. 0127.
U128, 0129. U130, U131. U132, 0133,
U135 , U137. U138. U139. U140. 0141.
U142. U143. 0147. U148. U149. 0150.
U153. U154 , U155 . U158 . U157. 0158,
U159, Ul60, Ulol. 0162. U163, 0164.
U185. 0166. U167. 0168 U169, U170,
U171. U172, U173. U174, U176. 0177.
0178, 0179, U180, 0181.. U182, 0183,
U184. U185. U188 0187. U188. U189.
U190. 0191. U182. U193 U194. 0196.
U197, U200.UZOI. 0202. U203, 0205.
U208. 0207, 0208, 0209. U210. 0211.
U213, U214. U218. 0219, U220 . 0221.
U222. U223, 0225. U226. U227. U228 ,
U234 U235. U236. U237, U238 . U239 ,
0240, U243. U244. U246 . U247. 0248.
0249, U328 , 0353. U359
Fool. P002, P003. P004. P005. P010. P020.
P021. P023, P024. P026, P027, P028
K001.X009,K010.K011. 1(013, K014
- 1(015,1(018.1(017.1(018; 1(019 ,1(020.
y i_ jcn22 , 1(023, K024. K025. 1(028.
K027. 1(029.1(030.1(031.1(032,1(033,
1(034. K035. 1(036.1(037. K03& 1(039.
1(040. K041. K042.K043. K04t 1(045,
1(046. K047. 1(048.1(049.1(050.1(051.
K052,K054.K060,K065.K073.K083.
K084.K085.K088.K087.K093. K094.
1(095,1(096,1(097,1(098.1(099,1(101,
K102. 1(103.1(104,1(105, Kill, 1(112.
K113,K114,K115.K116.K117,K118.
1(123,1(124.1(125. KiZO. 1(136
Dool, D012. D013, D014 . .D015, Dole,
D017
15. Appendix VI Is added to part 288.
to read as follows
Appendix VI—Recommended
Technologies to Achieve Deactivation of
Characteristics In Section 288.42
The treatment standard for many
subcategories of DOOl. D002. and D003
wastes as well as for 1(044. 1(045, and
K047 wastes is listed In 268.42 simply as
“Deactivation to remove the
characteristics of ignitability.
corrosivity. and reactivlty ’. EPA has
determined that many technologies.
when used alone or in combination, can
achieve this standard. The following
appendix presenta a partial list of these
technologies. utiH’lng the five letter
technology codes established In 40 CFR
288.42 Table 1. Use of these specific
technologies is not mandatory and does
not preclude direct reuse, recovery, and!
or the use of other pretreatment
technologies provided deactivation is
achieved and these alternative methods
are not performed In units designated as
land disposal.
4REO
INCIN
NEUTR
INCIN
NEUTR
INC 1N
cHoxo
c iPED
INCIN
na
cHoxo
Cl4PED
B ODG
INCIN
INCIN
c8OxD
61 00G
CAR8N
INC4N
c l4OXD
HRED
BIOOG
CARBN
- Waste co4e/subcategory
No ewa t ers
Wastewatecs
RORGS
INQN
WETOX
c iioxD
BIOOG
ADGAS (b. INCIN
ADGAS tb (Cl-sOx0 or CHRED)..
WTRRX
ciloxo
0001 Igndabte Liquids based on 26121(a)(1)—&cw TOG Nonwastewater Subcategory 1% to <10% RORGS_
TOCI. INC1N_
WETOX_
HOXD
BIO OG._
0001 Igrwtabl. Liq ads based on 2a1.21(aM1)—4 atab4e Wastewater Subcategory (contsuang <1%. TOC) na.
0001 Con preseed Gases based on 28121 (Afl3) - - RCGAS —
0001 Ignitable Reacdves based en 281 21 (a
0001 Ignitable Oxidba s based on 251 21 (a (4)
0002 ACid Subcategniy based on 261.22(a)(1) with pH less than or equal to 2
0002 Alkaflns S categoiy based on 281. (a)(1j with pH greater than or equei to 12.5.
0002 Other Co vo&ves based on 2etY(afl2) -
0003 Water Reacbwes based on 261 .23(a) (2). (3). and (4).
0003 Reac v Sulfides based on 281 .23(a)(5). . . _ —
0003 E 4oarves based on 28123(a) (61. (7). and (B).
0003 Other Reacth es based on 28123(OX1),
c I4RED
INC IN
RcORR.
—
NEUTR.......
INc1N
NEUTR_-
INCIN
cHoxo
SHRED
—
C IN
STAB’
IN C IN
WTflRX
I. . — .
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 106 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
22715
Waste code/subcstegoiy
Ponwastewaters
Wa stewaters
K044 Wastewater fresti evl sludges from the manufac8ning astd procesaing of explosIves
CHOXD_____________
SHRED
lN IN
CHOXO
CHRED
BICOG
CARBN
-
INCIN
1 (045 Spent carbon from the freatetent of westewaters contalnU g explosIves
,
-
CI4OXD_______________
CHOXO
cHRED
BIODG
CAR6M
INCIN
CHRED_______________
IN IN
1(047 Plnlilred water from TNT ope . . .Uoi .s

CHOXD
CHOXD
t. HRED
6IODG
CA 6N
CHRED________________
INCIN
-
INCIN
Note: ‘n.a. stands far “not appacabW ’; ‘tb” nds for ‘foIIowed by”.
18. AppendIx VU is added to part 288.
to read as follows:
App ioix VII.—Ep ciivE DATES OF
SURFACE DIsPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN ThE LDRS ’ -
(ComprehensIve Let]
APPENDIX VII.—E c11vE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs ‘—Continued
(Comprehensive UsU -
Waste code
Waste categoiy
Effective date
Waste code
Waste category
Effective date
APPENDIX VII.—E c nvE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDR5 ‘—Continued
(ComprehensNe List
Waste code
Waste category
Effective date
CaflfonvaU s t.
Ca lifornia
Cahtomsal lsL
California Il t -
Ju lya , 1987.
July 8. 1987.
July 8. 1987.
.My8 . 1987.
Uquld
hexanto
wu t e8.
hi free
associated
with solid or
free ayarsdes
at
Doria greater
than or equal
to 1,000 mg/I
or certain
metals or
compounds of
these metals
greater than
or equal to
the grolubtton
l eve
Uqwd (aqueoua)
hezerdoua
wastes having
S p 14 less
than or —
teL
D e HOC
westewater8.
defined as
HOGweete
mbmass that
are pth a a i t y
water and
that
greater than
or equal to
1.000mg/I
less than
10.000 mg/L
Uq d
h doua
waste
- Pc8s eat e
then or —
to 50 ppm.
Cafifornia list.
Califonl ia list.
Ca l ifon ’da 5sf.
0001
0002
0003
0004
0004
0004
0005__
0005
0006
0006
0007
0007
0008
0008
0008
0009
0009
0009
0009
Other liqwd and
88
HOC ii total
concentra ton
— than
— to
1,000 mg.
Sod and debris
HOC riot
from
cERcW
RGRA
SoW and debris
HOC from
ER LV
R A
AS
AS
AS
lnorg solid
N o nwssW
Waat . ,water.._
lnor arlc solid
deOn&
AS others..._
— sass
AS ather_.
Nog&1 solid
debfl&
AS others.._.
lnorgarac solid
d e bd
Lead add
AS other_.
— solid
deb
High mer ,y
nc
wast
Low mer ny
no
wastawat e r.
AS othere._
Nov. 8, 1988.
July 8. 1989.
Nov. 8, 1890.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8.1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
MayO, 1992.
Aug. 8 , 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug.8 , 1990. ’
MayO, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1890.
May 8,1992.
Aug. 8,1990.
May 8, 1992.
May 8 ..1 992.
Aug. 0 , 1990.
Maya. 1992.
May 8, 1992.
May8, 1992.
Aug.8 , 1990.
0010
0010 ______
0011
0011
0012
0013
00014 _____
00015 _____
00016
00017 ______
F0O1-F005
F001-F005
F001-P005
P005•__
F 0 06________
P006
P008
(cyarudes).
FOOl________
P008
P009
FOb _______
P010
FOil___
P012
P019
P020
P020
P021
lnorgw c solid
AS others
Inorgaruc seed
debfl&
AS othere.._
AS
AS
AS
AS
All
AS
AN, except_.
Sm quans
genereto
CERG IJ .J
RCRA
action, uliaJ
—s
sotvent.watar
— and
scUds, and
non
cERcLV
R RA
coffec e
action sCils
with less than
Ipe rcem
total solvent
on
Sod& tideCfls.
AS
AS
Wa atewater_
Nonweatewater.
Nanwastewater.
AS
AS
A l
Sod and debn ..
AS cthers.._
All
AN
All
Sod and debns
AS others._
Sod and debns
MayO, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990
MayO, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990
Aug. 8, 1990
Aug. 8, 1990
Ar.g. 8, 1990
Aug. 8, 1990
Aug. 0, 1990
Aug. 8, 1990
Nov. 8, 1986
N v 8, 1988
Nov. 8, 1990
Aug. 8, 1990
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1988
July 8. 1989.
July 8. 1989
July 8. 1989
Juty8 , 1989.
June 8. 1991
Jun08. 1989.
July 8. 1989.
July 8, 1989
Aug. 8. 1990
NOv 8, 1990,
Nov. 8. 1988.
Nov. 8, 1990
-------
22716 Federal Register / Vol. 55 , No 106 f Friday , rune 1, 1 O / Rules and Re uIaffons
Ap oix V1I.—EREcTIVE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRS —Contfnued
Waste ned.
Waste categuy
Effecd date
APPENDIX ViI.—E FEcnvE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WAsTES REGULAT-
ED tN THE LDRS —Conhirued
[ Coffensne Usti
Wane ned. Waste
netegoly Etfecilve dale
APPENDIx VII.—EFFEC ’TWE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGUt.AT-
W IN ThE LDRS --Continued
ICne ptehem e Usti
Waste 08de
Waste 5I09olY
E OCVVO date
Nov. 8. lB 8 8
Nov.8 1990.
Nov.8 , 1988.
Nov.8 . 1990.
Ncv .& 1988.
8. 1991.
Aug.8. 1990.
Aug.8. 1990.
Jwie8 . 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
8.1990.
Nov. 8, 1988.
5.1990.
Ncv.8. 1988.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Nov. 8. 1888.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May. 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug.8, 1990.
F0
F022
P023
P023
F024
P024 (n
P024
( d . n.I
fwwis).
P024
P025
P028
F0v
P027
F028
P028
F 0 19
1 (00 1
1(001 JaadI
organics).
1(001
1(004
1(005 ‘_
1(006-
1(008
K009.___ __
1(009
1(010
KOlO
1(011
1(011
1(011
1(011
K013
1(013
1(014
1(014
1(014
1 (015
K015
KOIR
K01
IeM?
*8 o1hers_ _
Sc debds
*8 od1ei1. .._
S anddebd s
So and -
No nw
AU
AU oUlers..
AU
AJ lo re
So8and debra-
Alt o0 e_._
Sod and de ns
AN olfleie.._.........
Wastewe
N
A U
AU cUwa _—
AU
U
AU
Alt
AU
AU
AU
Sod deb
AU
So S enddebd.
All o rs —
Waste _
N a,Sew .
Sod and deb
WMI SW S Ior.._ .
N ewet .
So S and
Was*awetol
Na 1weste eV -
Sod and de d.
Waetawat&_
N WaS .
Sod end
All
a..
K030.__.__
K031
1(031
1(033-
1(034
1(035
K038’_
1(033
1(031
1(037
K03&
1(080
1(03 5
1(040
1(040
K041
KC4
1(043
1(043—
1(044
KO4A
K04&
1(04 8-
1(04?
1(049
1(049
1(050
1(050
1(051
1(051
1(052
1(05,
K088•
1(061
K061
1(05,
1(069
1(071
K083
1(084
1(085
1(088
1(087
1(087
K093 —
1(093
1(094
1(094. —
1(095
1(095
K09
1(096 -
K09R
1(097
1(098 .
1(099
K100
1(104
1(101
1(102 —
K10
1(104
1(104
1(105.
A l t otheia__
Ws stow at __
A l l
AD
AD
MI
AU
Sc4 and debds
Westewator_
All o8le, ...__._.
Sod and debis
M I
5o4 aid deble
Alt atherS . .
Sod anó deb
AU o3 er& . .
AU
A l
Sod an debt,
All othar5 . .
AU
All
no
waste .
A U oews.__
Al
Waste aW__
Ncn a .
Wa a law s l er . .._.
Nonwas 1neat .
Wast ew _
Nonwastewatol
Wastewatec . . . ._
Mcnw nester.
Wastewe99
Nanw .
AU

Nonw ast .
AU
AU
All
AU
WastneaI . . . ...
AU
Alt
Sod and deCne
AU
SodinddeCfla
All others___
Sod an
Al) othera . ._
Wa 5tewa ’ . . . .
Sod aid d. n*
Waatawster
Sod aidd.Cd.
.111
* 4 1
Wastne air_ _
Nonwastewa lai.
Wastev air
Nonwa8tew1t .
Sod and 5 . .
All oth s..__.....
Sod and det5 -
All oth e ._._..._-
AU
Aug.8 . 1988.
*ug.& 1990.
Uey 8 . 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8 , 1990.
Aug.9 . 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. ‘ (990.
Aug. 8.1990.
Aug.8. 1988.
June 8.1991.
1989.
JuneB. 1991.
Jun88, 1989.
. me 8,1991.
June 8. 1989.
Aug.5. 1990.
Aug. 8.1990.
June 8. 1991.
June 0. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 5. 1990.
Aug.8, 1988.
Aug.8, 1990.
Aug.8. 1990.
Aug. 9. 1990.
Nov. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
1990.
Aug.8. 1990.
Nov. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Nov. 8.1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Nov. 8. 1990.
Aug.8. 1990.
Aug. 0. 1990.
Aug.-& 1988.
Aug. 8. 1988
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. & 1980.
Aug8. 1990.
MayO. 1992.
Aug. 6. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug.B. 1988.
June 8. 1991.
June 8. 1989.
.Ains8. 1991.
1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
.*jna8. 1989.
.Alna8 , 1991.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 6 1988.
June 8. 1931.
Aug. 6. 1990.
Aug. 5 . 1990.
Aug. 8, 1888.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8.1988.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 3988.
MayO. 1992.
Aug. 0. 1990.
Aug. 8.1988.
Aug. 8, 1990
Aug. 8, 1988
Aug. 8. 1990.
1(106 -
High mer ay
no r
May 6, 1992.
1992.
K105
-
Lew meicuty
n0’
wastewa .
May.
8, 1990.
1(106
other
Sod and dodd....
Aug.
June 8. 1991.
All
June 8.1989.
Kil l
ScstasiddeCns.
June8 ,1991.
1(114
Allotheii...___
June 8. 1989.
Sod anddebns...
June 8, 1991.
1(115
June 8. 1989.
K l lc
Sod and dodd....
June 8. 1991.
1(118
All
.iun.8 , 1.989.
Kiln
All
8, 1990
POOl______
Aug 8.1990.
P003
Aft
Aug. 8, 1990.
A l l
A ug.8 . 1990.
Al t
Aug.O.1990.
P006
-
AU
Aug.8. 1990
P007
AU-
Aug 8. 1990.
P003
P - i l-
Aug.B,1990.
P008
All-
Aug. 8. 1990.
POlO
Wastewate’.........
Aug. 8, 1990
P0 10
Nonwastewator
May 8. 1992.
POll______
-
Wnetewator__.__.
Aug. 8, 1980
P011
Nonwaatuwater_
May 8, 1992.
P012
Wastewater._......
Aug. 8, 1990.
P012
Nonwasteweter.
May 8. 1992.
P013
Aug. 8. 1990.
P014
All
Aug.8.1990
P015
All
Aug. 8, 1990.
P016
-
AiI_
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug.8.1990
..
AU
Aug.8.1990
All
8. 1990.
P021
All___________
June 9. 1989.
All.
8, 1990
P023
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
P024
AS
Aug. 8, 1990.
P026
All.
Aug 8. 1990.
All.
8. 1990
P028
All
Aug. 3. 1990
P029
All
June 8. 1989.
P030
—
All__________
JunO 8. 1989.
P031
All
Aug. 9. 1990
P033
All
Aug. 3, 1990
All
Aug.&1990.
P0 136
Wastewator .......
Aug. 9. 1990
P036
Nonwastewator
May 8, ¶992.
-
All.
Aug. 8. 1990
-
P038
Waatewater_......
Aug. 8. 1990.
P038
Nonwastewater.
May 8. 1992.
Scalanddebns..
June8.1991.
All
June 8. 1989
P039
Scat
June 8. 1991
P040 -.
June 8, 1989
P040
athers..........._
Sod and debne...
June 8. 1991.
All
JLfst 3. 1989.
—
Al’
8. 1990
P043.
Sod and debns_
June 8. 1991
MLotha s_.___._
June 8. 1989
Sod anddebns_
June8, 1991
P044
Alt oUlers._.. ..__.
June 8. 1989.
P045
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
P048
AU
AUg. 8. 1990
P047
All..
Aug 8. 1990.
P048
All
8. ¶990
P049
AU
Aug. 8. 1990
P050
AU
Aug.8. 1990.
P051
All
Aug 8. 1990.
P054
U
8, 1990.
P058
AS.....
Aug. 8. 1990
P057
AU...
Aug. 8.1990
Aug.& 1988.
Aug. 8.1980.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 5. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June. 1991.
JoneS. 1989.
Juoe8 , 1991.
JuneO , 1989.
Alig. 8. 1890.
June 8, 1989.
June 8,1991.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8. 1989.
June 8. 1991.
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 6. 1989.
June 8. 1991.
Aug. 8, 1988.
Aug.$ . 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8.1988.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug.8 . 1988.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1988.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1988.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1088.
Aug. 8. 1990.
.Aate8, 1991.
.1une8 1989.
8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1988.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
,kme 8. 1991.
Jun. 8.1989.
June 8, 1991.
Aug. 8. ¶990.
Ad ofti s......_.. .kt,, 8; 1585.
Wan it ._ Aug. 8. 1990.
Nonw ,,atewsfe’. June 8. 1989.
Sodanddeb’w . . Jw*G. ¶994.
Sou,ddebnl -J Aug. 8.1999.
Sod and debne..
AIX other,.._
Sod andde0nS
All othe lL...._
Sod and debds
All others- . .
*0
Wutawsta ’_
Nanwaelowater ..
S d and debd.
Sod
All ooters...__
Sod and deb . .
AD
All
A l l
Sod aid d.. .
A l l o- . ..
Sod and d.
Nonwasteust .
K01
1(019-
1(019
1(019
K020.. . .
K020
1(021 ‘
K0 o
K09
K0
1 (099
K02 ’
1(024
1(024
1(023
1(027
1(027
1(028
1(028
(—
1(028
1(029
1(029 .
1(029
1(030
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 106 I Friday. June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations 22717
AppEiloux VII.—EFctcnva DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDR5 ‘—Continued
(Co e Ust]
Waste code
Waste category
ElfecUvo date
AFFENOIx VII.—E c11vE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT.
ED IN THE LDRS ‘—Continued
(Coa rehe e Ltei
APPENDIX VII.—En EcnvE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT•
ED IN THE LDRs ‘—Continued
Waste code
Waste category
Elleodve date
(Com rode ve Usti
Waste code Waste category
Effective date
P058
All
Aug.8,t990
P110
P059
P060
AU
All_-
Aug.8.1990.
Aljg.8,1990.
Pill
Pill____
P0 2
Sod and deteis...
June 8, 1991.
P11
P0 ’
All o..............
June 8, 1989.
P113
P063
All
,Ajne8 , 1989.
P114
P064
AU
Aug.6,1990.
P115
P068
HIgh met ay
non.
estewatar
May 8, 1902.
P116
Pile______
P118
P065
Lcw merasy
non.
wastewater.
May 8, 1992.
P118
P119
P120
P065
*3 athers—..
Aug. 8, 1990.
P121
P068
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
P1
P067
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
P123
P068
M I
Aug. 8, 1990.
UO01
P069
*9
Aug. 8, 1990.
11002
P070
AN
Aug. 8, 1990. -
11003
P071
509 end deb is
June 8,1991.
11003
P071
All othe
June 8. 1989.
11004
P07
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
U005
P073
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
11008
P074
MI
June8 . 1989.
11006
P075
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
1)007
P076
All
Aug. 8, 1990.
1)007
P077
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
11008
POTS____
All
Aug.8. 1990.
11009
P081
All
Aug.8 . 1990.
U010____
P0R2
All
Aug. 8, 1990.
11010
P084
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
11011
P085
SOIl end detifts.
June 8, 1991.
11011
P085
All others............
June 8. 1989.
11012
P087
All
May6, 1992.
1)014
P088
All
Aug. 8, 1990.
1)014
P089
So8anddebns..
June 8, 1991.
1)015
P089
All other .............
June 8. 1969.
1)015
P092......_....
High mer ty
non.
waslewater
MayO, 1992.
1)016
1)017
U017
P092__......
Low mer ay
non.
wastewat e r
May 8. 1992.
1)018
1 1019
U020___
P092. .___
All othwa............
Aug. 8, 1990.
1)020
P093-
SoIl and detins..
May 6. 1992.
11021
P093
M I others............
Aug. 8, 1990.
U021
P094
Sod and detins.
June 8. 1991.
U023_____
P094
All others............
June 8, 1989.
1)023
P095
Sod and deb a .
May 8. 1992.
U024_____
P095
P096
*11 others. . ...........
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug 8. 1990.
1)025
1)026
P097
Sod and debns_
June 8. 1991.
1)026
P097
All others.._......
June 8. 1989.
UOV_____
P098
All .
June 8, 1989.
1)028
P099 (&ver
Wastewator_
Aug. 9. 1990.
11028
P099
Wastewator_
June 8, 1989.
U029_____
(cyanides).
1)030
P099
Nonwastewater.
June 8, 1989.
1)081
(cyamde s/
U 032
atvw
1)033
P101
P102
All
All
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
11003
1)034
P103
All
Aug.8 .1990.
1)034
P104 (sitver)...
Westewat&_
Aug. 8, 1990.
1)035
P104
Waatewater_
June 8, 1989.
1)035
(cya des ) .
1)038
P104
Nonwastewater,
June 8, 1989.
11037
(cyanidee/
1)038
—.
P105
All
Aug. 8. 1990.
U03&__
1)039
P106
All
June8 , 1989
1)041
P108
Sod and detins..
May 8. 1992.
11041
P108
AU othe’s.........._.
Aug. 8. 1990.
11042
P109..
Sod and detina...
June 8. 1991
1)042
-..
P100__..
All othecs....._
June 8, 1989.
1)043
‘
M I
Sod and debfls
AU otheni._____
AU
AD
M I
An
Sod and de&
AU othevs.._
Sod and dob ls
AU others.._
* 3
AD
All
All
All
All
All
Sod and detirts
AN others.....
All
AU
Sod and debits..
All othere......_
Sod and debits
All others._
All
AU
Sod and
All others..._
Sod and datins.
AU othere..._....
All
Sod and debne..
AU other,._.........
Sod and debits.
All others__
An
Sod and debits.
All others............
* 3
AU
Sodanddebns
AU othere_
Sod and debda
All others............
AN
All
All
All
Sodanddetins.
*3
All
Sod and debns. .
*9 others__
AD
AN
All
All
Sod and detins..
All others............
Sodanddetins
All others............
Sodanddebns.
All others._._
All
All
Sod and debris..
All others_
AN
Sod and debris -
All othevs.._......
Sod and debris..
AU otheni......_.....
All —
Aug. 8. 1990.
June 8. 1991.
Juno8. 1989.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Maya, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 6, 1990.
Aug.8 , 1980.
June 8, 1989.
Aug.8 , 1990.
Aug.8 , 1990.
Aug. 8. 1890.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 0 , 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 0 , 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Maya. 1992.
Aug. 9, 1990.
MayO. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug.8, 1990.
MayO, 1992.
Aug. 0, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayO, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 0.1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8.1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug 8, 1990.
May 9. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1980.
Aug. 8, 1990.
June 8. 1991.
June 8, 1988
Aug. 8, 1890.
Aug. 0. 1990..’
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug.8, 1990
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May O. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 0, 1992.
Aug.8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayO. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
11044
11045
11048
1 )048
11047 _______
11048
11049
11049
11050
11051
11052
11053
11055
1)058 _______
11057
11058
11058 _______
11059 -
11059 _______
11060 _______
U060 ______
11061 _____
U061 ______
U062______
11062
1)063 _______
1)064 ______
11066
11087
1 1068 ______
11069
U069 _______
11070 _______
11071 _______
11072 _______
11073
1)073 ______
11074 ______
11074 ______
11075 _______
11078 _______
1)077 ______
11078 _______
11079 ______
1)080 ______
11081 ______
11082 ______
11084 _______
(JOBS _______
11086
11087
11087 ______
11088
11088 _______
1)089 _______
1)090 ______
1)091 _______
u091 _______
11092 _______
(1092
11093
11093 _____
1)094 _______
11095. .
11095 _______
1 1096_ .
l )097..__
1)097
11098
1)099
11101.. .
1)102
U102
11103
AN Aug.8.1990.
* 9 Aug.8.1990.
Sod and debrts_ May 9.1992.
All others............ Aug. 8, 1990.
All Aug.8.1990.
All Aug. 8. 1990.
Sod and debris.. Maya. 1992.
All cthers......... . Aug. 8. 1990.
All Aug.8 .1990.
All Aug. 8. 1990.
AU Aug. 8, 1990.
All Aug.&1990.
All Aug. 8. 1990.
AN Aug.8. 1990
All A ug.6 , 1990.
Sodanddebris.. June 8. 1992.
AU others._ June 8, 1989
Sod arid debris.. MayO. 1992.
All others........... Aug. 9. 1990 ,-
Scdanddebris.. MayO. 1992.
All others_ Aug. 9. 1990.
Sodanddebns. May&1992.
All others.......... Aug. 9. 1990
Sod and debits.. May 8. 1992.
All others._........ Aug. 8. 1990.
All Aug-B. 1990
All Aug. 8. 1990.
All Aug.8.1990
All Aug.8, 1990.
All Aug. 8, 1990
Sod and debris . June 8. 1991
All others.......... June 8. 1989
At Aug.8.199 0
AU_.. . ......._ Aug. 8. 1990
All Aug.8,1990
Sod and debris.. May 8. 1992
All others Aug. 0, 1990
Sod and debris.. MayO, 1992
All others Aug. 8. 1990
All Aug. 9. 1990
All Aug.8.1990
AU Aug. 8. 1990.
AU _. Aug.8. 1990
All Aug. 8. 1990
AlL. . Aug. 8. 1990
All... — Aug. 8. 1990
All Aug.8.1990
All Aug. 8. 1990
All Aug. 8. 1990
All .. Aug.8. 1990
A n.. Aug. 8. 1990.
Sod and debris — June 9, 1991
AU other,._ June 8. 1989.
Sod and debris.. June 9, 1991
All other’- June 0, 1989
All.. Aug. 8, 1990
All _______. Aug.8. 1990
Sod arid Debris.. May 8, 1992.
AU others Aug. 8. 1990
Sod arid debris... May 8. 1992.
All others.......... Aug 8, 1990
Sod and debris.... May 8. 1992.
All others.......... Aug. 8. 1990
All _Aug.9. 1990
Sod and debris... May 8.1992.
All others....... .. Aug. 8. 1990
A1l ..................... . . . .. Aug. 8. 1990
Sod and debris.. May 8. 1992.
AU others . Aug. 8. 1990
AU Aug.8.1990
Ml____ Aug 8. 1990
All........................ Aug. 8, 1990.
Soil and debris... June 8, 1991
AN olfiers_... Juno 8. 1989
All ..... . ..... . ... .. , Aug 8. 1990
-------
22713
Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 106 / Friday, Tune 1, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX VIU—NATIONAI. CAPACTY LDR VARIANCES FOR UIC WASTES ‘Comprehensive List
Waste code waste category I Efledve date
J AU spent Foo1- oOs sotvent con uw ’g less than 1 percent Augi t 8,1990
total FO01-F005 soI nt consotuents.
APPENDIX VIL—E €cT1vE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN THE LDRs ‘—Continued
(Co.rereItener e Osli
APPENDIX V1L—EFFECT1vE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGIR.AT-
ED IN THE LDRs ‘—Contir*aed
w68ts cede
Wssw nd ’ y
Etfecth’e da
W s code
waste cotegory
Ef!
APPEN0IX VIL—E EcT1vE DATES OF
SURFACE DISPOSED WASTES REGULAT-
ED IN ThE LDRS ‘—Contnued
(Ce ehe’ A La*3
0105
uioe
U107
UI07
UIo8
‘Ulog
UI 10
UI 10
Ui 11
UI 12
UI 13
UI 14
Ui 14
UI 15
UI 16
UI 16 ______
UI 17
UI 18
UI 19
U119
0120
0121
U122
U123
0124
U125
0128
U 127
0129
0129
U130
U130 -
0131
0132
U132
0133
0134
0135
U138
0136
0137
0138
0140
U141
0142
0143
U 143
U144
U 14 5
U148
U147
U148
U148
U149
U 148
U 150
UI 50
0151
0151 —
UI t
01 51
0152
U153 _____
Waste code
West. y
Eftecte. date
0206
AU othera..____
Aug. 5. 1990.
1990.
U2 07____
AU
Aug.
8. 1990.
0208
AU
Aug.
1990.
0209
Aug.
0210.
AU
Aug .B.199 0.
0211
AU
Aug.8.1990.
1990.
0213
AU
Aug. 8.
8. 1990.
0214
Aug.
1990.
0215
AU
Aug. 6.
0216
All
Aug.8 . 1990
1990
U217
AU
Aug.
1992.
.0218
Sod and
May
1990.
0218
others—
Aug.
U219____
Sodandde8es...
May8,1992.
1990
0219
AU others
Aug.
0220
A U
Aug.8.1990
,iune 1991.
U221
and
0221
AU others_____
June 8.
0222
Sod and debris...
May 8, 1992.
0222
AU cthers..____
Aug. 8.
1991.
U2Z3
SoIl and debris ...
1980.
0229
AU others
June 8,
1990.
0225
AU
Aug. 8.
8. 1990.
U226
Aug.
0227
Aug.6.1990
1990
0228
All ..__ .
Aug. 8.
1992.
0234
Sod arid debris...
May 8.
1990.
0234
All others
Aug.
1991
0235
0235 ——
AU ctherL......._
June 8,
U236_
Sodariddubris.
May 8,1992.
1990.
0238
AU others__..._
Aug 8,
1992
0237
Sod and debris....
May
1990
0237
AU others...........
Aug.
1992.
0238
Soil arid debris..
May 8.
8. 1990
U238
AU othevs-. . ... . .
Aug.
1990.
0239
Aug.
1992.
0240
Sod and debris...
May 9,
U240
AU othevs_.__ .
Aug. 8.
8, 1990
0243
Aug.
1992
0244
and
May
8, 1990.
U24.4
others.. . ._.
Aug.
1990
U246
All
Aug. 8.
1890.
U247
All.....
Aug.
9. 1990.
0248
All
Aug.
8. 1990
0249.
Aug.
AU
AU
Sod vi debre . .
AU oeriers
A t
Al
Sot arid debes..
AU otIlevS_._
IN
A t
AU
Sot and debris -
AU otheIs-
AU
Sod and debris..
AU othe,$.._____
AU
AU
Sot and debea
AU Omors-_....—
AU
Al
AU
Al
AU
AU
AU
AU
Ad
AU
Sod arid debiis
AU othera.... . .
AU
Sod and debris...
Ad ouiers..........
AU...
AU
AU
Waalewat e r . . . .. . ....
Nonwestewater -
All
AU
AU
All
All
Sol and debris...
M I otherS__
A l
MI
AU
Al..
Sod and debea
All others... ..
Sod and debda . .
AU othera..............
Sod arid debris..
AU others . .._.......
Hgfl merc
noq
wastewader.
Low meroisy
no
wastewater.
Sod and debris..
All others
All
Sod and dabns
Aug. 8 . 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Jw*3. 1991.
Jwie8 . 1989.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8,1990.
Aug. 5.1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1902.
Aug. 3. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8.1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1890.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1890.
Aug. 8.1990.
Aug. & 1990.
Aug.8 , 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 3. 1990.
Aug.8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1890.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8.1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8 , 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8,1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8,1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 3.1892.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8,1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 5. 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayO, 1992.
May 8.1992.
MayS, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Mey8, 1992.
0153
U154
0155
0158
UI 56
0157
0156
U159
U160
U161
0162
0163
0163
0164
0164
U16 5
U186_____
U167
0167
0168
0168
0169
U170 ______
0171
0171
U172
0173
0173
0174
U176
0178
0177
0177
0178
IJ173
0179
0180
0181
0182
0183
0184
0184
0185
U186
0187
0188
U189
0190
0190
Ulgi ______
0191
0192
0193
0193
U194
U194
U196
0197 —
u200
- 0200
0201
0202
0202
0203
0204
0205
0206
AU
AU
AU
Sot and detile
Al oU1er ._
A l
Al
AU
AU
A l
Al
Sot and debris
At odtars..._
Sot and debns
AU
AU
f r i
Sod and debs i s
At others_
Sod arid deb,1 s
At othee._ . . . .
At
AU
Sod and debris
A U others........__
AU
Sod and de e ds
Ad other’
Al
Soil arid debris...
At otherL__.___
Sod and de6rie. .
AU othecs............
Sod arid deCne
All others.___
Al
AU
All
Ad
All
Sod and deøns
Ml ottters.._.._.._
At
All
Ad
AU
Ml
Sod and deeds..
Ml others . ......... —
Sod and debrIs..
AU
All
Sod and debris..
All othars.. . .._
SoIanddebns
All others.............
All
All
Sot and debris...
All others.....___
AU
Sot and
All others
All
All
All
Sod anddebda
Aug. 9, 1990
Aug. 9, 1900.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8,1992.
Aug. 9, 1900.
Aug .8 , 1900.
Aug. 8. 1000.
Aug. 9, 1900.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Avg. 9, 1990.
Aug. 9, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
M44 1990.’
May 8, 1092.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug.8 , 1990.
Aug. 9, 1890.
May 8. 1992.
Aug.8 , 1990.
May8, 1992.
Aug.8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1890.
Aug.8. 1990.
May 8.1992.
Aug.8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8.1992.
Av o .8 199O.
Mig. 8, 1990.
Iky S , 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8, 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Mg. 8, 1990.
Aug. 9, 1990.
Aug. 9, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Mg. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayO, 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 9, 1990.
Mg. 9. 1990.
Mg. 8. 1990.
Mg. 8. 1990.
June 8. 1991.
June 8. 1989.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8, 1990.
May 8,1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May & 1992.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
MayO, 1992.
Avg. 8, 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8. 1992.
Aug. 9. 1990.
Aug. 8. t990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
Aug. 8. 1990.
May 8, 1992.
• T?es table does not c1ude rnrsed isdiosceve
wOStOS (from 9,e F rs*. Second. and Thud Third
rules) wPiiCh are recervalg a naflonal capacity van-
arice und) May 8, 1992 for all applicable treatment
tOCfl 3 are beuig promulgated for 1,I.2.lnch..
foroetharre and 2.rstrcpropane (or wastewaters and
nonw astewater s.
Standards ore being promulgated for berizeno
anq 2 .ethoayethaflol for wa tew3ter$ and non-
w etewale(
‘Treatment standards for nonwastewaters dIe.
posed 04 after June 8. 1989; were promulgated Juno
3,1989 -
• Treatment stardards for nonwaslewaters dIe-
sed of alter August 17, 1988, wee promulgated
Noter The table is prowded for the convenience
of the reader.
17. AppendIx VIII is added to part 288.
to read as follows:
-------
Federal Register I VoL 55, No. 108 I Friday, June 1, 1990 I Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX Vill—NAT1ONAt. CAPACITY LOR VARIANCES FOR UIC WAS ES’ Ust—Contirwed
22719
West. code
Waste ie y
EffectIve dale
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follow8:
Authorfty 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912. 8924. 6925.
6927, 6939, and 6974.
Subpart 0—Changes to Permit
2. SectIon 270.42, appendIx I Is
amended by redesignating item 8(1)(b)
as B(1)(c), and adding Item B(1)(b) as
follows:
* 270.42 PermIt modification at the
request of the permlttee.
• • * * •
APPENDIX I TO SECTION 270.42—
i .ASSIF1CAT1ON OF PERMrr MoDu! ICA1,oN
Modi6ca t Ion
au
• • • I
•
Facility $tandaids
b. To ,n.. oo1ate changes aseociat.
ed wan F039 (muStI.sowce I .
atel sampling or anaI eis methods....
• . . I
I
a
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a), and 6926
Subpart A-Requirements for Final
Authorization
2. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication in the Federal Register
*271.1 Purpose and scope.
• . I I *
(ii • •
TASLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTiNG ThE HAzARDouS iio Souo WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
PromulgatIon date Title of regulatIon
Federal Register reference
Effective date
June 1, 1990 Land Disposal Restrictions for Thud Thud wastes
..... (insert page numbersl
May 8. 1990
3. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
revising the entry for May 8, 1990 In
Table 2 to read as follows:
§ 271.1 Purpose and Scope.
• * I I S
(j) * •
Uqrid hazardous wastes, kictuding free U sds amocmted with
any solid or abjdge. i1tel stig free cyanides at concenUe
Sons eater Sian or egul to 1.000 mg/I, or containing
- certain metals or compounds of these metals oater than or
— to the twct illlidon I e4s.
U ad hazardous waste havrig a pH less their or equal to 2_
Hazardous wastes ccrileuang HOC Ii total ui,ncenfrallons less
tIwa 10,000 mg/i bid waster than or equal to 1,000 mg/I.
00 02b_____________________________ AS__________________________________________
0003 (cyai des) AS
0003 (sr4fldes) AS
0003 (esploarvos, roacSves) All
D007__________________________________ AS
0009 Hgh Merouiy Nonwestowater_______
0009 Low Memsy Nonwasfewaler
FOIl________________ AU
_____________________ Wu stvwat er
1(009 Wastewater
1(011 ___________________________ Nonwastewater
1(011 Wastewater
1(013 Nonwastewater
K013____________________________ Wastawaler
1(014 All _____________________________________________
1 (016 (dilute) AU
1(048 All
1(049 All________________________________________
1(050 AS________________________________________
1(051 AU
1(052 .AU______________________
___________________ All__________________________
1(071 ______________________________ All__________________________________________
1(104 All______________________________________
‘Wastes that are deep well disposed on-dte receive a scc monUi vanarice. with restrIctIons effectIve in November 1990.
Deepwell sTected 0002 liquids with a pH less Stan 2 must meet Ste California List treannent standards on August 8. 1990
Notei This table is provided for Vie coiweruence of the reader.
August 0. 1990.
August 9. 1990.
August B, 1990
May 0,1992.
May 8, 1992.
MayO, 1992.
MayO. 1992.
MayO, 1992.
MayO, 1992.
May 8. 1992.
June 8. 1991.
MayO, 1992.
June 8. 1991.
Jun08. 1991.
Maya, 1992.
June 8, 1991.
May 8,1992
May 0, 1992.
June 8. 1991.
August 8, 1990.
August 8. 1990.
August 8. 1990.
August 0. 1990.
August 8. 1990.
August 8, 1990.
August 8. 1990.
August 8. 1990.
-------
flO Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 106 / Friday. June 1. 1990 I Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTiNG PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS t O SCUD WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
EMeedve I Setf. mptementfng p,uw on RCRA dtadon
May 8, isso I depoSal V of 30044 (8J(C)
dwaste& I
I Federal Regtstar reference
(June 1, 1990 and page flWYIbers 01
I document]
PART 302—DESIGNATION, Authority: Sec. 102 of the Comprehensive
REPORTABLE QUANTITiES, AND Environmental Response. Compensation, and
NOTiFiCATION Liability Act of 1980.42 U.S.C 9602 sacs. 311
and 50 1( 5) of the Federal Water PoUutlon
1. The authority citation for part 302 Control Act. 33 U.S.C 1321 and 1381.
continues to read as follows:
2. Section 302.4 Is amended by adding
under the column Hazardoua
Substance” and adding as the flint
footnote, footnote t to read as follows.
Footnotes I • and 4 are republished.
*302.4 Destgnatlofl of Hazardous
Substances.
the following entry In alphabetical order
* •
•
Kamalous Substance CASRN Re dausy Synonyms
RO
Stauatoiy FnoJ RO
RCRA
Cadet Waste Cat
Number egory
• . I • .
Multi Source Leachate_____________________________________________ II
• . .. • .
I •
4 F039 X 1(0454)
.
cates the statut y source as defined by 1.2. 3 and 4 below.
4—IndIcates that the statutosy source for deagnation of thIs hazaidous substance under CE CLA is RCRA SectIon 3001.
1—lndicatea that the 1.pcund RO Is aCE CLA smtutciy RQ
(FR Doc. 90-12028 Filed 5-31-90: &45 am)
LuNG 0005 6G4O
-------
I I I
-------
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDRs)
APPENDICES
A-i: Type of LDR Restriction in Effect for Each RCRA Hazardous
Waste Code
A-2/A-3: Treatment Standards and Effective Dates for Solvent- and
Dioxin-Containing Wastes and California List Wastes
A-4: Treatment Standards and Effective Dates for First, Second,
and Third Third Wastes
A-5: Treatment Standards and Effective Dates for F039 Multi-
Source Leachate
JUNE 1990
* * * DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
Note: This Document Has Not Been Reviewed By EPA. Please Refer to
Revised 40 CFR Part 268 To Verify All In formation
-------
APPENDIX A-i
1YPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR
EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE
A- 1(a) - Characteristic, Solvent- and Dioxin-Containing, and First, Second, and Third
Third Wastes
A-2(b) - California List Wastes
JUNE 1990
* *DRA DO NQT CITE OR QUOTE * *
-------
APPEND fl u A-I (a)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Waste Code 23 Type ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted’
7 tpe of Restriction
Comments
CHARACTERISTIC WASTES (40 CFR 281.21.24)
0001 All, except as noted below
Ignitable Wastes
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extensioni Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0002 All, except as noted below
Corrosive Wastes
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90 - 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0003 All, except as noted below
Reactive Wastes
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0004 Nonwastewaters
Arsenic
5/8/90 - 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/ Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires Mayo, 1992
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards. concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
NatIonal Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires MayO, 1992
inorganic solid debris
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
NatIonal Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0005 All, except as noted below
Barium
inorganic soild debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-i(e)2
Waste code” 3
Type 4 ’ ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
0006
Cadmium
A1 , except as noted below
Cadmium batteries
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Fins!, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
inorganic solid debris
5/8/90 - 518192
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0007
Chromium
All, except as noted below
inorganic solid debris
8/8/90
518190- 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
D008
Lead
All, except as noted below
Lead materials before
secondary smelting
8/8/90
5/8/90 - 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Inorganic solid debris
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires Mayo, 1902
*Resfr cUon in effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-i(e).3
Waste CodeZ 3
Type 4 ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted’
Type of Restriction
Comments
0009
Mercury
Nonwastewaters with high
mercury (> 260 mg/kg)
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters 4th low
mercury (< 260 mg/kg)
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
NatIonal CapacIty Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and Debris
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expIres May 8, 1992
Inorganic solid debris
•
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
National Capacity Exlenslon/ Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0010
Selenium
A /i, except as noted below
inorganic solid debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
NatIonal Capacity Extensioni Minimum
Technology Requirements
Fine!, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0011
Silver
All, except as noted below
inorganic solid debris
8/8/90
5 18/90 - 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/ Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0012
End,in
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90 - 5/8/92
National Capacity Extenslon/ Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Waste CodeZS
1ype 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
0013
Lindane
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
‘518190 - 5/8/92
NatIonal Capacity Extension! MThimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0014
Methoxyclor
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
‘5/8/90 - 5/8/92
NatIonal Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0015
Toxaphene
Nonwastewaters
Wastewators
8/8/90
8/8190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil end debris
‘518/90 - 5/8/92
National Capacity Extensioni Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0016
2,4-0
Nonwastewaters
Wastewsters
8/8190
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 - 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/ Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0017
2,4,5-TP Silvex
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
‘5/8/90 - 5/8/92
NatIonal Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
aRest ction in effect for period noted. * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION’ * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
7YPE OF LDR RESTRICI1ON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCR.4 HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-I(a).5
Waste Code 2 ’ 3 Type” Dates Restricted 7 Type of Restriction Comment.
USTED WASTES (40 CFR 261.31-.33)
F001 -F005 All, except as noted below 11/8/86 - Final Treatment Standards Final, unless standards revised
Spent Solvents
So Went wastes from small
11/8/88 - Final
Treatment Standards
Final, unless standards revised
quantity generators (SQGs)
(>100 kg/month and <1000
*1118/86 - 11/8/88
National Capacity Extension!
kg/month)
Minimum Technology Requirements
Solvent wastes generated
11/8/88- Final
Treatment Standards
Final, unless standards revised
from CERCLA/RCRA
corrective actions (except
*11/8/86 - 11/8/88
National Capacity Extension!
contamInated soil and debris)
Minimum Technology Requirements
initial generator’s solvent-
11/8/88 -,Final
Treatment Standards
Final, unless standards revised
water mixtures, solvent-
•
containing siudges or solids,
*11/8/86 - 11/8/88
National Capacity Extension!
or non-CERCLA/RCRA
Minimum Technology Requirements
corrective action soils with <
1 percent total (F001-F005)
solvent constituents
Soil and debris from
11/8/88
National Capacity Extension!
Extension expires 11/8/00
CERCLA/RCRA corrective
Minimum Technology Requirements
actions
F002 nonwastewaters and
8/8/90
Treatment Standards
Finai, unless standards revised
wastewaters (1,1,2-
trichioroethane and 2-
nltropropane)
F005 nonwastewaters and 8/8/90 Treatment Standards Final, unless standards revised
wastewaters (benzene and 2-
ethoxyathanol)
* Restriction in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * 6
-------
APPENDIX A.1 (a) (conflnued)
1PE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(a).6
Waste Code ’ 3
Type” 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
T)’peot Restriction
Comment.
F006
Electroplating
wastes
Nor,wastewaters
Nonwastewatera (Cyanldes)
818/88
7/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewatere
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
8 18 188 - 5/8/90
Soft hammer previsions
F007
Electroplating
wastes
All
7/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels or
National Capacity Extension/MInImum Technology
Requirements (for underground injected wastes)
Final, unless standards revised;
extensIon expires June 8, 1991, for
underground Infection only
8/8/88 - 7/8/89
Soft hammer provisions
F008
Electroplating
wastes
All
718/89
6/8 189 -718189
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Minimum Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
8/8/88 - 6/8/89
Soft hammer provisions
F009
Electroplating
wastes
.4J 1
7/8/89
*6/8/89 - 7/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
MinImum Technology Standards
Final, unless standards revised
8/8/88 - 6/8/89
Soft hammer provisions
FOlO
Metal heat-treating
wastes
-
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6/8/89 - 6/8/91
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
Restriction in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF WR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZ4RDOUS WASTE CODE’
A -I(s).?
Waste Code 2 ’ 3
Type 6
Dates Restricted 1
Type of Restriction
Comments
FOIl
Metal heat-treating
wastes
Nonwastewaters
12/8/89
Final Treatment Standards - concentration levels
(110mg/kg for total cyanides and 9 1 mg/kg for
amenable cyanides)
Final, unless standards mv/sod
7/8/89 - 12/8/89
Interim Treatment Standards - FOOT, F008, arid
F009 nonwastowater standards (i.e.. 590 mg/kg
for total cyonides arid 30 mg/kg for amenable
cyanides)
6/8/89 - 7/8/89
Minimum Technology Requirements
Wasfewafers
7/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revIsed
6/8189 - 7/8189
MInimum Technology Requirements
F012
Metal heat-treating
wastes
Nonwastewaters
12/8/89
Final Treatment Standards - concentration levels
(110mg/kg for total cyarildes and 9.1 mg/kg for
amenable cyanides)
Final, unless standards revised
7/8/89 - 12/8/89
Interim Treatment Standards - FOOT, F008, and
F009 nonwastowater standards ( e., 590mg/kg
for total cyanldes and 30 mg/kg for amenable
cyanides)
*618189 - 7/8/89
MinImum Technology Requirements
Wastewaters
7/8/89
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
6/8189 - 7/8/89
Minimum Technology Requirements
F019
Aluminum coating
wastes
All
8/8/90
818 188 - 518190
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
* Restriction in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * a
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
IYPE OF [ DR RESTRICI1ON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-lfr).8
Waste codeZ 3
Type 45 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
F020-F023
All, except as noted below
11/8/88
Treatment Standards
Final, unless standards revised
Dioxin wastes from
chlorophenol and
Soil and debris from
*11/8/88 - 11/8/90
National Capacity ExtensIon!
Extension expires Nov. 8, 1990
chlorobenzene
CERCLA/RCRA corrective
Minimum Technology Requirements
production
actions
F024
All, except as noted below
6/8/89 - Final
Treatment Standards- concentration levels and
Final, unless standards revised
Chlorinated
specified technology
Afiphatic
Hydrocarbon
6/8/895 /8/9O
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
production wastes
Nonwastewaters (metals)
Soil and debris
8/8/90
6f8/896/8/91
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
F025
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Condensed light
.
(newly listed waste)
ends, spent filters
and filter aids, and
Soil and debns
5/8I9Q5/8l92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Extension expires May 8, 1992.
spent desiccant
Requirements
wastes from the
production of
certain chlorinated
aliphatics
F026-028
All, except as noted below
11/8/88
Treatment Standards
Final, unless standards revised
Dioxin wastes from
chiomphenol and
Soil and debris from
1 1f8/88-1 1/8/90
National Capacity Extension!
Extension expIres Nov. 8. 1990.
chlorobenzene
CERCLAIRCRA corrective
Minimum Technology Requirements
production
actions
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * **
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
JYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).9
Waste Code 2 ’ 3
Typo 4 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
F039
Multi-source
leachate
Nonwastewaters
•5/8/9 5/8I92
5/8/92 - Final
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Extension expires May 8, 1992.
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8 192
National Capacity ExtenslonlMlnlmum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992.
KOOl
Wood presert’lng
wastes
All, except as noted below
Organics
818/88
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - revised concentration
levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*8/8 /8&8 18 19 0
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires Aug. 8, 1990.
K002
Chrome yellow and
orange pigment
production wastes
All
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentratIon levels
Final, unless standards revised
K003
Molybdate orange
pigment production
wastes
All
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
K004
Zinc yellow
pigment production
wastes
Nonwastewaters
Wastawaters
8/8/90
a8/8 /886/8 189
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
•8 /8 1885 18/9o
Soft hammer provisions
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * a
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
1YPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-I(s). 10
Waef, CodeZ 3
Type 8
Datee Restricted 7
Type of Reef rid Ion
Comments
K005
Nonwastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Chrome green
pigment production
Nonwastewaters disposed of
wastes
after June 8, 1989
*6/81895/8190
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
K006
All
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Chrome oxide
green pigment
production wastes
K007
Nonwastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Iron blue pigment
production wastes
Nonwastewaters disposed of
after Juno 8, 1989
*6 18/895/8/go
.
Treatment Standards - no iand disposal
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
K008
Nonwastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Green pigment
chrome oxides
8/8/88-6/8 189
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
production wastes
Wastewaters
8(8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
8/8/88-5/8/9 0
Soft hammer provisions
K009
Nonwastowaters
6(8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Acetaldehyde
production wastes
Wastawaters
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised;
extension expires June 8, 1991, for
underground injection onty
Soil and debris
6/8/89-6/8/91
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires June 8, 1991
Restrfction in effect for period noted •• • DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A.1 (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(a).11
Waste Code ’ 3
Type ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
KOlO
Acetaldehyde
production wastes
AII except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6/8/89-6/8/91
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity ExtensIon/Minimum Technology
Requfrements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
1(011
Acrylonitrile
production wastes
Nonwastowatera
6/8/89
818 188-618/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewat era
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
•818 1885/8190
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*6/8/89 6/8/91
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expfres June 8, 1991
K013
Acry lonltrlle
production wastes
Nor,wastewaters
6/8/89
*8 18 18&6/8 189
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
8/8 188-5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
a6/8 18 96/8/91
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
1(014
Aciylonit n le
production wastes
Nonwasfeweters
6/8/89
•8/8I8 6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Fine!, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
*8/8 18&5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
6/8/89
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
Restriction in effect (or period noted. * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
1YPE OF WR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A- i(s). 12
Waste Code 2 ”
Type 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K015
Nonwastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Benzyl chloride
distillation wastes
818188-5/2/89
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Wastewate,s
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
*8/8/895/2/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soil and debris
*5/ /9(j.5/ /9
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K016
All, except as noted below
8/8/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Carbon
Tetrachioride
Soil and debris
8/8/88
National Capacity Extension!
Extension expires Aug. 8, 1990
production wastes
-
818/90
Minimum Technology Requirements
K017
All, except as noted below
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Ep lchlomhydrin
production wastes
8/8/88-518190
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
a5/8/90 5,8/92
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
K018
All, except as noted below
8/8188
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Ethyl chloride
production wastes
Soil and debris
8/8188
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expIres Aug. 8, 1990
K019
All, except as noted below
818188
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Ethylene dichloride
production wastes
Soil and debris
8!8 188-8 18190
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires Aug. 8, 1990
K020
All, except as noted below
8/8/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Vinyl chloride
production wastes
Soil and debris
‘
8/8/88-8(8/9 0
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires Aug. 8. 1990
*pes cUon in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * a
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a * a
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
IYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).13
West. Codo ’ 3
Type 4 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K021
Fluommethanos
production wastes
Nonwastowaters
Nonwastewaters disposed of
after August 17. 1988
8/8/90
*5/2/89 .5/a/go
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters (all)
*8/8/88.5/2/89
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards- concentration leve/s
Final, unless standards revised
*8/8/88.5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K022
Phenol/acetone
production wastes
Nonwastewaters
Wastewateis
8/8/88
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Finai, unless standards revised
*8 18/88 .5/8/go
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*8 18/88 .818/go
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires Aug. 8, 1990
K023
Phthailc anhydnde
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6/8/89.6/8/9 1
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Eitension expIres June 8, 1991
K024
Phtha/ic anhydride
production
wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/88
8/8/88-8 18/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Aug. 8, 1990
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
•• * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
IYPE OF [ DR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A.1(a). 14
Waste Code 23
Type ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K025
Nifrobenzone
production wastes
Nonwastewaters
Nonwastewaters disposed of
alter August 17, 1988
8/8/90
*512189518190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters (all)
*8/8/89 5/2/89
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
6/8 189-5 18/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil end debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K026
Methyl ethyl
pyridines
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8190
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K027
Toluene
d:Isocyanate
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6 18/896 18 191
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
K028
1,1,1—
Trichloroethane
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Nonwastewaters (metals)
Soil and debris
6/8/89
8/8/90
a6 18/896/8/91
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
* Restriction in effect br period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * **
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
1YPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(e).15
Waste Code 23
T ’pe 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Commente
K029
1,1,1-
Trfchloroethane
production wastes
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
6/8/89
8/8/90
*616189.518190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards rovfsed
Final, unless standards revised
Soil end debris
*618189.6/8/91
National Capacity ExtensioniMinimum Technology
Requirements
ExtensIon expires June 8, 1991
K030
Trlchloroethyiene &
perchloro ethyl one
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/88
8 18/88-8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expIres Aug. 8, 1990
K03 1
MSMA & cacodylic
acid production
wastes
Nonwastewators
*5/819(1.5/8/92
5/8/90 - Final
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards. concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
All
*8/8/88.5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8/9(1.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K032
Chlordane
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil arid debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9(1.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K033
Chiordane
production wastes
All, except as noted beiow
Soil and debris
8/8190
*5/8)9(1.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8. 1992
* Restriction In effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
è * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMAT iON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (contInued)
JYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Waste CodoZS
Type 4 ’ 5 ’ 6
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K034
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Chiordane
production wastes
Soil and debris
5l8 190-518l92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K035
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
Treatment technology - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Creosote
production wastes
*8/8/88.518190
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
5/8/90-518 192
National Capacity ExtenslonlMinimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K036
Nonwastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Disulfoton
production wastes
Nonwastewalers disposed of
after August 17, 1988
*5/2/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Nonwastewaters (all)
8/8/88-512/89
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Wastewaters
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final unless standards revised
*8/8/88.6/8189
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
•5/8/9()5 18 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K037
All, except as noted below
818/88
Treatment Standards - concentratIon levels
Final, unless standards revised
Dlsulfoton
production wastes
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - revised concentration
Final, unless standards revised
levels
Soil and debris
*8/8/88. 8/8/90
National Capacity ExtensIon/MinImum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres Aug. 8, 1990
• Restriction in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CifE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
IYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(a). 17
Waste Code 2 ’ 3
Type 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K038
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Phorate production
wastes
So,! and debris
6/8/89 6I8/9l
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
K039
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Phorate production
filter cakes
Soil and debris
*6/8/89.6/8/91
National Capacity ExtensIon/MInImum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
K040
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Phorate production
wastes
Soil and debris
*6/8/89.6/8/91
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires June 8, 1991
K041
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Toxaphene
production wastes
*6/8/89.5/8/go
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8/g() .5 18/92
National Capacity Estonslon/
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K042
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
2,4,5-T production
wastes
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8/9()5 18/92
National Capacity Extenslon/
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K043
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
2,4-0 production
wastes
Soil and debris
*6/8/89.6/8/91
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires June 8, 1991
* Restriction In effect (or period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMA TION *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
fPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCR.4 HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a). 18
Waste Code 23
Type 5
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K044
Explosives
production wastes
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8 (8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5 (8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires MayO, 1992
K045
Spent carbon from
explosives
treatment
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*8/8/88.5/8/90
*518 (90.518192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K046
Wastes from Lead-
based initiating
compounds
Nonreactive nonwastewaters
Reactive nonwastewaters
8/8/88
8/8/90
*8/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters (reactive and
nonreactive)
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
*8/8/88.5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
1 (047
TNT operations
waste
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8/88-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
• * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE Of LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Dates Restricted 7 Type of Restriction
A-I(a).19
Comments
Waste Code ’ 3
Type
K048
Petroleum refining
Industry wastes
Nonwastewaters
518/90 - 11/8/90
11/8/90 - Final
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Extension expires November 8. 1990
Rescheduled to Third Third nile; final,
unless standards revised
Wastewators
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Rescheduled to Third Third rule; final,
unless standards revised
Al!, except as noted below
*8/8/88 - 8/8/90
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Originally restricted in First Third rule
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 5/8I92
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K049
Petroleum refining
industry wastes
Nonwastewaters
*5/8/90 - 11/8/90
11/8/90 - Final
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Extension expires November 8, 1990
Rescheduled to Third Third nile; final,
unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Rescheduled to Third Third rule; final,
unless standards revised
All, except as noted below
*8/8/888 18 19o
National Capacity Extenslon/
Minimum Technology Requirements
Originally restricted in First Third nile
Soil and debns
*5/8/9f 5f8/92
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Dates Restricted’ Type of Restriction
A-1(e).20
Comment.
Waste CodeZS
Type 5 ’ 6
1 (050
Nonwastewaters
5/8/90 -11 18190
National Capacity Extenslon/
Extension expires November 8, 1090
Petroleum refining
Minimum Technology Requirements
Industry wastes
11/8/90 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Rescheduled to Third Third nile; final.
unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8(8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Rescheduled to Third Third nile; final,
unless standards revised
All, except as noted below
*8/e /888/8/90
National Capacity Extensloni
Minimum Technology Requirements
Originally restricted in First Third rule
Soil and debris
•5/9/9 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K051
Nonwastewutors
5/8/90- 1J18190
National Capacity Extenslon/
Extension expires November 8, 1990
Petroleum refining
Minimum Technology Requirements
industry wastes
11/8/90 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Rescheduled to Third Third nile; final,
unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Rescheduled to Third Third nile; final,
unless standards revised
All, except as noted below
*8/8/8 8I8/90
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
OrigInal 4’ restrIcted In First Third rule
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5 18/92
National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Restriction in effect for period noted.
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
i * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
TYPE OF 1.0
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
R RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).21
Waste CodeZS
Type 4 ’
Dates Resfrfcfed’ Type of Restriction
Comments
K052
Petroleum refining
Industry wastes
Nonwastewaters
*5/8/901 1/8/90 NatIonal Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
11/8/90 - Final Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Extension expires November 8, 1990
Rescheduled to Third Third rule; final,
unless standards revised
Wastewa tars
8/8/90 Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Rescheduled to Third Third nile; final,
unless standards revised
.411, except as noted below
*8/8/89 .8/8/go National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Originalfy restricted in First Third rule
Soil and debris
518/90-5/8/92 National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K060
Coking operations
wastes
Nonwastewaters
Nonwastewaters disposed of
after August 17, 1988
8/8/90 Treatment Standards - concentration levels
*512 18951819o Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters (all)
*8/8/88.5/2/89 Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Wastewaters
8/8/90 Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
*8/81995/8/90 Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debns
a5/s/9r)5/8 192 National Capacity Extension!
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
• RestrIction in effect for period noted * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZ RDOUS WASTE CODE’
A. 1(a).22
Waste CodeZS
Type
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment.
K061
Electric furnace
steel production
stes
Nonwastowaters - high zinc
(> 15 percent total zinc)
*8/8/88 - 8/8/91
8/8/91 - Final
Interim Treatment Standards - concentration
levels
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Until August 8, 1991
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters - low zinc
(< 15 percent total zinc)
8/8/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
*8/8/88 - 5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
K062
Steel finishing
spent pickle liquor
All
8/8/98
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
K069
Secondary teed
smelting stes
Nonwastewators cith calcium
sulfate
8/8/90
*8/8 /8&5 18 19 0
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters wIthout
calcium sulfate
8/8/90
*8I8 /8&5/8 190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters without
calcium sulfate disposed of
after August 17, 1988
*5/2/89.5/ 8190
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Nonwastewaters without
calcium sulfate (all)
*818188.512/89
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
8/8/88 - 5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
* Restriction in effect br period noted a a a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCR .A HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE
A-1(a).23
Waste Code 23
Type 4 ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
ff071
Chlorine production
wastes
All
*8/8/68 .8/8/90
8/8/90
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Extension expIres Aug. 8, 1990.
Final, unless standards revised
K073
Chlorine production
wastes
.41!, except as noted below
8/8/90
* 8 18/885 18/go
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*518/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K083
Aniline production
wastes
Nonwastowaters - no ash
(<001 percent total ash)
8/8/90
*8 18i895/2/8 9
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters with
detectable ash and
wastewaters
5/8/90
*8/8/88 - 5/2/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*8/8/88 - 5/2/89
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
ff084
Veter lnaiy
pharmaceuticals
productf on wastes
Nonwastewaters
*5/8/90.5/8/92
5/8/92 - Final
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
All
*8 18 1885/8/9o
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
• Restriction in effect (or period noted * * DRAFT 6/90- 00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE
• * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF [ DR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I(a).24
Waste CodeZ]
Typo 4 ’ ”
Dates Restricted’
Type of Restriction
Comments
1(085
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Chlorobenzene
production wastes
•8/8/895/8/9 0
Soft hammer provisions
So,! end debris
5 18/90-5/8 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1(086
Solvent washes, non-soil and
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - revised concentration
Final, unless standards revised
Ink production
debris
levels
wastes
8/8/88-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Solvent washes, soil and
debris
a8 18/888 18 19o
National Capacity Extension/
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires Aug. 8, 1990
Solvent sludges and caustic
water end sludge
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
8/8188-518 190
Soft hammer provisions
1(087
NI, except as noted below
8/8/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Coking operations
wastes
Soil and debns
*8/8/888 18 19Ø
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires Aug. 8, 1990
1(093
All, except as noted below
6/8189
Treatment Standards. concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Phtliaiic anhydildo
production wastes
Soil and debris
6 18 189-6 18 191
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
1(094
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Phthel,c enhydrida
production wastes
Soil and debris
*6 18/896 18 191
National CapacIty Extension/
Minimum Technology Requirements
Extension expires June 8, 1991
* RestrictIon in effect for period noted. * * DRAFT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A.1 (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCFL4 HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).25
Waste CodeZ 3
Type 4 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
1(095
1,1, 1-trlchloro-
ethane production
wastes
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
6/8/89
8/8/90
6 18/89 5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debils
6/8/89-6/8 191
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires June 8, 1991
1(096
1,1,1 trichloro-
ethane production
wastes
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
6/8/89
8/8/90
6/8 189-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a6/8/896/8/91
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
ExtensIon expIres June 8, 1991
K097
Chiordane
production wastes
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8I89 5/8f9O
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisIons
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debns
*5/8/9 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1(098
Toxaphene
production wastes
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8/89-5/8 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5 18/ 9 05i8 1g2
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
K099
2,4-0 production
wastes
All
8/8/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
FInal, unless standards revised
Restriction in effect for period noted
* * *0RAfl6/90 DONOTCITEORQUOTE*
a a *5EE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
rIPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I(a).28
Waste CodeZ 3
Type 4 5 b
Dales Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K100
Nonwastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Secondary lead
smelting wastes
Nonwastewaters disposed of
after August 17, 1988
*5/2/895/8/90
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Nonwaslewaters (all)
*8/8/8&5/2/89
Treatment Standards - no land disposal
Wastewaters
818/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
KIOl
Nonwaslewaters with hIgh
8/8/88
Soft hammer provisions
Effective until EPA sets treatment
Veterinary
arsenic ( 1 percent total
standards or May 8, 1990, when the
pharmaceuticals
arsenic)
hard hammer falls
production wastes
Nonwaslewaters (except for
soil and debris) with low
arsenic (< 1 percent total
arsenic)
8/8/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
Soil and debris with low
arsenic (< 1 percent total
arsenic)
8/8/88
818/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Rbqulrements
Final, unless standards revised
ExtensIon expIres Aug. 8, 1990
* Restriction in effect for penod noted, * * A DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * A *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * A
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCR4 HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A.1(a) .27
Waste CodeZS
Type 4 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K102
Vet ennary
pharmaceuticals
production wastes
Nonwastowat era with high
arsenic (> 1 percent total
arsenic)
8/8/88
Soft hammer provisions
Effective until EPA sets treatment
standards or May 8, 1990, when the
hard hammer falls
Nonwastewaters (except for
soil and debris) with low
arsenic (< 1 percent total
arsenic)
8/8/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewat ers
8/8/88
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris with low
arsenIc (< 1 percent total
arsenic)
*8/8/88 - 8/8/90
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres Aug 8, 1990
K103
Aniline production
wastes
All, except as noted
Soil and debris
8/8/88
*8/8/88. 8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expIres Aug. 8, 1990
National Capacity Extension/MInImum Technology
Requirements
K104
Nitrobenzene/
aniline production
wastes
All, except as noted
Soil and debris
8/8/88
*8/8/88. 8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Aug. 8, 1990
K105
Chlombenzene
production wastes
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil end debris
5 18 190-5 18 192
NatIonal Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for penod noted * * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL. INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
riPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A -I(a)28
Waste CodeZ 3
Type ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comm.nte
K106
Chlorine production
wastes
Nonwastewatars (high and
low arsenic)
Nonwastowatars (high
arsenic)
*5/8190.5/8/92
5/8/92- Final
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters (low arsenic)
5/8/92- Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
All
8 18/88-518 190
Soft hammer pmvfslons
Soil and debris
‘5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Kill °
Dlnltrotoluene
production wastes
To be determined
N/A
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
within six months oil/sling, but no
hammers apply
Ki 12
Toluenedlamine
production wastes
To be determined
N/A
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
within six months of listing, but no
hammers apply
Ki 13
Toluenediamine
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
‘6/8189-6/8/91
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
ExtensIon expires June 8, 1991
K114
Toluenediamlne
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
‘6/8/89-6/8/91
Treatment Standards - specified technology

National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
Restriction in effect (or penod noted
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
‘‘‘SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
IYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
.
A-i(o).29
Waste CodeZ 3
Type 4 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment.
1 (115
Toluaned lamlne
production wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6/8/89.6/8/91
Treatment Standards - specified technology and
concentration levels for treatment residues
National Capacity ExtensionlMinimum Technology
RequIrements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
1(116
Toluene production
wastes
All, except as noted below
Soil and debits
6/8/89
e6 18 18 96 19/91
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
KI 17
Ethylene dibromide
All
To be determIned
NA
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
within six months of listing, but no
hammers oppty
KI 18
Ethylene dibromide
All
To be determined
NA
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
within six months of listing, but no
hammers appty
Kl23
ERDC
All
To be determined
NA
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
within six months of listing, but no
hammers apply
K124 10
ERDC
All
To be determined
NA
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
within six months of listing, but no
hammers apply
K125 10
ERDC
All
To be determined
NA
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
within six months of listing, but no
hammers apply
1(126 10
ERDC
All
To be determined
NA
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
within six months of listing, but no
hammers apply
Restriction in effect for penod noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * a
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
rIPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-i(a).30
Waste CodeZS
ype 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
K136 9
All
To be determined
NA
HSWA requires EPA to set standards
Ethylene dibmmide
within six months of listing, but no
hammers appty
P001
All, except as noted below
818190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Fine.!, unless standards revised
Wa,farin, > 0.3
percent
*8/8l88 5l8I90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*518 19 05 18/92
National Capacity Extensionl Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P002
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
1-Acetyl-2-thlourea
*6/8/895/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8 19o5 18 1g2
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1092
P003
All, except as noted below
818/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Acmleln
6 18 189-5 18/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8I9o 5/8/92
National Capacity Extensionl Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P004
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Aidrin
8/8 188-5/8 190
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
0 Restrlctlon in effect for period noted * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-i(a).31
Waste CodeZS
J pe ’
Dales Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
P005
Ally! alcohol
All, except as noted below
8/8190
9 18/88-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final. unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5 18/9c15/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
P006
Aluminum
phosphide
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90 -5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extensionl Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P007
5-(Aminoethy l)-3-
isoxazolol
All, except as noted below
8/8190
*6/8/89 .5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension e .xplms May 8, 1992
P008
4-Arninopyridine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/895/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P009
Ammonium picrate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5 18/90 -5 18 192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires MayO, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * DRAFT 5/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE Ra’ISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
West. CodeZS
Type 4 ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comm.nte
pow
Arsenic acid
Nonwastewaters
*5/o/9c ,.5 18/ 92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewat era
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
All
*8/818&518/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5I8I9( .5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology RequIrements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Poll
Arsenic (%9 oxide
Nonwastawaters
*5J8/9l 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
All
*9/8/89.5 , 18/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 5/9/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P012
Arsenic (lii) oxide
Nonwastewators
5/8190-5/8!92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
All
818 188-5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
‘5 /8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! MinImum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted. “ * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A -I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).33
Waste CodeZ 3
Typo 4 ’ 56
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restrict ion
Comments
P013
Barium cyanide
Au
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P014
Thiophenol
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
•6 18 1895 18 190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5 18190 -5 18 192
National Capacity Extensioni Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P015
Beryllium dust
Au
8/8/90
*8/8/88 - 5/8190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
P016
Bis-(chloro-m ethyl)
ether
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8 188-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*518/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extensloni Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P017
Bromoacetone
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9 ( 1 .5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/ Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
.
P018
Brucine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
818/88-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 ( 1,5/8/92
National Capacity Extenslon Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 9, 1992
* Restriction in effect for penod noted * * DRAFT 6190- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (A) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).34
West. Code ’ 3
Type 4 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment.
P020
Dinoseb
.4 1 1, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8/88-5/8I90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P021
Calcium cyanide
All
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P022
Carbon dlsulfide
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debits
5/8/90-518/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P023
ChIoroacetalde-
hyde
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8 190-518/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology RequIrements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P024
p-Chloroaniline
All, except as noted below
Soil and debits
8/8/90
5 18/90 -518 192
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P026
1-(o-Chioro-phenyl)
thiourea
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6f8/89 5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil end debits
5 18 190-5 18 192
National CapacIty Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
• Restriction in effect for penod noted *** DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
• * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX Al (a) (continued)
JYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCPiA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Waste Cod.ZS
Type 5 ”
Dates Restricted’
Type of Restriction
Comment.
P027
Pmpanenitrfle, 3-
chloro
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6 18/895/8 190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/ 9 05/8 192
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expIres May 8, 1992
P028
Benzyl chloride
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P029
Copper cyanides
All
6/8189
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P030
Soluble cyanide
salts (NOS)
NI
6/8/89
*818)886/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
P031
Cyanogen
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*s/a/9c 5/8I92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
-
P033
Cyanogen chloride
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8 19o5 18 1 92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P034
4,6-Dinib-o-o-
cyclohexylphonol
All, except as noted below
Soil arid debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5(8/92
Treatment Standards- specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revIsed
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* RestrIction in effect lot period noted * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
IYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-i(a).36
Waste CodeZ 3
Typo 4 ’
Dates Reclrlctod 7
Typo of Restriction
Comments
P036
Dlchlompheny l-
ersine
Nonwa stewat eta
518190-5/8/92
5/8/92 - Final
National Capacity Extensloni Minimum
Technology Requirements
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Extension o,ipfres May 8, 1992
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
All
8/8/88-518/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8 192
National Capacity Extension/ Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P037
DieIdrIn
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/8&5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8 / 9 95 18 192
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P038
Dlethylarslne
Nonwastewaters
*5/8/9C)5/8/92
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5 18/92
National Capacity Extensloni Minimum
Technology Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P039
Disulfoton
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
*8/8/886/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
e6 /8 1896 /8/9 1
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires June 8, 1991
* Restriction in effect for period noted * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALl. INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).37
wsst. Codes”
po 5
Dates Restricted 1
Type of Restriction
Comment.
P040
O,O-Diethyi 0-
pyraz lny l
phosphorothloate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6/8/89 6/8,91
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
P041
Dlethyl-p-nItro-
phenyi phosphate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
a8/s/886 18/89
6/8/89-6/8 191
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
RequIrements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
P042
Epinephrlne
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5/8 192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P043
Dilsopmpy l
fluorophosphate
Au, except as noted beiow
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6/8/89-6 18191
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
P044
Dimethoate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
618189
*6/8 199.6/8/91
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
P045
Thlofanox
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9 5f8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension! Minimum
Technology Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for penod noted * * * DRAFT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a *
a a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
(PE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE
Waste Code ’ 3
Type 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment.
P048
Alpha, alpha-
Dlmethylphenethyl-
amine
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9fl )5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity ExtenslonlMinimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P047
4,6-Dinltro-o-creso!
and salts
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
518/90-5/8192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P048
2,4 Dlnitrophenol
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/8&5 18 19()
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/ 9 05 18 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
P049
2,4-Dithiobiuret
All, except as noted below
So,! and debris
8/8/90
• 6/8/89-5(8/90
•5 18 /905!8 192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
.
P050
Endosuifan
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8/88-5 18/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debds
518/9 0-5 18/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P051
Endrfn
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
•5/8/9Q5/8 192
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect I cr period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90- 00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE ***
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * *.
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Waste Code 23
T ype 4 ’”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
P054
Az/rid/ne
Al!, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8 189-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8I90 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P056
Fluorine
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
P057
Fluoracetemide
Al!, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/895/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P058
Fiuoracet/c acid
sodium salt
All, except as noted
8/8/90
*8/8/8 5/6/9o
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
FInal, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5 18/9cL5/8/ 92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P059
Heptachior
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/8&5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8 190-5f8 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Restriction in effect br period noted * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a
* *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY AU. INFORMATiON a * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HA7ARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Dates Restricted 1 Type of Restriction
A-I(a).40
Comment.
Waste CodeZS
Type 4 ’ 5 ’
P060
isodrin
All, except as noted below
Soil and debns
8/8190
*6/8/89.518/90
*5/8/9(1.5/8192
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1092
P062
Hexaethyltetra-
phosphate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6/8/89.6/8191
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
P063
?Iydrogen cyanide
All
6/8/89
*8/8/88 - 6/8/89
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
P064
Methyl Isocyanate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*518/9(1.518192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Natlonei Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P065
Marc uiy fulminate
Nonwastewatera (all)
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Nonwastewate,s (high
mercuty)
5/8/92-Final
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewatera (low
mercu,y)
5/8/92 - Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and Debris
5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
* Restriction ,r, effect for period noted
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA IMZ4RDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I(a).4 1
Waste CodeZS
Type 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Typ, of Restriction
Comments
P066
Methomyl
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5 18 190-5 18/92
National Capacity ExtensIon/MinImum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P067
2-Methylaz lrfdine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8 . 1992
P068
Methyl Hydrazine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8/88-5/8/90
Treatment Standards- specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revIsed
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P069
Methyl!actonitnle
All, except as noted below
818190
*a/8 18&5/8/9o
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
.
Soil and debris
5 18190-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P070
Aldicath
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*6/8/8&5 18/9o
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards- specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8. 1992
Restriction In effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF [ DR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCR4 HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Dates Restricted 1 Type of Restriction
A-I(a).42
Comments
Waste CodeZ 3
Type 5 ”
P071
Methyl parathion
411, except as noted below
6/8/89
8 18 188-618/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*6/8/896/8/91
Nationoi Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires Juno 8, 1991
P072
ANTU
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
6/8/89-5 18/9 0
*5/ /gt 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless slandwds revised
Extension expires Maya, 1992
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
P073
Nickel Carbonyl
All
8/8/90
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P074
Nickel Cyanide
All
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P075
Nicotine and salts
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*518/9()5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P076
Nitric oxide
Al!
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
P077
p-N:troaniiine
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P078
Nitrogen dioxide
All
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMAT iON * * *
Restriction in effect for penod noted.
-------
APPENDIX Al (a) (continued)
1YPE OF WR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).43
Waste CodoZ 3
Type ’
Dates Restricted’
Typo of Restriction
Commente
P081
Nitrogtycer lne
All, except as noted below
8/8190
*8 18 18&5 18190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5 18 19c)5 18/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P082
N-Nitrosodi-
met hylamine
Nonwastewaters
Was(ewators
8/8/90
818/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
All
Soil and debris
8I8/88 5l8I90
5/8/90-5 18/92
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P084
N-NItrosomethy-
vinylamine
All, except as noted below
So/land debris
8/8/90
*8 18/8&5/8/9 0
*5/8/9 0.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
P085
Octam ethy lpyro-
phosphoramide
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6 18 189-6/8/91
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
RequIrements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8. 1991
P087
Osmium Tetmoxide
A/i, except as noted below
•5/8/9 0 .5/8 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92-Final
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect (or penod noted * a * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* * REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCR4 HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Date. Restricted 1 Typo of Reef rlctlon
A-I(a).44
Comment.
Waste Code ’ 3
Type” ’
P088
Endotheil
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P089
ParathIon
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
*8 18/8&6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentratIon levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
as/8/8 96 18/91
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
P092
Pher,ylmercurlc
acetate
Nonwastewaters (all)
Nonwastewaters (high
mercury)
*5/8l90 5/8l92
5(8/92-Final
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Final, unless standards revised
Nonwastewaters (low
mercury)
5/8/92-Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
4J/
8/8/88-5/8 19 0
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
a5/8 1 9 05 18/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P093
N-Phenyllhlourea
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards- specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires MayO, 1992
Restriction In effect br period noted.
a a * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
*SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMA TION a a a
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
1YPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Datee Reatrtcted 7 Type of Restrict Ion
A-i (a) .45
Comment.
Waste CodeZS
Type 4 ’ 5 ’
P094
Pho rate
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
•8l8/8 6l8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*6/8/89 /8/91
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires June 8, 1991
P095
Phos gene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5 18/90-5 18/92
Treatment Standards- specified technology
National Capacity ExtensloniMinimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P096
Phosphino
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5 18/oc)5 18/92
•
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P097
Famphur
All, except as noted below
6/8/89
•818/8&6/8/89
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*6/8/896/8 191
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires June 8, 1991
P098
Potassium cyanide
All
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P099
Potassium siWer
cyanide
All
6/8/89
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P101
Propanenitriie
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8190
•5/8/9c 5/8I92
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Restriction in effect for period noted.
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTES * *
* * SEE REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX Al (a) (continued)
TYPE OF [ DR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Dates Restricted’ T ’p. of Restriction
A 1(a).48
Comments
Waste Codes”
Type 4 ’ ”
P102
Propargyl alcohol
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
8/8/88-5 18/90
5/8/90-518192
Treatment standards - specified technology
Soft hemmer previsions
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8. 1992
National Capacity ExtensionlMinimum Technology
Requirements
P103
Se lenourea
All
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P104
Sliver cyanide
All
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P105
Sodium azlde
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8I88 5I8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer previsIons
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8 190-518/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P106
Sodium cyanide
All
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P108
Strychnine and
salts
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*9/8/88 5l8/9O
*5I8I9 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer previsions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P109
Tetraethy ldlthlo-
pyrophosphate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6 18 18 96 18/91
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Restriction In effect for period noted
* * * RAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
• a * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a a
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
IYPE OF WR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Waste CodeZ 3
Type ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Commente
P110
Tetrnethyl lead
Al l
8/8/90
*8/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
P111
Tetraethylpyro-
phosphoramide
A/I, except as noted below
Soil and debris
618/89
*6/8/89.6/8/91
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
P112
Tetranitromethane
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8. 1992
P113
Thailic oxide
Nonwastewaters
Wastewalers
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
A/I
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
P114
Thallium (I)
solon/to
A/I
8/8/90
6 18/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration standards
Soft hemmer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
P115
Thallium (1)
sulfate
Nonwastewaters
Wastawaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, uniess standards revised
Ni
*8/8/89.5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
P116
Th losemicarbazide
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90 -5/8/92
Treatment Standards- specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1092
* Restriction n effect (or period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A.1 (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A.1(a).48
W aste CodeZ 3
Type 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment.
P118
T,ichlommethane-
thloi
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5 1 8/gn,)5/9/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P119
Ammonium
vanadate
Nonwastew at era
Wasfewatera
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
P120
Vanadium
pentox lde
Noriwasteviaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
All
a8l8l88 5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
P121
Zinc cyanide
All
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
P122
Zinc phosphide,
>10 percent
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a8/o/895 1 8 19o
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
P123
Toxaphene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8/88-5/8190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisIons
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U001
Aceta!dehyde
All, except as noted below
So,! and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Restriction in effect for period noted, a a * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a
* * *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
IYPE OF [ DR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EAC?1 RCRA HAZAF?DOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I(a).49
Waste Code 2 ’ 3
Type 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment,
U002
Acetone
All, except as noted below
Soil end debris
8/8190
*6/8/89 5l8/90
*5I8I9 5I8f92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
RequIrements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U0 03
Ace fonitr lie
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
Soil and debris
818/90
8/8/90
*5/8 19flv .5 18 192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Final, uniess standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
U004
Acetophenorie
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
818190
5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Finai, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U005
o-Acetyf amino.
fluorene
All, except as noted beiow
818190
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5 18 19()5 18 1 92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technoiogy
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U006
Acetyf chloride
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8 190 -5 18f92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90. DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Dates Reef rioted 7 Type of Restriction
A-I(a).50
Comments
Waste Cod. ’ 3
iypo ’
U007
Acrylamide
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
a8I8I88 5f8,90
5/8190 -518192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Maya, 1992
U008
Aciylic acid
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8190
•6/8 18 9 -5 18 190
5/8/90-5 18 192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Maya, 1992
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
U009
Aciy lonitrlle
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
.
*8/8/88-5/8(90
*5/8/90 5f8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Maya, 1992
U0l0
Mitomycin C
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
818/90
8/8/88-5/8/90
*5/8/9 ()5 18/e2
Treatment Standards - specified technoiogy
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Maya, 1992
Uoi I
Amitro le
Al!, except as noted below
618190
6/8/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9* 5/8(92
National Capacity ExtensIon/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires Maya, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted
* a *()p4 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a * *5 REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I (e).5 I
Waste CodeZS
Type 5 ”
Dates Restricted 1
Type of Restriction
Comment.
U012
Aniline
All
8/8/90
*8/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
U014
Auramine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8189-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil end debris
*5/8/9 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8 . 1992
U015
Azaser lne
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/895/8/9o
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U016
Benz (c)acridine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8 188 -518 190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
•
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U01 7
Benzai chloride
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5 18 190-5/8192
Treatment Standards- specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U0 18
Benz (a)anlhracene
All, except as noted below
8/8 90
8/9/88-5/8 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9(15/8 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Dates RestrlctedT Typo of Restriction
A-I(a).52
Comment.
Waste CodoZ 3
Typ. 4 ’ ”
U019
Benzene
All, except as noted below
818190
18 18/88-5 18/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 .5/9/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1092
U020
Benzenesulfonyl
chloride
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*8/8/69 .5/9/90
*5/8/9 05/9/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U02 1
Benz/dine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft h?mmer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debns
a5 /8 /9c ,.5/8 1 92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U022
Benzo(a)pyrene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/89.5/8/91 )
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer previsions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 .5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U023
Benzotrlchlor lde
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/9/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
So,! end debris
*5/8/90.5/9/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for penod noted.
* * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *0 *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMAT ION * 6
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).53
Waste CodeZ 3
Type 4 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Comments
1)024
Bls(2-chioro-
ethoxy)methane
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
518/90-518/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Fine.!, unless standards revised
Extension expires MayO, 1992
U025
Dichloroethyi ether
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*618/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-518/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U026
Chlomaphazine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/B/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1)027
B/s (2-chiorolso-
propy!) ether
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8 19c )5/8 192
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1)028
Bis (2-ethyl he icy)
phtha!ate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
1)029
Methyl bromide
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/885/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debns
5/9I90 5I8I92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
* Restriction in effect for period noted
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(a).54
Waste Code 5’3
Type 4 ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U030
Benzene, 1-bromo-
4-phenoxy
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
•5/8/9()5 18 192
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/MinImum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U031
n-Butano!
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8 18 188 -5/8f9 0
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 t)5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
U032
Calcium chromate
All
8/8/90
6/8/89-5/8 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
U 033
Caibonyl fluoride
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5/8 192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
U034
Chloral
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5 18190-518 192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U035
Chlommbuci!
All, except as noted below
8/8190
•6 18 1895 18 19 0
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 5/8/92
National Capacity ExtensioniMinimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect br period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
6 * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
IYPE OF WR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I(a).55
Waste CodeZS
Type 4 ’ ”
Dates Restricted’
Jype of Restriction
Comments
U036
Chiordane,
technical
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8 18/88.5/8190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5 18/9().5/8/92
National CapacIty Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U037
Chiorobenzene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*8/88/88.5/8/90
*5/8 19 i)5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U038
E thyt-4-4-di-
chiorobenz llate
All, except as noted below
Soil end debris
8/8/90
•
*518/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity ExtensioniMinimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U039
4-Chloro-m-cresol
All, except as noted below
So /i and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U 04 1
n-Chloro-2,3-
epoxypropane
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8 18/88-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debns
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U042
Vinyl ether 2-
chloro ethyl
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debns
*5 18 19Ø5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted •• DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF [ DR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(a).56
Waste CodoZS
Type 4 ’
Date. Restricted 7
Typ. of Restriction
Comment.
1 )043
Vinyl chloride
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
8/8/88-5/8/90
*5 18 1 9 95 18/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer previsions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U044
Chloroform
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8f8 188-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 5/8/92
National Capacity ExtensloniMinimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U045
Methyl chloride
Al!, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
a5 /8/9fJ5 18 1g2
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1)046
Chioromethyl
methyl ether
Al!, except as noted below
8/8/90
*o/o/ 895 /8/9 0
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9n.)5/8 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires MayO, 1992
1)047
Beta-chloro-
naphthalene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires Mayo, 1992
U048
o-Chlorophenol
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9().5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires MayO, 1992
* Restriction In effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A- 1(a).57
Waste CodeZ 3
1 pe 4
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U049
4-Chloro-o-
toluldine,
hydrochloride
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
6/8/89-5/8 190
5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U050
Ch,ysene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*818/885 18/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/8/9c)5/8/92
National Capacity ExtensIon/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U051
Creosote
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/8 5/8/9O
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/905/8/92
National Capacity Extanslon/Minimum Technology
Requirements
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
U052
Cresois
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
‘5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/MInimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U053
Cmtoneidehyde
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
‘8/8/885/8190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
‘5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U055
Cumene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
‘5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
‘Restnct,on in effect (or period noted. * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a * a
a * a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
JYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A.1(a).58
Waste Code ’
Type ’ 5 ’
Defoe Restricted’
Typo of Restriction
Comment.
U056
Cyclohexane
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
818190
•5/8/9 5l8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Natlonei Capacity ExtenslonlMlnlmum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U057
Cyc!ohaxanone
Nonwastewaters
8/8/90
*618189.5 18190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentratIon levels
Final, unless standards revised
*6/8/89 .5/8/90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and Debris
*5/8/ 9 05 18 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U058
Cyclophosphamide
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6I8/8 9 .6/8 19 1
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
U059
Daunomycin
All, except as noted below
8/8190
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debns
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U060
ODD
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5 18/gc)5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
*Rest,fcf on in effect for period noted • * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A.? (a) (con ?Inu.d)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(e).59
Waste Code ’ 3
Type 4 ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Common?.
U061
DDT
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/885/8/9o
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
•5/a/9r..s5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U062
Olallete
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8/90-518190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 5/9/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U063
Dibenzo(a,h)
anthracene
All, except as noted below
Soii and debris
8/8/90
*8/8/69.5/8/90
5/8/9()-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8. 1992
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
U064
1,2,7,8 Dibenzo-
pyrene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*8/8/88 .5/8/90
5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
U068
D ,bromo-3-chloro-
propane 1,2
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration ieveis
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debas
*5/8/9Q5/6/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technoiogy
Requirements
Extension expires May 8 . 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTES * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Waste Code ’
Type 4 ”
Dates Restricted’
Type of Restriction
Comments
U067
Ethylene dlbmmlde
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a8/81895/8/9o
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
•5 18/905/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U068
Methane, dibromo
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
a5 18/9 05/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U069
Dibuty# phthalate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6/8/89-6/8/91
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
U070
o-Dichlorobenzene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a6/8/89 5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 5I8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U071
m-Dichlombenzene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5 18/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U072
p-Dichlorobenzene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5I8/90 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity ExtenslonlMinimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
a Restriction in effect for penod noted * a DRAFT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
a * °SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL iNFORMATiON ñ a *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF [ DR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A -I(a).6 1
Waste CodeZS
T ype 4 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U073
Dichlorobenzidene
33
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/8&5 18 190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5 18 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U074
I,4-Dlchloro-2-
butene
Al!, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8/88-5(8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5 18/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U075
Dichiorodlfluoro-
methane
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5 18/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U076
Ethane, 1,1-
dlchloro-
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 5i8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U077
Ethene, 1,2-dichioro
AII, except as noted below
8/8/90
*o/8/89 5/8 1 9 0
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8 190-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U078
Dichloro ethylene.
1,1-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/885/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 5/8I92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8. 1992
c
• Restriction in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL. INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES
Waste CodeZS
Type 4 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment.
U079
1,2-Dichioro-
ethylene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debds
8/8/90
*5I8/90 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U080
Methylene chloride
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9r)5/8/92
National Capacity ExtensIon/MinImum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U081
2,4-Dlchloro-phenoi
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 .5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U082
2,6-Dichloro -phenol
Ale, except as noted below
Soil and debris
9/8/90
5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
,
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U083
Dichioropropane,
1,2-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity ExtensIon/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U084
1,3-Dlchioro-
propene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
O Restriction in effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CifE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION 0 0 *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
JYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODES
A-1(a).63
Waet. CodeZ 3
Type 4 5 ’
Date. Reef rlcted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment.
U085
Z2-Bioxirane
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U086
N,N DlethyIhydra-
zine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*818/88 .5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 .5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U087
0,0-D lethy!-S-
methyl-dithio-
phosphate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6/8/89-6 18 191
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Juno 8, 1991
U088
Diethyl phthalate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6/8/89.6/8/91
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
U089
Dieth yist l l-bestrol
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/88.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8i92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U090
Dihydrosofrole
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5 18/90-5 18/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
*Res ,.fcdon In effect for period noted ... DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA ?L4ZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Waste Cod.Z 3
Typo 45 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Comment.
U091
3,3 Dimethoxyben-
i/dine
Al!, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity ExtensIon/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U092
Dimethylamine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a6l8/89 5/8I90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/ /9j)5/ /9
National Capacity Extension/MInImum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U093
Dimethylaminoazo-
benzene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6J8/895/8/9 0
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/8/9 1 J5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U094
0/methyl benz(a)
anthrecene ,7,12-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a6I8/89 5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/8/90 5/8/92
Natlonai Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U095
Dlmethyfbenzl-
dine,3,3-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a6/o18 95 18 19()
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a51 8/9Ø5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U096
eipha,aipha-
Dimethylbenzyl-
hydra xyperoxlde
Au, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8190-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Restriction In effect for period noted a a a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * a
a REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a a
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-i(a).65
Waste Code 2 ’ 3
Type 4 ’ 2”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U097
Dlmethyfcarbamoy l
chloride
All, except as noted below
818190
aO/8/895/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/8/90 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U098
Dlmethylhydraz!ne,
1,1-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a6/8/895/8/9o
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/8/9().5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8. 1992
U099
D lmethylhydraz lne,
1,2-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a6/8/895/8 190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
.
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/8/9()5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
ulo l
Dimethyiphenol,
2,4-
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
a6/8/89 5/8/9O
*5/8/9Q5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U102
Dimethyl phthalate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6/8/89
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity ExtensionlMlnlmum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
a Restriction in effect for period noted a * a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a a *
* a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-i(e).66
Waste Codes”
Type 45 ”
Date. Re stricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comment.
U 103
0/methyl sulfates
A /I, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/86-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer pmvislons
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5l8/9 5/8I92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8. 1992
U105
2,4-Dinltro-toluene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
•8/8/8&5 18/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer pmvlslons
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U108
Dlnitrotoiuene,
2,6-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89 .5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer pmvisJons
Final, unless standards revised
Soil end debris
5/8190-5 18/92
National Capacity ExtensIon/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U107
Dl-n-octyl phi/relate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6/8/89 .6/8/91
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
ExtensIon expires June 8, 1991
U108
Dloxane, 1,4-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/86-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer previsIons
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9G518/92
National Capacity ExtensionlMinimum Technology
Requirements
E*tension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for penod noted * * DRAFT 6190 - DO NOT CffE OR QUOTE ***
* a *9 REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
7YPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA H4ZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-I(a).87
Waste Code 2 ”
lyp. 4 ’ 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U 109
1,2-Diphenyl-
hydrazine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8 190.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension e ,iros May 8, 1992
UI 10
Dlpmpylamlne
Al!, except as noted below
8/8/90
6 18/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
UI 11
Di -N-
Propylnltrosamlne
Al!, except as noted below
818/90
6/8/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9()5 18(92
National Capacity E4onslon/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
UI 12
Ethyl acetate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
UI 13
Ethyl acr,’Iate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9c)5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
UI 14
Ethylenebls-
(dithlocarbamlc
acid)
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*6/8/89-5/8/90
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-I(a).68
Waste Cod. 2 ’ 3
Type 4 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U1 15
Ethylene oxide
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8 18&5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5 18 190-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U1 16
Ethylene thiourea
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9o5/8/g2
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U117
Ethyl ether
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5I8/90 5I8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Ui 18
EthyImethacr late
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity ExtensIon/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U119
Ethyl Methanesul-
lonate
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/895/9/9 0
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
U120
Fiuoranthene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
518/90-518/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect br period noted. * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
IYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I(a).69
Waste Cod.ZS
Type ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U121
Trichlommono-
ftuoromethane
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5 18/oc)5/8192
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
U122
Formaldehyde
All, except as noted below
818/90
8/8/88-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 5I8I92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U123
Formic acid
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U124
Furan
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
•818/885 18/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Finai, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U 125
Fwfural
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
e5I8/o, ).5/a/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U128
Glycldylaidehyde
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
518/90-5/8192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect (or period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
a a *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
Date. Restricted 7 Type of Restriction
A-ifr).70
Comments
Waste Cod. 3
Type ”
U127
Hoxachioro-
benzene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*618189.5/8/90
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debds
*5/8/90.5/8192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U128
Hexachiombuta-
dlene
All, except as noted below
So/land debris
8/8/90
*8/8/89.5/8/90
‘5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U129
Undane
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
‘818/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debrIs
‘518/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U130
Hexachioro-
cyclopentadiene
Au, except as noted below
8/8/90
‘8/8189.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
4 ) 131
—---
Soil and debris
‘5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
---____________________________________________________________
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Hexachloroethane
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
‘618/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
‘5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
‘‘‘DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE’’’
‘SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION’’’
* Rostilctlon in effect for period noted.
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(a).71
Waste Cod.ZS
Type’ ”
Date, Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Comments
U132
Hexachlorophene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
NatIona’ Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U 133
i- lydrezlne
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/88 5I8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer previsIons
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5 18/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U 134
i-fydrofiuorfc acid
Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
8/8/90
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
All
8/8/88-518/90
Soft hammer provisions
U135
Hydrogen sulfide
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8I89 5f8I90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
RequIrements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U136
Cacodylic acid
Nonwastewaters
*5/8/90.518/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
5/8/92- Final
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Wastowaters
8/8190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
a Restriction in effect for period noted. * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CPA PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
1YPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-I(a).72
Waste CodoZ 3
Th’p. ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U137
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)
pyrene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debits
8/8/90
a8 18/8 95/8 19 0
5/O/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer previsions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U138
Methyl Iodide
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6f8I895/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debits
5I8/90 -5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U140
Isobutyl alcohol
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a618 1895 18/9.0
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
•5 18 190-5/8/92
National Capacity ErtçnslonlMinimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U14 1
Isosafrole
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5i8/90 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/MInimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Maya, 1992
U142
Kepone
All, except as noted below
.
8/8/90
6/8 189-5/8 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer previsions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5 18 1905/a/ 9 2
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
RestrIction In effect for period noted, DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CifE OR QUOTE a *•
a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
APPENDI)( A- I (a) (continued)
(PE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A- i( s). 73
Waste Code 23
Type 4 ’ ”
Dates Restricted 1
Type of Restriction
Comment.
U143
Laslocarpine
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8190
*6/8/89.518 190
*5/8/9 5/8/92
Ta-eatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
RequIrements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U144
Lead acetate
All
818/90
*8/8I89 5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
1.1145
Lead phosphate
All
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
U146
Lead subacetate
All
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
U147
MaleIc anhythlde
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90 5I8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expIres May 8, 1992
U148
Maleic hydrazlde
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9Ci 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U149
Malononitrils
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8 190-5/8 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
a Restriction in effect (or penod noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a a a REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION a a a
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TfPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).74
Waste Codo ’ 3
1ypo 4 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Comments
U 150
Meiphaian
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89518 190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debits
5/8 190-5 18192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U151
Mercury
Nonwastewaiers
*5/819O 5I8I92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension axpire s May 8, 1992
Wastewaters
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Soil arid debris
*5/8/90 5I8l92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U152
Mothacr 4onlti1le
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
818/90
*5/8/905/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1 )153
Mothanethlol
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U154
Methanol
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/8 5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/8 19C,5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
° Restriction in effect for period noted a a * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a * a
a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMA TION a a
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I(a).75
Waste Code ’
T yp o 4 30
Oaf as Restricted 1
Typo of Restrict ion
Comments
U155
Methapyr l lane
All, except as noted below
818/90
*8/8/885 18/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards ieidsed
Soil and debits
*5 /8/9 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U 156
Methyl
chiorocarbonate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
818/90
518/O0 -5/8 192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires Maya, 1992
U157
3-Mathykho l-
anthrene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
818lB8-5J8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debits
*5l8/9o 5/8192
National Capacity ExtensfoniMinhinum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U158
4,4-Mettiytene-bls-
(2-ch ioro -aniiine)
A /i, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8188 -5/8/90
Treatment Standards- concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil end debits
5I8l90-518/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U159
Methyl ethyl ketone
A! !, except as noted below
818190
8/8/88-5/8 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
So !! and debris
*5/8/905/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U16 0
Methyl ethyl ketana
peroxide
All, except as noted below
Soil and debits
8/8/90
S/819G5/8192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in affect for period noted. * * DRAFT 6/90- 00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
IYPE OF WR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(e).76
Waste CodoZS
Typ. 4 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U161
Methyl isobutyt
ketone
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/9 189-518/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hemmer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil end debris
5/8 190-5 18 192
National Capacity Extension/Miami urn Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U 162
Methyt methactylate
A!!, except as noted below
Soil and debris
818/90
*618189.518 190
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1 ) 163
N-Methy l-N-n / i to-N-
nltrosoguani-dlne
AU, except as noted below
8/8190
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*518/90.518/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1892
1)164
Methy lth louracl l
AU, except as noted below
8/8190
*5/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
-
Soil and debris
518/90-5 18/92
National Capacity Extens/onlMlnlmcjm Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U 185
Naphthalene
.4 11, except as noted below
•
8/8190
6/8 189-5/8 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debrIs
*5/8/90.5/ 8/92
NalIonoJ Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction In effect for period noted. * DR4FT 6/90- 00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
7YPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZAFWOUS WASTE CODE’
A- 1(a).71
Waste Codo ’ 3
1ype 45 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
U166
1,4-Naphthaqu lnone
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8190
*5/8/9o5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity ExtensIon/MinImum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U167
1-Naphihyllamine
All, except as noted below
Soil end debris
8/8190
5 18/90-5 18/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U168
Napthy lam lne,2-
Nonwastawaters
Wasteweters
8/8190
8/8190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
All
*6/8/89 5i8J90
Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris
*5/8/9a 5/8I92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 9, 1992
U169
Nitrobenione
All, except as noted below
8/8190
•6 18/895 18 19 0
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
UI 70
p-Nitrophenol
Nl except as noted below
Soil and debris
818/90
6/8/89-5/8 190
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension ojip!res May 8, 1992
Restriction in effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
IYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Dates Restricted 7 Type of Restriction
A-1(e).78
Comments
Waste Code ’ 3
T ype’ 5 ’
Ui 71
Nitropropane, 2-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/8&5 18190
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8 190-5/8/92
National Capacity ExtenslonlMinlmum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Ui 72
N-nhlroso-di-n-
buty lamlne
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8/89-518 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provIsions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5 18 190-518/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
UI 73
N-nitroso-
diothanoiamlne
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/895/8/9()
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/9 5I8I92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
ExtensIon expires May 8, 1992
U174
N-n!troso-
diethylamine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
6/8/89-5 18 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-518 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U176
N-Nltroso-N-
ethyturea
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89 5I8I90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.518/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction In effect for period noted.
DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-i(a).79
Waste CodoZS
Type 45 ”
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
UI 77
N-Nitroso-N-
methylurea
Al!, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/6/89 .5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8 190-518192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
UI 78
N-Nitroso-N-
methylurethane
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8I89 5/8I90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5 18 190-518192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Ui 79
N-N ltrosoplpeaI-dlne
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*6/8189.5/8/90
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expfres May 8, 1992
U 180
N-Nitrosopyrrol-
idine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8(8/88-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U181
5-Nitro-o-toiuidine
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5 18 190-5 18/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U182
Paraidehyde
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9 05/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, un’ess standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
• Restriction in effect (or period noted • DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-1(a).6O
West. Cod. 8’3
Type 4 ”
Defoe Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Comment.
U183
Pentachioro-
benzene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5/8 192
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U 184
Pentach loroethane
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5l8i92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 9, 1992
U185
Pentachlomnitro-
banzene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8/88-5/8i90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5 18/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U188
1,3-Pentadiene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5/8/90-5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technoiogy
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U187
Phenacetln
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8I90 5I8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction In effect for period noted * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
S 5 SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * S *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTiON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCFM HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
* a *j)f 4 7 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* Ra’ISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
Waet. Code ’ 3
Typo ’ 5 ”
Dates Restricted 1
Type of Restriction
Commenta
U188
Phenol
A-il, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/9O 5/8/92
National Capacity ExtensIon/MInimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U189
Phosphorus sulfide
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
a5/8/9c )5/8/ 92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U190
Phthalic anhydilde
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
*6/8/89 6/8/91
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expIres June 8, 1991
U191
2-Picoline
-
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/90 .5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U192
Pronamlde
1 )493
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris

8/8/90
8/8 188-5/8/9 0
*5/8(9 5I8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
--—-____________________________________________________________________________
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1,3-Propane sultone
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1878 V
Restriction in effect for period noted.
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
7YPE OF LDR RESWICI1ON IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-1(a).82
Waste CodeZS
Type 5 ’ °
Dates Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Comments
U 194
1-Propanamine
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
a5f /9g5/ /9
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U196
Pyridine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/895 18/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
.
Soft hammer provIsIons
Final, unless standards revIsed
Soil and debris
a5/9/9g5/8/9
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U197
p-Benzoqulnone
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/9 5/8I92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U200
Reserpine
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
a8/8/885/8/9o
Treatment Standards - specified technology
.
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/90-5 18/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U201
Resorclnol
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
a5/8/ 9 05/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U202
Saccharin & salts
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
a5/8/90 5/8l92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
in effect for period noted * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
a a *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF [ DR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH ACM HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Dates Restricted 7 Type of Restriction
Waste CodeZ 3 Type 5 ’
A-i(a)83
Comments
U203
Safrole
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
*5/8I9O 5I8l92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires MayO, 1992
U204
Selenious acid
All
8/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Final, unless standards revised
U205
Selenium dlsuifide
Au
8/8/90
6/8/89-5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
U206
Streptozotocin
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, uniess standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/905/9/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U207
1,2,4,5-tetra-
ch lombenzene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8l90 5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U208
Terachiomethane,
1,1,1 .2-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5 18/90-5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted
* * DRAFr6/9o- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-i(a).84
Waste CodoZ 3
TypoUS
Dates Restricted 7
Typo of Restriction
Comment.
U209
Tetrachloro- ethane,
1 ,1,2,2-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8188-5 18 190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revIsed
Soil and debris
*5/8190 .5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U210
Tetrach lora-
ethylene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*818189.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer previsions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5 18 190-5 18/92
National Capacity ExtensionlMlnimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U21 1
Carbon
totrachiodde
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8l8/88 5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U213
Tetrahydmfutan
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hemmer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Sole and debris
*518190.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U214
Thallium (I) acetate
chloride nitrate
All
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
0215
Thallium (I)
carbonate
All
8/8/90
*6/8/89.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
a Restriction in effect for period noted * a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
Comment.
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
Wait. Codë ’ 3
U216
Thallium (I) chloride
U21 7
Thallium (I) nitrate
U218
Thloacetamlde
A-1(a).85
U219
Thiourea
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
1YPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
Date. RestrIcted 7 Type of Restrict Ion
All 8/8190 Treatment Standards - concentration levels
6/8/89-5/8/90 Soft hammer provisions
All 8/8190 Treatment Standards - concentration levels
*6/8/89 5/8/90 Soft hammer provisions
All, except as noted below 8/8190 Treatment Standards - specified technology
*6/8/89 5/8/90 Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris *5/8/9()5/8/92 National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
All, except as noted below 8/8190 Treatment Standards - specified technology
8/8/88-5/8/90 Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris a5/8/9()5 18/92 National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
All, except as noted below 8/8/90 Treatment Standards - concentration levels
8 18 188-5/8 190 Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris *5/8/905 18/92 National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
All, except as noted below 6/8/89 Treatment Standards - specific technology
*8/8/88 - 6/8/89 Soft hammer provisions
Soil end debris *si8/896/o/g1 National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
U220
Toluene
U221
Toluenediamine
* Restrict/on In effect for period noted.
• * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
1YPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZ4RDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-i(a).86
Waste CodeZ 3
Typ. 5 ’
Dates Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Comments
1)222
o-Tolu ldine
hydrochlorf do
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
518190-518192
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1 )223
Toluene
diisocyanate
All, except as noted below
618/89
8 18/88 - 6/8/89
Treatment Standards - specific technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
6/8189-6 18/9 1
Nationai Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires June 8,1991
U225
Btomotorm
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
818/90
*5/8/90.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration ieveis
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, uniesa standards revised
Extension expires May 8 . 1992
1)226
Methyl chlom form
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
8/8/88-5 18190
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity ExtensioniMinimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1)227
T, lchloroethane,
1,1,2-
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/88.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.518/92
NatIonal Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
1)228
Ti lchlomethytene
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/88 .5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requfrements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for penod noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
1YPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-I(a).87
Waste Cod. ’ 3
Type ’
Dates Restricted 1
Type of Restriction
Comments
U234
Sym-T, Inltro-
benzene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8190.5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
(1235
Tris (2,3-
Dlbmmopropyi)
phosphate
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
6/8/89
6/8/89-5 18/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires June 8, 1991
(1236
Trypan blue
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5/8/99 .5/8/92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
(1237
U,acii mustard
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/8 9 .5/8/go
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*518/99.5/8 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
(1238
Ethyl ca,bamate
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*818189.5/8/99
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hemmer provisions
Final, unlüss standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/99.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expfres May 8, 1992
(1239
Xy lene
Au, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89 .5/8/90
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
5/8/99.5I8I92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
a Restriction in effect for penod noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* * REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-I (a) (continued)
1YPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-I(a).88
Waste CodeZS
Type”
Date, Restricted 7
Type of Restriction
Commente
U240
Z4-D salts & esters
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
5l8 190-5 18/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U243
Hexachlompropene
All, except as noted below
Soil and debits
8/8/90
*5/8/90 .5/8/92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U244
Th lram
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*6/8/89 .5/8/go
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, unless standards revised
Soil and debris
*5/8/90.5/8/92
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U246
Cyanogen bromide
Au, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5I8I9 5/8I92
Treatment Standards - specified technology
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U247
Methorychior
All, except as noted below
Soil and debris
8/8/90
*5I8/9 5/8I92
Treatment Standards - concentration levels
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Final, unless standards revised
Extension expires May 8, 1992
U248
WarfaaIn, <03
percent
All, except as noted below
8/8/90
*8/8/88.5/8/90
Treatment Standards - specified technology
Soft hammer provisions
Final, uniess standards revised
Soil and debris
5 18190-5/8 192
National Capacity Extension/Minimum Technology
Requirements
Extension expires May 8, 1992
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a *
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE’
A-i(a).89
Wa.to CodeZ 3 Date. Re .frlcfed 1 7 po of Restriction Comment.
U249 All, except as noted below 8/8/90 Treatment Standards - specified technology Final, unless standards revised
Zinc phosphide,
<10 percent 818/88-518/90 Soft hammer provisions
Soil and debris *5/8I9 5/8/92 National Capacity E .xtensionlMinlmum Technology Extension expfres May 8, 1992
Requirements
aRes c on in effect for period noted, a * *D 4fl’ 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a a
-------
APPENDIX A-i (a) (continued)
TYPE OF WR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-i(a).90
ENDNOTES
1. This appendix does not address LDR restrictions for deepwell-Injected wastes or mixed radioactive wastes. For more information on deepwoii-injected wastes, see 40 CFR
148; for more information on mixed radioactive wastes, see 40 CFR 268
2. AppendIces A-2 (F001-F005, F020-F023, and F026-F028), A-4 (First, Second, and Third Third wastes), and A-5 (Multi-Source Leachate) provide complete waste code
descriptions and, where appropriate, complete explanation of treatment standards and BOATS.
3. if a site contains a RCRA listed or characteristic hazardous waste, the site manager should also determine whether the waste Is a California list waste. The restrictions for
California list wastes are summarized In Appendix A-1(b).
4. EPA considers wastewaters to be wastes containing less than one percent total organic carbon (7CC) and less than one percent total filterable solids. All other
substances are ‘nonwastewaters
5. Soil and debris wastes are subject to restrictions listed under the category nonwastewaters, except where noted othe,wise.
8. InorganIc solid debris applies only to 0004 through 0011 wastes For a detailed definition of this treatabliity group, see 40 CFR 268.
7. All Third Third wastes were granted a three-month national capacity variance; therefore, treatment standards for these wastes, unless noted otherwise, will be effective as of
August 8, 1990 During the period of May 8, 1990 and August 8, 1990. wastes must be disposed of In a unit that meets the RCRA minimum technology requirements.
8. This waste was newly listed on October 23, 1985. EPA Is required to set LOR treatment standards for these wastes within 6 months of the date of listing, but no hammer
provisions apply.
9. This waste was newly listed on February 13. 1986. EPA is required to set LOR treatment standards for these wastes withIn 6 months of the date of listing, but no hammer
provisions apply.
10. This waste was newly listed on October 24, 1986. EPA Is required to set WA treatment standards for these wastes withIn 6 months of the date of listing, but no hammer
provisions apply
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX Al (b)
fPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA CALIFORNIA UST WASTES’
West, Code 2
Type ’ 4
Dates Restricted
Type of Restriction Comments
California List
Liquid RCRA hazardous
718/87
None - hard hammer restrictions apply
wastes
waste containing
Cvanldos In concentrations
greater than 1000 mg/I
Liquid RCRA hazardous
waste containing metals in
concentrations greater than:
500 mg/I for arsenic,
100 mg/I for lead,
500 mg/I for chromium Vi,
500 mg/i for lead,
20 mg/I for mercwy ,
134 mg/I for nickel,
100 mg/I for selenium, end
130 mg/i for thallium
7/8/87
None - hard hammer restrictions apply
Liquid ACRA hazardous
waste that Is a corrosive
waste with a p 1-I less than or
aqua! to 2.0
7/8187
None - Codified prohibition levels
Liquid RCRA hazardous
waste containing PCB5 in
concentrations greater than
or equal to 50 ppm
7/8/87
Treatment standard - specified technology
ACRA hazardous waste
containing halo genated
organic compounds (HOCs)
that are.
Dilute wastewaters greater
than or equal to 1000 mg/I
but loss than 10,000 mg/I
7/8/87
Codified prohibition levels
Liquid hazardous wastes and
non-liquids greater than or
equal to 1000 mg/kg
8/8/88
Treatment standard - specified technology
Restriction in affect for period noted * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX Al (b) (ccnhtnued)
TfPE OF LDR RESTRICTION IN EFFECT FOR EACH RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE CODE 1
A-l(b).2
Waste Code 2 Type 3 ’ 4 Dates Resfr icted Type of Restriction Comments
RCAAICERCLA soil and 11/8/88 - 11/8/90 Natlonai capacity extension in effect until
debris greater than or equa’ November 8, 1990
to 1000 mg/kg 11/8/90
Final - Codified prohibition levels
ACM hazardous waste
containing halogenated
organic compounds (HOCs) 5
that are:
Non-RCRA/CERCLA soil and
7/8187 - 7/8/89
Minimum Technology Requirements
National capacity extension in effect
debris greater than or equal
until July 8, 1989
to 1000 mg/kg
7/8/89
Treatment standard - specified technology
I. Under the WRs, the California list prohibitions may continue to apply in circumstances when: (1) Uquid hazardous wastes contain over 50 ppm PCBs, where the PCBs are not
regulated by the treatment standards; (2) HOC-containing wastes are identified as hazardous by a characteristic property that does not involve HOCs, such as an Ignitable
waste that also contains greater than 1,000 ppm HOCs; (3) Liquid hazardous wastes contain a total concentration of more than 134 mg/I of nickel and/or 130 mg/I of thallium
(because these two constituents are not regulated under the characteristic of toxicity); and (4) Wastes granted a two-year national capacity variance are also California list
wastes, until the treatment standards become effective
2. Appendix A-2 provides complete waste code descriptions, and where appropriate, complete explanation of treatment standards and BDATs.
3. EPA considers wastewate,s to be wastes containing less than one percent total organic carbon (TOC) and less than one percent total fiite,abie solids.
4. Soil end debris wastes are subject to restrictions listed under the cafe goiy nonwastewaters, except where noted otheiwlse
5. See Appendix lii to 40 CFR 268 for a list of HOCs used to calculate whether a waste contains greater than 1,000 mg/kg of HOCs.
* Restriction in effect for period noted. * * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATJON *
-------
Iv
-------
APPENDICES A-2 AND A-3
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES
FOR SOLVENT- AND DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES AND
CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
JUNE 1990
* * DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
-------
AP
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLV .
A -2
•ND DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-2. 1
Treatment
Standards
Waste
TCLP (mg/I) 1
Best Demonstrated
Code Description
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Treatment Technology 2 Effective Dale
Nonwastewaters 3
Acetone
Benzene
n-Butyl Alcohol
Carbon Dlsullide
Carbon Tetrachlonde
Chlorobenzene
Cresols & Cresylic Acid
Cyclohexanone
l,2-Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Benzene
Ethyl Ether
isobutanol
Methanol
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl lsobutyf Ketone
N,trobenzene
Pyridine
Tetrachloro ethylene
Toluane
1,1, 1-Tnchloroethane
l, 1,2-Trichioroethane
1 ,I ,2,-Thchloro-
I,2,2-tnfluoroethane
Tnchloroethylene
Trlchlorofluoromethane
Xylene
*2Etho xyelhanol
*2Nltropropane
059
3.7(rotai )
5.0
4.81
096
005
0.75
075
0.125
0.75
0 053
0.75
50
0.75
096
0.75
033
0.125
033
0.05
033
0.41
7.6 (Total)
096
0091
096
0 15
Treatment technology -
Incineration
Treatment technology -
incineration
November 8. 1988, for all
except:
August 8, 1990, for those
noted with a ;
November 8, 1988, for all
others, Including:
- Small quantity generators;
- CEACLA/RCAA corrective
action ( non-soil and debris) ;
end
- lnltlaf generator’s solvent-
water mixtures, solvent-
containing sludges and
solids, and non CERCL4J
ACM corrective action soils
with less than 1 percent total
solvent constituents ;
and
November 8, 1990, for all soil
and debris 1mm CERCLAJ
ACM corrective actions.
FOOl The following spent lialogenated solvents used
in degreasing: tetrachloroelhylene,
trlchloroethylene, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, carbon tetrechioride, and
chlorinated fluorocarbons, all spent solvent
mixtures/blends used In degreaslng containing,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (by
volume) of one or more of the above
halo genated solvents or those solvents listed in
F002, F004, and F005; and still bottoms (mm
the recovery of these spent solvents and spent
solvent mixtures
Incineration for all constituents
* *DMfl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON *
-------
APPENDIX A -2
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVENT- AND DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-2.2
Treatment
Standards
Waste
Code Description
TCLP (mg/I)’
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Best Demonstrated
Treatment Technology 2 Effective Date
Fool Wastewat era November 8, 1888, for all
(cont) Acetone 005 Steam stripping except
aBenzene 0.07 (Total) Biological treatment, steam 8trfpping, carbon
adsorption, & liquid extractIon August 8, 1990, for those
n-Butyl Alcohol 5.0 Steam stripping noted with a *;
Carbon Disuifide 1 05 Steam stripping
Carbon Tetrachlonde 005 Biological treatment November 8, 1988, for all
ChIorobenzene 0 15 BiologIcal treatment & activated carbon others, Including:
Cresols & Cresylic Acid 282 Activated carbon
Cyclohexanone 0.125 Steam stripping - Small quantity generators;
1,2-Dichiorobenzone 0.65 Biological treatment & activated carbon - CERCIAJRCRA corrective
Ethyl Acetate 005 Steam stripping action ( non-soil and debris) ;
Ethyl Benzene 0.05 BiologIcal treatment and
Ethyl Ether 005 Steam stripping - Initial generator’s solvent-
lsobutanol 50 Steam stripping water mixtures, solvent-
Methanol 025 Steam stripping containing sludges and
Methylene Chloride 020 BIological treatment solids, and non CERCLAJ
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.05 Steam stripping ACRA corrective action soils
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.05 Steam stripping wit!, less than 1 pement total
Nitrobenzene 0.66 Steam stripping & activated carbon solvent constituents ;
Pyridine 1.12 BiologIcal treatment & activated carbon
Tetrachloroefhylene 0 079 Biological treatment and
Toluene 1.12 Biological treatment & activated carbon
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.05 Steam stripping November 8, 1990, for oil soil
*1, l,2-Trlchloroethane 0030 (rota!) Incineration and debris from CERCLA/
1,1,2.-Tnchiom - flORA corrective actions.
l,2,2-tr,lluoroethane 1 05 Steam strippIng
Trichioro ethylene 0062 BiologIcal treatment & activated carbon
Trichlorouluoromethane 005 BiologIcal treatment
Kyleno 0 05 Activated carbon
*2Etho ,ryethano l Treatment technology -
Inc fnerat!on or
biodegradation
a2.Nitropropane Treatment technology -
incineration; (chemical
oxidation or wet-air
oxidation) followed by
carbon adsorption
* * *DRAfl6/90 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * a
a *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 2t ° TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APP
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVEP’. ) DIOXiN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-2.3
Treatment
Standards
Waste
TCLP (mg/I)’
Best Demonstrated
Code Descnption
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Treatment Technology 2 Effective Date
F002 The following spent halo genated solvents: For indMdual constituents, see treatment standards See effective dates for FOOl.
retrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, for FOOl wastes above
frichloroethylene, 1,1, 1-trichloroethane,
chlorobenzene, 1,1 • 2-trichloro- 1,2,2-
trilluoroethane. orthodichlorobenzene,
trichlorofluoromethane, and 1,1,2-
trichioroethane; all spent solvent mixture/blends
containing, before use, a total often percent or
more (by volume) of one or more of the above
halo genated solvents or those listed In FOOl,
F004, or F005; and still bottoms from the
recove,y of these spent solvents and spent
solvent mixtures
F003 The following spent non halogenated solvents: For Individual constituents, see treatment standards See effective dates for FOOl.
sylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, for FOOl wastes above.
ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl
alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol; all
spent solvent nixtures/blends containing,
before use, only the above spent non-
halogenatod solvents, and all spent solvent
mixtures Ibiends containing, before use, one or
more of the above non-halo genated solvents,
and, a total often percent or more (by volume)
of one or more of those solvents listed in FOOl,
F002, F004, and F005; and still bottoms from
the recovery of these spent solvents and spent
solvent mixtures
F004 The following spent non-halo genated solvents: For individual constituents, see treatment standards See effective dates for FOOl.
cresols and crosylic acid, and n,trobenzene, all for FOOl wastes above
spent solvent mixtures Iblends containing,
before use, a total of ten percent or more (by
volume) of one or more of the above non-
halo genated solvents or those solvents listed in
FOOl, F002, and F005; and still bottoms from
the recovery of these spent solvents and spent
solvent mixtures
a a *DRAFT 6/90.00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* a * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON A * A
-------
APPENDIX A-2
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVENT- AND DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-2.4
Treatment
Standards
Waste
TCLP (mg/i) 1
Best Demonstrated
Code Description
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Treatment Technology 2 Effective Date
F005 The following spent non-halogenated solvents:
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon dlsulflde,
isobutanol, pyrldine, benzene, 2-etho. iyethanol,
and 2-nitropropane; all spent solvent
mixtures! blends containing, before use, a total
often percent or more (by volume) of one or
more of the above non-halo genated soWents or
those solvents listed in FOOl, F002, or F004;
and still bottoms from the recoveiy of these
spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures.
For Individual constituents, see treatment standards
for FOOl wastes above.
See effective dates for FOOl.
F020 Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon
from hydrogen chloride purification) from the
production or manufacturing use (as a reactant,
chemical intermediate, or component In a
formulating process) of tn- or
tetrachlorophenol, or of intermediates used to
produce their pesticide derivatives. (This listing
does not include wastes from the production of
hexachlorophene from highly punfled 2,4,5-
trichiorophenol.
Hexach lorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
I- lexach lorod,benzo furs
Pentachiorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzo-
furans
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
99.9999% ORE - Incineration for all constituents
November 8, 1988, for
constituents in F020 wastes
except
November 8, 1990, for F020
constituents In soil and
debris from CERCLA/RCRA
corrective actions.
Basis for Llsting Tetra- end
pentachlorodibenzo-p-d,oxlns; tetra- and
pentachlorodibenzofurans, t,l and tetra-
chiorophenols and their chiorophenoxy
derivative acids, esters, ethers, amine, and
other salts.
dioxins
I etrachlorodibenzo-
furans
2,4,5-Trlchlorophenol
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<005 ppm
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
<0.05 ppm
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol <005 ppm
Pentachlorophenol
<0.01 ppm
* * *DP T 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPE
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVEN
2
DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-2.5
Treatment
Standards
Waste
TCLP (mg/I) 1
Best Demonstrated
Code Description
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Treatment Technology 2 Effective Date
F021 Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon
from hydrogen chiondo punflcatlon) 1mm the
production or menufactunng use (as a reactant,
chemical Intermediate, or component In a
formulating process) of pentachlorophenol, or
of Intermediates used to produce Its derlvetlves.
Basis for Usting Penta- and
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dsoxlns; pent a- and
hexachlomdibenzofurans; pentachiomphenol
and its derivatives.
Hexachlorodibenzo -p-
dioxins
<1 ppb
Hexachlorodibenzofurans < I ppb
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-. <1 ppb
diox ins
dioxins
-------
APPENDIX .4-2
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVENT. AND DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-2.6
Treatment
Standards
Waste
Code Description
TCLP (mg/i)’
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Best Demonstrated
Treatment Technoiog- Effective Date
F022 Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon
from hydrogen chloride purification) from the
manufacturing use (as a reactant, chemical
Intermediate, or component in a formulating
process) of tetra-, penta-, or
hexachlorobenzenes under alkaline conditions.
Basis for Listing: Tetra-, penta-. and
hexachlorothbenzo-p-dsoxins, tetra-, penta-, and
hexachlorodibenzofurans
Hexechlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
t’enracfllorodlbenzo-p-
dioxins
Pentach lorod ,benzo-
furans
-------
AP, A-2
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVE,. ND DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
42.7
Treatment
Standards
Waste
TCLP (mg/i)’
Best Demonstrated
Code Description
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Treatment Technology 2 Effective Date
F023 Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon
from hydrogen chloride purification) from the
production of materials on equipment
previously used for the production or
manufacturing use (as a reactant, chemical
Intermediate, or component In a formulating
process) of tn- and tetrechlorophenols. (This
listing does not Include wastes from equipment
used only for the production or use of
hexachiorophene from highly purified 2,4,5-
tnichlorophenoi)
Basis for Usting: Tetra- and
pentachiorodsbenzo-p-diox:ns; tetra- and
pentachlorodibenzofurans; tn- and tetra-
chlorophenols and their chloropheno.ity
derivative acids, esters, ethers, amine, and
other salts.
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
<1 ppb
Hexachlorod,benzofurans < 1 ppb
Pentach lorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
Pentachlorodibenso-
furans
Tetrach lorod:benzo-p-
dioxins
Tetrach lorodibenzo-
furans
2,4,5-T nlchlorophenol
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<1 ppb
<0.05 ppm
99.9999% ORE - Incineration for all constituents November 8, 1988, for
constituents In F023 wastes
except:
November 8, 1990, for F023
constituents In soil and
debris from CERCLA/RCRA
corrective actions.
2,4,6-Trichiorophenol
<0.05 ppm
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol <0.05 ppm
Pentachiorophenol
<0.01 ppm
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * a
* *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * A a
-------
APPENDIX A-2
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVENT- AND DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-2.8
Treatment
Standards
Waste
TCLP (mg/I)’
Best Demonstrated
Code Description
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Treatment TechnoIog Effective Date
F026 Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon
from hydrogen chloride punfication) from the
production of materials on equipment
previously used for the manufacturing use (as a
reactant, chemical intermediate, or component
In a formulating process) of tetra-, penta-, or
hexachlorobenzene under alkaline conditions.
Basis for Listing. Tetra-, penIs-, and
hexachlorodlbenzo-p-dioxins, tetra-, penta-, and
hexachlorodibenzofurans
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins
<1 ppb
l-Iexachlorodibenzofurans < I ppb
Pentachiorodibonzo-p- < I ppb
dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzo-
(urans
Tetrachl
dioxins
< I ppb
-p-
-------
APF
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVES
4-2
ID DIOXIN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-2.9
Treatment
Standards
Waste
TCLP (mg/I) 1
Best Demonstrated
Code Description
Constituent (unless otherwise noted)
Treatment Technology 2 Effective Date
F027 Discarded unused formulations containing td-,
tetra-, or pentachiorophenol or discarded
unused formulation containing compounds
derived from these chiorophenols. (This listing
does not include formulations containing
hexachioropheno synthesized from prepuniled
2,4,5-tnchlorophenoi as the sole component)
Basis for Listing Tetra-, penta-. and
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins, to Ira-, penta-, and
hexachlorodibenzofurans; tn-, loIre -, and
pentachlorophenols and their chiorophenoxy
derivative acids, esters, ethers, amine, and
other salts
dioxins
<1 P 1”
Hexachlorodibensolurens <1 ppb
Pentach!orodibenzo-p- <1 ppb
dioxins
Pentachlorod,benzo- <1 ppb
furans
Tetrechlorodibenzo-p- < I ppb
dioxins
<1 ppb
99.9999% DRE - Incineration for all constituents November 8, 1988, for
constituents in F027 stes
except:
November 8, 1990. for F027
constituents In soil end
debris from CERCLA/RCRA
corrective actions.
2.4,5-Tachiorophenol
2,4,6-Trichioropheno/
<0.05 ppm
<0.05 ppm
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol <005 ppm
Pentachiorophenol
<0.01 ppm
furans
* * * DFWT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-2
TREATMENT STANDARDS SOLVENT- AND DIOXiN-CONTAINING WASTES
A-Z 10
Treatment
Standards
Waste
TCLP (mg/I) 1
Best Demonstrated
Code Description
Constituent (unless otheiwlse noted)
Treatment Technology 2 Effective Date
F028 Residues resulting from the incineration or
thermal treatment of soil contaminated with EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos F020, F021, F022, F023,
F026, and F027.
Basis for Listing. Tetra-, penta-, and
hexach!orodibenzo-p-dioxins; tetra-, penfa-, and
he,iachiorodibenzofurans, to-, tetra-, and
pentachiorophenol and their chloropheno,iy
derivative acids, esters, ethers, amine, and
other salts.
dioxins
Tetrachforod,benzo- < I ppb
furans
2,4,5-Trich!oropheno! <0.05 ppm
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <0.05 ppm
2,3,4,6-Tetrachloropheno! <005 ppm
Pentachloropheno! <0.01 ppm
Concentration In TCLP extract of the waste treatment residues based on practical detection limit.
2 Other treatment methods may be used if the wastes meet the treatment standard concentration levels.
Wastewaters are defined as solvent waler mixtures containing one percent or less total organic carbon.
Hexachlorodibenzo-p- < I ppb 999999% ORE
- Incineration for all constituents November 8, 1989, for
dioxins
constituents in F028 wastes
except:
Hexachlorodibenzofurans < 1 ppb
Pentachlorodibenzo-p- < I ppb
November 8, 1990, for F028
constituents In soil and
dioxins
debris from CERCLAJRCRA
corrective actions.
Pentachlorod,benzo- < 1 ppb
furans
<1 ppb
a a a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 26P VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON a a
-------
APT 4-3
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECJ,. ATES FOR CAUFORNIA UST WASTES’
4-3.1
Prohibthon
Treatment
Test
Best Demonstrated
Constituent Level
Standard
Method
Treatment Technology Effective Date
Description
Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liquids 1,000 mg/I NA PFLT NA July 8, 1987
associated with solid or sludge, containing free
cyanides (cyanides amenable to chlorination by
test method 9010 in SW-846 is recommended) at
concentrations greater than or equal to 1,000
mg/I
Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liquids Arsenic 3 500 mgI! NA PFLT 2 NA July 8, 1987
associated with any solid or sludge, containing Cadmium 3 100 mg/I
(he following metals (or elements) or compounds Chromium V! 3 500 mg/I
of these metals (or elements) at concentrations Lead 3 500 mg/I
greater than or equal to the prohibition levels Mercuri 20 mg/I
Nickel 3 134 mg/I
SelenIum 3 100 mg/I
Thallium 3 130 mg/I
Liquid (aqueous) hazardous wastes having a pH pH < 20 NA PFLT’ NA July 8, 1987
less than or equal to 20 Test Method 5.2
In SW-846
applied to
total waste
Dilute halo genated organic compounds (HOC) 1,000 mg/I NA PFLT’ NA July 8, 1987
wastewaters, defined as HOC-waste mixtures that IWA ’
are pnmanly water and that contain greater than
or equal to 1,000 mg/I but less than 10,000 mg/I
Other liquid hazardous wastes containing HOCs 1.000 mg/I 9999% ORE PFLT 4 IncineratIon November 8, 1988
In total concentration greater than or equal to TWA 5
1,000 mg
Non-liquid hazardous wastes containing HOCs In >1,000 mg/kg 99.99% DRE PFLI 4 IncineratIon November 8, 1988
total concentrations greater than or equal to TWA ’
1,000 mg/kg
Soil and debris HOCs not from CERCLAIRCRA >1,000 mg/kg 9999% ORE PFLT 4 IncineratIon July 8, 1989
corrective actions
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A3
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES 1
A-3.2
Prohibition
Constituent Level
Treatment
Standard
Test
Method
Best Demonstrated
Treatment Technology
Description
Effective Date
Soil and debris HOCs from CERCLA/RCRA
corrective actions
>1,000 mg/kg
99.99% ORE
PFLT 4
TWA 5
incineration
November 8,
1990
Uquid hazardous waste containing
polychlorinated biphenyis (PCBs) at
50 ppm PCBs
999999% ORE
PFLT’
TWA 5
Incineration (in
accordance with 40
July 8, 1987
concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm
CFR 761.70) or
and less than 500 ppm
burning in a high
efficiency boiler (In
accordance with 40
CFR 761.60)
Uquld hazardous wastes containing PCBs greater
than or equal to 500 ppm
50 ppm PCBs
99.9999% ORE
PFLT 4
7’NA 5
incineration (in
accordance with 40
CFR 761.70)
July 8, 1987
Under the WRs, California list prohibitions may continue to apply in circumstances when. (1) liquid hazardous wastes contain over 50 ppm PCBs, where the PCBs are not regulated by the treatment
standards; (2) HOC-containing wastes are Identified as hazardous by a characteristic property that does not involve HOCs, such as an Ignitable waste that also contains greater then 1,000 ppm HOCs;
(3) liquid hazardous wastes contain a total concentration of more than 134 mg/i of nickel and/or 130 mg/I of thallium (because these two constituents are not regulated under the characteristic of
toxicity), and (4) wastes granted a two-year national capacity variance are also California list wastes, until the treatment standards become effective.
2 Concentration level must be determined either by the filtrate from the paint filter free liquid test (PFLT) or by knowledge of the waste.
3 And/or compounds.
A paint filter free liquid test (PFLT) must be used to determine if the waste contains free liquids.
A total waste analysis is performed to determine ii the concentration of HOGs is above the prohibition level.
* DRAFT 6/90-00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * a
* A A REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * A
-------
V
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES
FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES
JUNE 1990
* * DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
-------
APPENDIX A4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 I
West.
Cod.
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by “)
noted by’)
0001
Ignitable wastes
Nonwastewa ie,s
August 8, 1990
Ignitable Compressed Gases subcate gory
Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deacth’ation
Ignitable Reactlves subcategoiy
Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology- deactivation
Oxidizers
Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Ignitable LiquIds High TOC ( 10% TOC)
Treatment technology. IncIneration; fuel substitution; or
recovery treatment
Incineration; fuel substitution; or recovery
treatmenL
Ignitlable Liquids low mc (> 1% TOC but < 10% TOC)
Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
‘‘‘DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION’ ‘
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 2
Wasta
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
0001 (continued) Wastewaters August 8, 1990
Ignitable Compressed Gases subcatego,y Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Ignitable React/yes subcategoiy Deact i vation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Oxidizers Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Ignitable Uqulds subcategor/ (<1% TOC, < 1%TSS) Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT Cf TE OR QUOTE *
* REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECITVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 3
waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
0002 Corrosive wastes Nonwastewaters August 8, 1990
Alkaline subcategory Deactivation.’
Treatment technology - deactivation
Acid subcatego,y Deactivation.’
Treatment technology - deactivation
Other Corrosives subcate gory Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Wa ste waters August 8, 1990
Alkaline subcategoiy Deactivation’
Treatment technology - deactivation
Acid subcatego,y Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Other Corrosives subcate gory Deactivation.’
Treatment technology- deactivation
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * * SEE RE VISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-44
Waste
Code
Description
Treafrnent Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mgJl) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
0003 Reactive wastes. Nor,wastewaters August 8, 1990
Reactive Cyanides subcate gory Alkaline chlorination
Cyanldes (Total) 590 NA’
Cyanldes (Amenable) 30 NA
Reactive Sulfides subcafegory Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - Deactivation
Explosives subcatego,y Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Water Reactives and Other Reactlves subcategosy Deactivation.
Treatment technology - deactivation
a * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4.5
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg!kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg!I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
0003
(continued)
Wastewaters
Reactive Cyanldes subcategory
Cyanides (Total) Reseriod NA
Cyan!des (Amenable) 0086 NA
Alkaline chlorlnatlonAvgust 8, 1990
Reactive SulfIdes subcatego,y
Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Explosives subcategoiy
Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Water Reactives and Other Reacttves subcategory
Deactivation. 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
0004
ArsenIc
Nonwastewaters
May 8, 1992
Arsenic NA 5.0
Vitrification.
Wastewaters
August 8. 1990
Arsenic 50 NA
Chemical precipitation
* DflAFT 6/90-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
T , tment Standa”
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I) As Basis for Standards
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by * 19
noted by *)
Waste
Code Description Constituent
A-4 6
Effective Date 2
0005
Barium.
Nonwastewat rs
August 8,
1990
Barium NA
100
Chemlcei precipitation or stabilization.
Wastewatera
August 8,
1990
Barium 100
NA
Chemical precipitation.
0008
CadmIum.
Nonwastewat.rs
August 8,
1990
Cadmium NA
1.0
StabilizatIon
Cadmium BatterIes
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - thermal recovery
Thermal recovery.
Wastewaters
August 8.
1990
Cadmium 1 0
NA
Chemical precipitation.
0007
ChromIum.
Nonwastewaters
August 8,
1990
Chmmlum (Total) NA
5.0
ChromIum reduction followed by stabilization.
Wastewaters
August 8,
1990
Chromium (Total) 50
NA
Chromium reduction followed by precipitation and
dewatering.
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* a *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 2RR TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 7
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis (or Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
0008
Lead.
Nonwastewaters
August 8, 1990
Lead NA5.Oaa
Stabilization
Lead Acid Batteries subcalego,y
.
Treatment technoiogy - thei’mal recovery
Thermal recovery,
May 8, 1992 (extension for
materials stored pnor to
secondary smelting)
Wastewatera
August 8, 1990
Lead 5.ONA
Chemical reduction followed by chemical
precipitation.
0009
Mercury.
Nonwastewaturs
May 8, 1992
High Mercury subcate gory
( 260 mg/kg total mercury)
Mercury and organics
Incineration; or roasting or retorting.
Treatment technology - incineration of mercury and
organics; or roasting or retorting
inorganics (including incinerator residues)
Roasting or retorting
Treatment technology- roasting or retorting
Low Mercury subcate gory
(<260 mg/kg total mercury)
Mercury NA 0.020
Acid leaching, stabilization, or incineration
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a * a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4.8
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by )
0009
(continued)
Wastewafers
August 8, 1990
Marc uty
0.20 NA
Chemical oxidation! reduction followed by
chemical precipitation.
0010
Selenium.
Nonwastewaters
August 8, 1990
Selenium
NA 5.7
StabIlization.
Wastewate,’s
August 8, 1990
Selenium
1.0 NA
Chemical precipitation.
Doll
Sliver.
Nor,wasfowaters
August 8, 1990
Silver
NA 5.0
StabIlization.
Wastewaters
August 8, 1990
Sliver
5.0 NA
Chemical precipitation.
0012
Endrin.
Nonwastewafers
August 8, 1990
Endr ln
0.13 NA
Incineration.
Wastewaters
August 8, 1990
Treatment technol
ogy - incineration or biodegradation
Incineration or biodegradation.
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab c - “ ‘mposIte Samp! ” Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I) As Basis for Standards
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by a*)
noted by *)
Waste
Code Description Constituent
A-4 9
Effective Date 2
0013
Undane.
Nonwastewaters
August 8, 1990
Undano 0066 NA Incineration.
Wastewaters
August 8, 1990
Treatment technolgoy- Incineration or carbon adsorption Incineration or carbon absorption.
0014
Methorychlor.
Nonwastawaters
August 8, 1990
Mothoxychlor 0.18 NA Incineration
Wastewaters
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration or wet-air oxidation Incineration or wet-air oxidation.
D015
Toxaphene
Nonwastewaters
August 8, 1990
Toxaphene 1.3 NA Incineration
Wastewaters
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration or biodegradation Incineration or biodegradation.
D016
2,4-0.
Nonwastewate i s
August 8, 1990
2,4-0 10 NA Incineration
Wastewaters
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incIneration or biodegradation or Incineration or biodegradation or chemical
chemical oxidation oxidation
* * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR * *
* a * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFYALL INFORMAT iON * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 10
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by A)
0017 2,4,5-TP Nonwasteweters August 8, 1990
2,4,5-TP 79 NA Incineration.
Wastewaters August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - Incineration or chemical oxidation Incineration or chemical oxidation.
ADRAfl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE A A *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 2F R TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON ‘
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Nor,wastewatprs
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide
(Amenable)
Cadmium (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Sliver
590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.066
52
.51
.32
.072
August 8, 1988. Standard for
cyanide effectIve July 8, 1989
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
F006
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by I .)
FOOl-
For treatment standards for F001-F005, see
F005
Appendix A-2, Solvents and Dioxins
A-4. 11
Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations except from the
following processes: (1) sulfuric acid anodizing
of aluminum; (2) tIn plating on carbon steel. (3)
zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon
steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum piating on
carbon steel; (5) cieanlnglst,lpplng associated
with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon
steel; and (6) chemlcei etching and milling of
aluminum
Wastewaters
Alkaline chlorination for amenable and total
cyanides; stabilization of metals.
Alkaline chlorination for amenable and total
cyanides; chromium reduction followed by
chemical precIpitation for metals.
Cyanides (Total)
1.2
NA
Cyanides (Amenable)
0.86
PM
Cadmium (Total)
1.6
NA
Chromium (Total)
0.32
NA
Lead
0.040
NA
Nickel
0.44
NA
* * DR4FY 6/90 00 NOTCITE OR QUOTE
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 To VERIFY ALL INFORMATION °
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
44.12
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composIte by )
noted by é)
F007 Spent cyanide plating solutions from Nonwastewaters Alkaline chlorination for amenable and total July 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
electroplating operations. cyanides; precipitation, so Wing, filtration and soft hammer waste as of
Cyanides (rotal) 590 NA stabilization of metals. August 8, 1988)
Cyanides
(Amenable) 30 NA
Cadmium NA 0.066
Chromium (rital) NA 5.2
Lead NA 0.51
Nickel NA 0.32
Silver NA 0.072
Wastewaters Alkaline chlorination for amenable and total July 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
cyanides; precipitation, seWing, filtration and soft hammer waste as of
Cyanldos (Total) 1.9 NA sludge dowatedng for metals. August 8, 1988)
Cyanides
(Amenable) 0.10 W A
Chromium (Total) 0.32 NA
Lead 004 NA
Nickel 0.44 NA
* * * DRAFT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 26P T I) VEPJFY ALL INFORMATiON
-------
APPENDIX 44
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 13
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by AA)
noted by A)
F008 Plating bath sludges from bottom of
plating bath from electroplating
operations where cyanides are
used In the process.
Nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanldes
(Amenable)
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Alkaline chlorination for amenable and
total cyanIdes; precipitation, settling
filtration, and stabilization for
metals.
July 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewa tars
Cyanldes (Total)
Cyanldes
(Amenable)
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
1.9
o 10
0.32
004
0.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.068
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
Alkaline chlorination for amenable and
total cyanldes; precipitation, seWing,
filtration, and sludge dewaterlng for
metals.
July 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * A *
A A SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON A A
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 14
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
F009 Spent stripping and cleaning bath
solutions from electroplating
operations where cyanldes are
used.
Nonwastewaters
Cyanides (Tots.)
Cyanldes
(Amenable)
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Alkaline chlorination for amenable and
total cyanldes; precipitation, settling,
filtration, and stabilization for
metals.
July 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
Cyanides (Total)
Cyanldes
(Amenable)
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
1.9
010
0.32
004
0.44
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
590
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
Wastewaters
Alkaline chlorination, for amenable and
total cyanides; precipitation, sewing,
filtration, and sludge dewatering for
metals.
July 8. 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
FOb Quenching bath residues from oil baths from
Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
June 8,
1989
metal heat treating operations where cyanides
are used In the process.
Cyanldes (Total)
1.5
NA
Wastewaters
Cyanldes (Total)
Cyanides
(Amenable)
1.9
0.10
NA
NA
Alkaline chlorination for amenable and total
cyanldes; precipitation, seWing, filtration, and
sludge dewatering for metals.
June 8,
1989
* * *DRAFr6,90DONOTCITEORQUOTE
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTP/E DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4.15
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Doscnptlon
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mgII) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
Foil Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot Nonwastewaters Electrolytic oxidation followed by July 8, 1989
cleaning from metal heat treating operations, alkaline chlorination for amenable and
Cyanldes (rota,) 110 NA total cyanides; precipitation, seWing,
Cyanides stabilIzation of metals
(Amenable) 9.? NA
Cadmium NA 0.066
Chromium (Total) NA 6.2
Lead NA 0.51
Nickel NA 0.32
Sliver NA 0.072
Wastawaters
Alkaline chlorination for amenable and Juty 8, 1989
Cyanldes (Total) 1.9 NA total cyanldes; precipitation, seWing,
Cyanides filtration, and sludge dewaterlng for
(Amenable) 0.10 NA metals.
Chromium (Total) 0.32 NA
Lead 0.04 NA
Nickel 0.44 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 16
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
F012 Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from Nonwastewaters Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline July 8, 1989
metal heat treating operations where cyanides chlorination for amenable and total cyanides;
are used in the process. Cyanldes (Total) 110 NA precipitation, sewing, stabilization of metals.
Cyanldes
(Amenable) 9.1 NA
Cadmium NA 0.066
ChromIum (Total) NA 52
Lead NA 051
Nickel NA 0.32
Slfver NA 0.072
Wastewaters Alkaline chlorination for amenable and total July 8, 1989
cyanldes; precipitation, settling, filtration, and
Cyanides (Total) 1.9 NA sludge dewatering for metals.
Cyanide
(Amenable) 0.10 NA
ChromIum (Tots!) 032 NA
Lead 004 NA
Nickel 044 NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 17
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
F019 Wastewater treatment sludges from the Nonwastewaters AikeJine chlorination for cyanides and stabthzatlon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
chemical conversion coating of aluminum for chromium, a soft hammer waste as of
Cyanides (Total) 590 NA August 8. 1988)
Cyanides (Amenable) 30 NA
Chromium (Total) NA 52
Wastewate s Alkaline chlorination for cyanides and chromium August 8, 1990 ((Restricted
reduction followed by chemical precipitation for as a soft hammer waste as of
Cyanides (Total) 1.2 NA chromium. August 8, 1988)
Cyanides (Amenable) 086 NA
Chromium (Total) 0.32 NA
F020- For treatment standards for F020-F023, see
F023 Appendix A-2 (Sotvents and Dloxlns)
* a * ) 4fl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
a a * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 18
Waste
Code
Description
Tre,atinent Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by A)
F024 Wastes, Including, but not limited to, distillation
residues, heavy ends, tars, and reactor
cleanout wastes from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, having
carbon content from one to five, utilizing free
radical catalyzed processes (This list does not
include light ends, spent filters and filter aids,
spent desiccents, wastewater, wastewater
treatment sludges. spent catalysts, and wastes
listed In §261.32).
Nonwasfewaters
Chromium (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Lead
2-Chloro-1,3
-butadlen.
3-Chloropropene
1, I-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1.2-Dichloropropane
cls-1 ,3-
Dichioropropene
tians-1,3-
Dichioropropene
Bss (2-ethyl hexy l)
phtha late
Hexachlorethane
Incineration (as a method to destroy diox!ns and June 8, 1989 for all except
furans); stabilization for metals. metals; August 8, 1990, for
metals (dioxin and furan
concentration standards
dropped in Third Third rule
and replaced by a method of
treatment)
NA
NA
NA
0.073
0088
0.021
028
028
0.014
0.014
0.014
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.014
NA
0014
NA
18
1.8
NA
NA
A * *Dfl4fl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a a *
A A ASEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION A A A
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 19
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
.4.s Basis (or Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mglkg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
F024 (continued) Wastewaters Incineration (as a method to destroy dioxins and June 8. 1989 (dioxIn and
furans); stabilization for metals. furan concentration standards
Chromium (Total) 0.35 NA dropped In Third Third rule
Nickel (Total) 047 NA and replaced by a method of
2-Chloro-1,3 treatment)
-butadler ,e 0.28 NA
3-Chioropropene 028 NA
1,1-Dlchloroethane 0.014 NA
1,2-Dichloroeti ,ane 0.014 NA
1,2-Dlchloropropane 0.014 AlA
cls-i,3-
Dlchloropropene 0014 NA
trans-i
Dichloropropene 0.014 NA
Bls(2-elhyihexyi)
phtha l ate 0 036 NA
He,xach!oroethane 0036 NA
P025 Condensed light ends, spent filters and filter Ught Ends subcatego,y
aids, and spent desiccant wastes from the
production of ceflaln chlorinated aliphatics
Nonwastewaters IncineratIon. August 8, 1990
ChIorofonn 62 NA
1,2-Dichioroethane 62 NA
1, 1-Dichloroethylene 62 NA
Mothylene chlonde 31 NA
Carbon tetra chloride 62 NA
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 62 NA
Trichioroethyiene 5 6 NA
Vinyl chloride 33 NA
* a * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION ’
-------
APPENDIX A.4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD ThIRD WASTES 1
A-4 20
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
F025 (continued) West ewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990
Chloroform 0046* NA
1,2-Dlchioroethane 021 * NA
I.1-Dlchloroethylene 0.025* N4
Methylene chloride 0.089* NA
Carbon tetrechiorlde 0.057* NA
I,1,2-Trfcholoethane 0.054* NA
Trlchioroathylene 0 054* NA
Vinyl chloride 027* NA
Spent Filters/Filter Aids and Desiccants
Nonwastewaters IncineratIon. August 8, 1990
Chloroform 6.2 NA
Melhylene chloride 31 NA
Carbon tetrachloride 6.2 NA
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 6.2 NA
Trichloro ethylene 5.6 NA
Vinyl chloride 33 NA
Hexachlorobenzene 37 NA
Hexachlorobutadiene 28 NA
Hexach loroethane 30 NA
* * * p 4fl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4.21
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Coda
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg JCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by )
noted by )
F025
(continued)
Wastewaters
IncIneration.
August 8, 1990
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Carbon tetrachlorlde
1. I,2-T,lchloroeihane
Trlchiomethylens
Vinyl chloride
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
Hexachloroothane
0 046* NA
0.089* P-lA
0057*
0 054* NA
0 054* P 1 4
0.27 NA
0.055* NA
0055* NA
0.055* NA
F026-
For treatment standards for F026-F028, see
F028
Appendix A-2 (Solvents and Dloxins)
F039
For treatment standards for F039, see Appendix
A-S (multi-source Leachate)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE• * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFFI PART 268 To VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 22
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maidmum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (orEP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
KOOl Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of
wastewaters from wood preserving processes
that use creosote and/or pentachlorophenol.
Wastewaters
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Lead
August 8, 1988 (Treatment
standards for organlcs
revised In Third Third rule
and are effective August 8,
1990; old organic standards
‘)ln effect as of August 8,
1988)
August 8, 1988 (Treatment
standards for organics
revised In Third Third rule
and are effective August 8,
1990; old organic standards
(,Hn effect as of August 8,
1988)
Nonwastewaters
Naphtha lene
Pentach!orophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Toluene
Xy lenes
Lead
1 5 (8.0)
7.4 (37)
1.5 (8.0)
1 5 (7.3)
28(6.14)
33(0.16)
NA
0031 (0.15)
0 18 (0.88)
0.031 (0.15)
0028 (0.14)
0.028 (0.14)
0032 (0.16)
0037 (0.037)
Rotary kiln incineration followed by stabilization.
Chemical precipitation of scrubber water from
misty kiln incineration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.51
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
K002 Chrome yellow and orange pigment production
Nonwastewatet
Chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
August 8,
1990 -
wastes.
ifitration.
Chromium (Total)
Lead
NA
NA
0.094
0.37
Wastewaters
Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and
sludge dewatering.
August 8,
1990
Chromium (Total)
Lead
2.9
3.4
NA
NA
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION U U U
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Non w astewaters
Chromium (Total)
Lead
o 094
0.37
Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and
sludge dewatering
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8. 1989; no land
disposal based on no
generation from August 8,
1988, through June 8, 1989)
4423
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by ‘a ’)
noted by *)
K003
Molybdate orange pigment production wastes
Nonwastewater
Chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
filtration.
August 8, 1990
Chromium (Total)
Lead
N4 0.094
NA 0.37
Wastewaters
Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and
sludge dewatering.
August 8, 1990
Chromium (Total)
Lead
2.9 NA
3.4 NA
K004
Wastewater treatment sludge from the
production of zinc yellow pigments.
Chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering, and
filtration.
NA
NA
2.9
3.4’
Wastewaters
Chromium (Total)
Lead
NA
NA
August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
* * ‘D fl6/9ODONOTC 1TEORQUOTE * *
a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST. SECOND. AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 24
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composIte by a*)
noted by ‘)
K005 Westewater treatment sludge from the Nonwastewaters Chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering, and August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
production of chrome green pigments. filtration, no land disposal based on
Chromium (Total) NA 0.094 no generation or a soft
Lead NA 0.37 hammer waste as of June 8,
Cyanldes (Total) NA Reserved 1989)
Wastewaters Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
sludge dewatering, and alkaline chlorination for a soft hammer waste as of
Chromium (Total) 2.9 NA cyanldos. June 8, 1989)
Lead 3.4 NA
Cyanldes (Total) 0.74 NA
1(006 Chrome oxide green pigment production Nonwastewaters Chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering, and August 8, 1990
wastes filtration. Stabilization for hydrated chromium.
Anhydrous
Chromium (Total) NA 0.094
Lead NA 0.37
Hydrated
Chromium (Total) NA 5.2
Wastewaters Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and August 8, 1990
sludge dewaterfng.
Chromium (Total) 2.9, NA
Lead 34 NA
a * * DPAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
* *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 2 ° TO VERIFY ALL iNFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND. AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 25
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by ‘9
1 (007 Wastewater treatment sludge from the Nonwastewaters Chemical precipitation, sludge dewatenng, and August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
production of iron blue pigments. filtration, no land disposal based on
Chromium (Total) NA 0 094 no generation or a soft
Lead NA 0.37 hammer waste as of June 8,
Cyanldes (Total) NA Reserved 1989)
Wastewafers Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
sludge dewatering, alkaline chlorination for a soft hammer waste as of
Chromium (Total) 2.9 NA cyanldes. June 8, 1989)
Lead 3.4 NA
Cyanldes (Total) 074 AM
1(008 Oven residue from the production of chrome Nonwastewat era Chemical precipitation, sludge dewatering, and August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
oxide green plgments. filtration, a soft hammered waste as of
Chromium (Total) NA 0.094 June 8, 1989; no land
Lead NA 0.37 dIsposal based on no
generation from August 8,
1988. through June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
sludge dewatering a soft hammered waste as of
Chromium (Total) 2.9 NA August 8, 1988)
Lead 3.4 NA
K009 Distillation bottoms from the production of
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
June 8,
1989
acetaldehyde from ethylene
Chloroform
60
NA
Wastewaters
Steam strippIng followed by biological treatment
June 8,
1989
Chloroform
0 10
NA
* * *Dfl4fl6/90 DONOTCITEOR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * A *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Acetonhtale
Aciylonitrlle
Acrylamide
Benzene
Cyanides (Total)
1.8
1.4
23
0.03
57
380
0.06
190
0.02
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A-4 26
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by )
noted by
1 (010
Distillation side cuts from the production of
Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
June 8, 1989
acetuldehyde from ethylene.
Chloroform
60 hiM
Wastewaters
Steam stripping followed by biological treatment
June 8, 1989
Chloroform
0 10 NA
1(011
Bottom stream from wastewater stripper in the Nonwastewaters
production oh aciylonhtrlie.
Incineration.
Wastewaters
Acetonitrile
Acry lonitrlla
Ac, y lamide
Benzene
Cyanide (Total)
Wet-air oxidation.
June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as oh
August 8, 1988)
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 269 To VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFEC JIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES
A-4 27
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mglkg 1t LP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K013 Bottom stream from acetonltrfle column in the Nonwastewaters IncIneration. June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
production of acr lonitrlle. soft hammer waste as of
Aceton ltr,le 1 8 NA August 8, 1988)
Acry lonlti’ile 1.4 NA
Acrylamlde 23 NA
Benzene 0.03 NA
Cyanides (Total) 57 NA
Wastewaters Wet-air oxidation. August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Acetonltrile 38.0 NA August 8, 1988)
Aciy lonitr lle 0.06 NA
Acryiam,de 190 NA
Benzene 0.02 NA
Cyanide (Total) 21 NA
1 (014 Bottoms from acetonitrile purification column In Nonwastewaters IncineratIon. June 8. 1989 (RestrIcted as a
the production of acrylonitrile. soft hammer waste as of
Acetonltrile 1.8 NA August 8, 1988)
Aciy lonlt nle 1.4 NA
Aciy lamlde 23 NA
Benzene 003 NA
Cyanldes (Total) 57 NA
Wastewaters Wet-air oxidation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Acetonita-ile 380 NA August 8, 1988)
Acrylonitriie 006 NA
Acrylamide 190 NA
Benzene 002 NA
Cyanide (Total) 21 NA
* *flRAfl6/9Ø DONOTCITEOR QUOTEa * a
a a *SEE REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMA liON a a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4.28
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by ã*)
noted by *)
K015 Still bottoms from the distillatIon of benzyl Nonwastewaters Incineration followed by stabilization. August 8, 1090 (Restricted as
chloride, a soft hammered waste as of
Anthracene 3.4 NA June 8, 1989; no land
Benzol chloride 62 NA disposal based on no ash as
Benzo (b and/or k) of August 8, 1988)
fluoranthen. 34 NA
Phenanthreno 3.4 NA
Tolulene 60 NA
Total chromium NA 1.7
Nickel NA 0.2
Wastewaters Chemical precipitation of scrubber August 8, 1988
water from liquid injection
Anthiacene 1.0 NA Incineration.
Benzal chloride 0.28 NA
Benzo(b end/or k)
f!uoranthene 029 NA
Phene.nthrene 0.27 NA
Toluene 0.15 NA
Total chromium 032 NA
Nickel 044 NA
a * aflR4fl 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a * a
a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART ‘ 8 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a
-------
APPENDIX 4-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 29
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg ICLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
1(016
Heavy ends or distillation residues from the
Nonwastevjaters
Rotary kim incIneration.
August 8, 1988
production of carbon tetrachioride.
Haxach lorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadlene
Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene
Hoxach!oroethane
Tetrachloroethene
28 NA
5.6 NA
56 NA
28 NA
60 NA
Was fewate 4 rs
Concentrations in scrubber water from rotary kiln
incineration.
August 8, 1988
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachiorobutadlene
Haxachiorocyclo-
pentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachloroothene
0 033 NA
0.007 NA
0 007 NA
0 033 NA
0.007 NA
1(017 Heavy ends (still bottoms) from the purification Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
column in the production of epichlorohydrin. a soft hammer waste as of
1-2 Dichloropropane 18 NA August 8, 1988)
I,2 ,3-Trlchloropropane 28 NA
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether 72 NA
Waste waters Wastewator treatment 5 August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as ol
1-2 Dlchloropropane .85 NA August 8, 1988)
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 85 NA
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether .033 NA
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PA.RT 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMA TION *
-------
APPENDIX A .4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 30
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Totsi (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mgIl) (or EP, noted
(composite by *)
noted by *)
K018 Heavy ends from the fractionation column in Nonwastewaters Rotwy kiln IncIneration August 8, 1988
ethyl chloride production
Chloroethane 6.0 NA
1,I-Dichloroethane 60 NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 6.0 NA
Hexachiombenzene 28 NA
Hexach!orobutadiene 5.6 NA
Hexachloroethane 28 NA
Pentachloroethane 56 NA
1,1, I-Trlchloro-
athena 6.0 NA
Wastewaters Concentrations In scrubber water (mm rota,y kiln August 8, 1988
Incineration.
Ch loroethane 0.007 NA
Chloromethane 0.007 NA
I,1-Dlchloroethane 0.007 NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.007 NA
Hexachlorobenzene 0.033 NA
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.007 NA
Pentach loroethane 0.007 NA
1,1, I-Trlchloro-
ethane 0.007 NA
* * *DF 4F7 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a *
*SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 2 8 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND. AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 31
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by 9
K019 Heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene Nonwastewaters Rotaiy kiln incineratIon. August 8, 1988
dichlorlde in ethylene dichioride production.
BJs (2-ch loro ethyl)
ether 5.6 NA
Chlombenzen. 6.0 NA
Chloroform 6.0 NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 6.0 NA
Hoxachiomethane 28 NA
Nap lhaiene 5.6 NA
Phenanthrene 5.6 NA
Tetrachioroethene 6.0 NA
1 ,2 ,4-Tr lchloro-
benzene 19 NA
1,1, 1-Trlchloro-
ethano 6.0 NA
* DR4FT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE A A A
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION•
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 32
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Orab or Composite Sample
Totai (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by A)
K019 (continued) Wastewaters Concentrations In scrubber water from rotaiy kiln August 8, 1988
incineration
Bls(2-chloroethyl)
ether 0007 NA
Chlorobenzene 0006 NA
Chloroform 0.007 NA
p-Dlchlorobenzene 0008 NA
1,2-Dichloroethene 0007 NA
Fluorene 0.007 NA
Hexach loroeL 1 ,ane 0.033 NA
Naphthalene 0.007 NA
Phenanthrene 0007 NA
1,2,4,5-Totrach loro-
benzene 0017 NA
Tetrach lomethene 0007 NA
1 ,2 ,4-Trichioro-
benzene 0.023 NA
1,l,I-Tnchloro-
ethane 0007 l i lA
7 6/90 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART ‘58 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMAT iON t
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
Chloroform
Carbon tefrechiorido
Antimony
August 8. 1990 (No land
disposal based on no
generation after August 17,
1988; soft hammer provisions
did not apply to waste
disposed of before August
17, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
A-4 33
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
K020
HeaW ends from the distillation
Nonwastewaters
Rotary kiln incineration.
August 8, 1988
of vinyl chloride in vinyl
chloride production.
1,2-Dich loroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetra-
chlomethane
Tetrachlo,oeth.ne
6.0 NA
58 NA
6.0 NA
Wastewaters
Concentrations in scnibber water from rota,y kiln
Incineration.
August 8, 1988
1,2-Dichloroothano
1, 1,2,2-Tetra-
chloroethane
Tetrach lo,oethene
0.007 NA
0.007 NA
0.007 NA
K021
Aqueous spent antimony catalyst waste from
fluoromethanes production.
Nonwastewaters Incineration followed by stabilization for antimony.
6.2
6.2
NA
046*
057
0.60
Wastewaters
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachionde
Antimony
NA
NA
0.23
NA
NA
NA
Wastewater
DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 34
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Sinçjle Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K022 Distillation bottom tars from the Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution followed by metals stabilizatIon. August 8, 1988
production of phenol/acetone
from cumane. Acetophenone 19 NA
Sum of Diphenylamine
& Dlphenylnitrosam,ne 13 NA
Phenol 12 NA
Toluene 0034 NA
Chromium (Total) NA 5.2
Nickel NA 0.32
Wastewaters One or a combination of two or more of the August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
following technologies: biological treatment, a soft hammer waste as of
Toluene .080 NA steam stripping, carbon adsorption, liquid August 8, 1988)
Acetophenone .010 NA extraction and others.
Diphenylamine .52 NA
Diphenytnltrosamlne .40 NA
Sum of Dlphenylamine and
Dipheynlnitrosamine NA NA
Phenol .039 NA ChemIcal precIpitation followed by vacuum
Chromium (Total) 0.35 NA ifitratlon.
Nickel 0.47 NA
1(023 Distillation light ends from the production of
phthalic anhydrlde from naphthalene.
Nonwastewaters
Rotwy kiln incIneration.
June 8.
1989
Phtheiic acid
28
NA
(Phthallc anhydrlde)
Wastewatars
Concentrations in scrubber water from rotary kiln
incineration.
June 8,
1989
Phthalic acid
054
NA
(Phthalsc anhydnde)
a a a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL iNFORMATiON * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by 1)
1(024
Distillation bottoms from the production of
Nonwastewaters
Rotary kiln incineration.
August 8. 1988
phthaiic anhydrlda from naphtha lene.
Phthalic acid
(Phthallc anhydride)
28 NA
Wastewaters
Concentrations in scrubber water from rotaiy kiln
Incineration.
August 8, 1988
Phthallc acid
(Phthellc anhydride)
054 NA
1 (025
Nonwastewaters Incineration.
1(026 Stripping still tails from the prod
uction of methyl Nonwasterwaters
IncineratIon.
August 8,
1990
ethyl pyridines
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastowaters
IncIneration.
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - incineration
A-435
Distillation bottoms from the production of
nltrobenzene by the nItration of benzene.
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - Liquid-liquid extraction followed by
steam stripping followed by carbon absorption; or
incineration.
Liquid-liquid extraction followed by steam
stripping followed by carbon adsorption or
incineration.
August 8, 1990 (No land
disposal based on no
generation after August 17.
1988; soft hammer provisions
did not apply before).
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste on June
8. 1989)
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * ó
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4.36
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mgIi) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
1(027 Centrifuge and distillation Nonwastewaters Incineration or fuel substitution. June 8, 1989
residues from toluenu dilsocyanate
production Treatment technology - Incineration or
fuel 8UbStitUtlOfl.
Wastewatera Carbon adsorption or IncIneration. June 8, 1989
Treatment technology- carbon adsorption
or incineration; or pretreatment (such as
biological treatment or chemical oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption and incineration.
1(028 Spent catalyst from the hydroohlorinator reactor Nonwastewaters Incineration followed by stabilization of metals. June 8, 1989, August 8, 1990
in the production of 1,1,1-trlchloroethane for chromium, nickel, and
i ,1-Dlchloroethane 6.0 NA lead (restricted for first time
trans-i ,2- in Third Third rule)
Dlchloroethene 60 NA
Hexachlorobutadlene 56 NA
Hexach loroethane 28 NA
Pentach loroethane 5.6 NA
1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 56 NA
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachioroethane 56 NA
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane 60 NA
1,1,2-
Tuich loroetharie 6.0 NA
Tetrachioro ethylene 6.0 NA
Chromium (Total) NA .073
Nickel NA 088
Lead NA 021
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION fl *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4.37
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maidmum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
K028 (continued) Wpstewaters IncineratIon. June 8, 1989
1,I-Dlchloroethane 0.007 NA
rens-I,2-
Dichloroathene 0 033 NA
Hexachlorobutadlene 0007 NA
Hexachloroethane 0.033 NA
Hentachloroethane 0.033 NA
1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 0007 NA
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane 0.007 NA
Tetrachloroethylane 0.007
1,1,1—
Trichloroethane 0.007 NA
1.1,2-
Tr lch loroethane 0.007 NA
Chromium (Total) 0.35 NA
Nickel 047 NA
Cadmium 6.4 NA
Lead 0.037 NA
* * ‘DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a o
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTiVE DATES FOR FIRST. SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4.38
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
K029 Waste from the product steam stripper In the Nonwastewatets IncIneration. June 8, 1989
production of 1,1, 1-trlchloroethane.
Chloroform 6.0 NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 60 NA
1,1-
Dichloroethylene 6.0 NA
1.1,1-
Trich loroethane 60 NA
Vinyl Chloride 6.0 NA
Wastewaters Wastewater treatment. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Chloroform .046 NA June 8. 1989)
1,2 Dichloroethane 0.21 NA
1,1-Dlchioroethylene 025 NA
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane .054 NA
Vinyl Chloride 0.27 NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CifE OR QUOTE * * *
8 SEE RE VISED 40 CFR PART 26 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * 6 6
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 39
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single (1mb or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by
1(030 Column bottoms or hea ’y ends from Nonwastewators Rotary kiln IncIneration. August 8, 1988
the combined production of
(TI chioroethylene and Hexachlombutadlene 5.6 NA
perchloroethylene. Hexach loroe lhane 28 NA
Haxachloropropene 19 NA
Pentachlorobenzene 28 NA
Pentachloroethane 5.6 NA
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrach loro-
benzene 14 NA
Tetrach loroethene 6.0 NA
1,2,4-Trichloro-
benzene 19 NA
Wastewaters Concentrations In scrubber water from rotary kiln August 8, 1988
incineration.
o -Dichlorobenzene 0.008 NA
p-Dichlombenzene 0 008 NA
Herechlorobutadleno 0.007 NA
Hexachloroethane 0.033 NA
Pentachloroethane 0007 NA
i,2 ,4,5-TetrachIoro-
benzene 0.017 NA
Tetrachloroethene 0.007 NA
i,2 ,4-Trich loro-
benzone 0023 NA
a a * pA fl 6/90- DO NOT CiTE OR QUOTE
* REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 To VERIFY ALL iNFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 40
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by
K031 By-product salts generated in the Nonwastewaters Vitrification. May 8, 1992 (Restricted as a
production of MSMA end cacodylic acid, soft hammer waste as of
Arsenic NA 5.6 August 8, 1988)
Wastewatars Chemical precipItation. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Arsenic 0.79 NA August 8, 1988)
K032 Chiordane production wastes Nor,wastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990
Hexech lorocyclopentadiene
2.4 NA
Chlordane 026 NA
Heptachlor 0.066 NA
Heptachlor epoxide 0.066 NA
Wastewaters Wastewater treatment. 5 August 8. 1990
Hexachloro-
cyclopontadione 0057 NA
Ch!ordane 0 0033 NA
Heptachlor 0.0012 NA
Heptachior epoxide 0.016 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* SEE RE VISED 40 CFR PART 2& “0 VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 41
Waste
Code
Descdptlon
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
SInçle Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
K033
Chlordane production wastes.
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
August 8, 1990
Hexachloro-
cyclopentad lene
24 NA
Wastewaters
Wastewater treatment 5
August 8, 1990
Hexachioro-
cyclopentadlene
.057 NA
K034
Chiordane production wastes
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
August 8, 1990
Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene
2.4 NA
Wastowaters
Wostewater treatment 5
August 8, 1990
Hexachloro-
cyclopentadlene
0 057’ NA
* * DMF 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE’ a *
‘REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4.42
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K035 Wastewater treatment sludges generated Nonwastowators Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
In the production of creosote, a soft hammer waste as of
Acenaphthen, 34 NA August 8, 1988)
Mthmcene 3.4 NA
Benz(a) anthraceno 3.4 NA
Benzo4’e)pyren. 3.4 NA
Ch,ysene 3.4 NA
Dlbenz(a,h) anthracene 34 NA
Fluorantheno 3.4 NA
Fluorene 34 NA
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene 3.4 NA
Naphthaleno 3.4 NA
Phenanthrene 34 NA
Pyrene 82 NA
Wastewaters One or a combination of Mv or more of the August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
following: Biological treatment, steam stripping, a soft hammer waste as of
Benz (a) anthracene 0059 NA carbon adsorption, and liquid extraction August 8, 1988)
Ch,ysene 0.059 NA
Fluoranthene 0.068 NA
Cresols (m- and p-
Isomers) 077 • NA
Naphthalene 0.059 NA
o-cresol 0.11 • NA
Phenanthrene 0.059 NA
Phenol 0.039 NA
Pyrene 0067 NA
a * *() 4f7 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
a *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 2 A TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 43
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K036 Still bottoms from toluene reclamation Nonwastewaters Rotar,’ kiln Incineration August 8, 1990 (No land
distillation in the production of disposal based on no
dlsuifoton. Disu lfoton 0 I NA generation after August 17,
1988; soft hammer provisions
did not apply before August
17, 1988)
Wastewaters Biological treatment June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Dlsulfoton 0.025 NA August 8, 1988)
K037 Wastowater treatment sludge from Nonwastewateys Rotary kiln Incineration. August 8, 1988
the production of disulloton
Disulfoton 0.1 NA
Toltaene 28 NA
Wastewaters Biological treatment. August 8. 1990 (Standards
revised from First Third rule
Disulfoton 0.025 (0.003) NA standards In t ’)in effect as of
Toluene 0.080 (0028) NA August 8, 1988
1 (038 Wastewater from the washing and
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
June 8,
1989
stripping of phorate production.
Phorate
0.1
NA
Wastewaters
BiologIcal treatment.
June 8,
1989
Phorate
0.025
NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90- 00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE’ **
U * *9 REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION’ ‘
-------
APPENDIX A-4
Wastewater treatment sludge from
the production of toxaphene.
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 44
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Descnpflon
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K039
Filter cake from the filtration.
Nonwastewaters
IncIneratIon
June 8, 1989
of diothyl phosphorodlo acid In
the production of phorate.
Treatment technology - Incineration.
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or Incineration.
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or incIneration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration.
K040
Wastewater treatment sludge from
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
June 8, 1989
th. production of phorate
Phorate 0.1 NA
Wastewaters
Biological treatment.
June 8, 1989
Phorete 0.025 NA
K041
Nonwastewaters Incineration.
Toxaphene 26 NA
Wastewaters Wastewater treatment 5
Toxaphene 00095 NA
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
* * DRAFT 6/00- DO NOT Cf TE OR QUOTE * *
SEE RE VISED 40 CFR PART TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 45
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by AA)
noted by A)
1(042 HaaW ends or distillation residues Nonwastewatera Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
from the distillation of a soft hammer waste as of
tetrachlorobenzene In the 1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachloro- June 8, 1989)
production of 2,4,5-T. benzene 44 NA
o-Dlchlorobenzene 4.4 NA
p-D lchlorobenzene 4.4 NA
Pentachlorobenzene 4.4 NA
i,2,4-Tr!chlorobenzene 4.4 NA
Waste waters Wastewater treatment. 5 August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1 ,2 ,4 ,5-Tetrachloro- June 8, 1989)
benzene 0.055 NA
o-Dlchlorobenzene 0.088 NA
p-D lchlorobanzene 0.090 NA
Pentachlorobenzene 0.055 NA
1,2,4-Trichiorobenzene 0.055 NA
* DnAFr6/90- 00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE A A A
A A A SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 46
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by 19
K043 2,6-DIch!orophenol waste from the production Nonwastewaters IncIneration. June 8, 1989
of 2,4-D.
2,4-Dichlorophenol 038 NA
2,6-D lchlorophenol 0.34 NA
Pentechlorophenol 1.9 NA
Tetrach loroethene 1.7 NA
Tetrachloropheno ls
(Total) 068 NA
2,4,5 -
Trichiorophenol 82 NA
2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol 7.6 NA
Hexachlorod,benzo-
p-d loxins 0.001
Hexachlorod,benzo-
furans 0.001 NA
Pentachlorod lbenzo-
p-d lox lns 0.001 NA
Pentachlorodibenzo-
furans 0.001 NA
Tetiach lorodibenzo-
p-dlox lns 0001 NA
Tetrachlorod lbenzo-
furans 0001 NA
* * 1 DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL iNFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
Waste water treatment sludges from the
manufacturing and processing of explosives
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES
A-4 47
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by
1(043
(contInued)
Wastewaters
IncIneration.
June 8. 1989
2,4-Dlch loropheno l
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Pentachloropheno i
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachlomphenols
(Total)
2,4,5-
Tr lchlorophenol
2,4,6-
Trtchlorophenol
Hexach lorodlbenzo-
p-dioxins
Hexachlorodlbenzo-
furans
Pentachlorodlberizo-
p-dloxins
Pentach lorod lbenzo-
furang
Tetrach lorodlbenzo-
p-dioxlns
Tetrachlorodibenzo-
furans
0049 NA
0.013 NA
0.22 NA
0.006 NA
0018 NA
0016 NA
0039 NA
0001 NA
0.001 NA
0001 NA
0.001 NA
0.001 NA
0.001 NA
1(044
Nonwastewaters Deactivation 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
Wastewaters Deactivation 3
Treatment technology - deactivation
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Augusta, 1988)
• * DFAFr6I90-DO NOTCITE OR QUOTE* **
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 To VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTiVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4.48
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single G,ab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
K045 Spent carbon from the treatment of wastewater Nonwastewaters Deactivation 3 August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
containing explosives, no land disposal as of August
Treatment technology - deactivation 8, 1988)
Wastewaters DeactivatIon 3 August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
no land disposal as of August
Treatment technology - deactivation a, 1988)
K046 Wastewater treatment sludges from Nonwastewaters
the manufacturing, formulation, and
loading of lead based Initiating Non-reactive Deactivation 3 followed by stabilization. August 8, 1988
compounds. Lead NA 0.18
Reactive StabilIzation. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
Lead NA 0.18 a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Deactivation and chemical precipitation. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Reactive and Non-Reactive August 8 , 1988)
Lead 0.037 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE fr * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 49
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concent,vtlon for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
SInç ie Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *a)
noted by
K047 Pink/red water from TNT operations. Nonwastewaters DeactivatIon. 3 August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
no land disposal as of August
Treatment technology - deactivation 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Deactivation. 3 August 8, 1988 (Restricted as
no land disposal as of August
Treatment technology - deactivatIon 8, 1988)
K048 Dlssotved air flotation (OAF) float from the Nonwa ste waters Solvent extraction or incineration for organic and November 8, 1990
petroleum refining Industzy cyanide constituents, and stabilization for metal (Rescheduled as a Third
Benzene 14 NA constituents Third waste, old standards
Benzo(a)pyrene 12 NA promulgated as of August 8,
Bis(2-ethylhe ,r,4) 1988, but waste restricted
phthalate 7.3 NA under natIonal capacity
Chrysene 15 NA variance from August 8, 1988
Di-n-butyl phthalate 3.6 until November 8, 1990)
Ethylbenzene 14 NA
Naphthalene 42 NA
Phenanthrene 34 NA
Phenol 36 NA
Pyrene 36 NA
Toluene 14 NA
Xylanes 22 NA
Total Chromium NA 1.7
Nickel NA 0.20
a a * fl4fl /9 ) DONOTCITEORQUOTE a a
a * * REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 50
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
Wastewaters
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl)
phthalate
Chrysene
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
Ethyl benzene
Fiuoreno
Naphthalene
Phananthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Total cyanides
Total Chromium
Lead
Avgust 8, 1990 (Rescheduled
as a Third Thfrd waste; old
standards promulgated as of
August 8, 1988, but waste
restricted under national
capacity variance from
August 8, 1988 until August 8,
1990)
K048 (continued)
Chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and filtration of
scmbber water from fluidized
bed incineration.
0011
0047
0043
0043
0080
0011
0050
0.033
0 039
0.047
0.045
0011
0.011
0.028
020
0.037
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
* * *DJ fl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATiON * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 51
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K049 Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum Nonwastowaters Solvent extraction or incineration for organic and November 8, 1990
refining industiy. cyanide constituents, and stabiilzatlon or (Rescheduled as a Third
Anthiaceno 28 NA chemical precipitation for metal constituents Third waste; old standards
Benzene 14 NA promulgated as of August 8,
Benzo(a)pyrene 12 NA 1988, but waste restricted
B /s (2-ethyihexyl) under national capacity
phthalate 7.3 NA variance from August 8, 1988
Chrysene 15 NA until November 8. 1990)
Ethy lbenzene 14 NA
Naphthoiene 42 NA
Phenanthrene 34 NA
Phenol 36 NA
Pyrene 36 NA
Toluene 14 NA
Xy lenes 22 NA
Cyanides (Total) 18 NA
Total Chromium NA 1.7
Nickel NA 0.20
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a a a
* a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND ThIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 52
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Dernonstiated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Data 2
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, notad
(composite by U)
noted by )
Wastewaters
Anthracene
Banzene
$enzo(e)pyrene
BIs(2-ethy lheiiy l)
phthalate
Carbon disulfide
Chrysene
2 ,4 -DIme thyl phenol
Ethyl be,uene
Nsphthalene
Phenanthreno
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Total cyanldes
Total Chromium
Lead
August 8, 1990 (Rescheduled
as a Third Third waste; old
standards promulgated as of
August 8, 1988, but Waste
restrIcted under national
capacity variance from
August 8, 1988 with August 8,
1990)
1(049 (continued)
Chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation, and filtration of
scrubber water from fluldized
bed Incineration.
o 039
0011
0047
o 043
0011
0.043
0.033
0.011
0.033
0.039
0047
0045
0.011
0.011
0.028
0.20
0037
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL. INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 53
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by d)
K050 Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from Nonwastewaters Solvent extraction or incineration for organic end November 8, 1990
th. petroleum refining industiy. cyanide constituents, and stabilization or (Rescheduled as a Third
Benzo(a)pyrene 12 NA chemical precipitation for metal constituents Third waste; old standards
Phenol 3.6 NA promulgated as of August 8,
Cyanidas (Total) 1.8 NA 1988, but waste restricted
Total Chromium NA 1.7 under national capaci
Nickel NA 0.20 varIance from August 8, 1988
until November 8. 1990)
Wastewaters Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and August 8, 1990 (Rescheduled
filtration of scrubber water from fluldized bed as a Third Third waste, old
Benzo(a)pyren. 0.047 NA incineration, standards promulgated as of
Phenol 0 047 NA August 8, 1988, but waste
Total cyanldes 0028 NA restricted under national
Total Chromium 0.20 NA capacity variance from
Lead 0 037 NA August 8, 1988 until August 8,
1990)
* * DRAFT 6/90-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ***
SEE RE VISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECITVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND. AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 54
waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
1(051 API Separator sludge from the petroleum Nonwastewaters Sotvent extraction or incineration for organic and November 8, 1990
refining lndustiy. cyanide constituents, and stabilization or (Rescheduled as a Third
Anthracene 28 NA chemical precipitation for mets) constituents. Third waste; old standards
Benzene 14 NA promulgated as of August 8,
Benzo(a)anthracene 20 NA 1988, but waste restricted
Benzo(a)pyrene 12 NA under national capacity
Ble (2-ethyihexyl) variance from August 8, 1988
phthaiate 7.3 NA until November 8, 1990)
Chrysene 15 NA
Di-n-butyl
phtha late 36 NA
Ethyl benzene 14 NA
Naphthalene 42 NA
Phenanthrene 34 NA
Phenol 3.6 NA
Pyrene 36 NA
Toluene 14 NA
Xylenes 22 NA
Cyanldes (Total) 1.8 NA
Total Chromium NA 1.7
Nickel NA 0.20
* * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TQ VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST. SECOND. AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4.55
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by )
noted by 1)
Wastewaters
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bls(2 .ethylhexyl)
phiheiate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethyl benzene
Fluorone
Naphtha lene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Total cyanldes
Total Chromium
Lead
o 043
0043
0.060
0011
0050
0033
0 039
0047
0045
0.011
0011
0028
0.20
0.037
Aligust 8, 1990 (Rescheduled
as a Third ThIrd waste; old
standards promulgated as of
August 8. 1988. but waste
restricted under national
capacity vanance from
August 8, 1988 until August 8,
1990)
K051 (continued)
0.050
0.039
0.011
0043
0.047
Chromium reduction, chemical
precipitation. and filtration of
scnibber water from fluldlzed
bed Incineration.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRSTS SECOND, AND ThIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 56
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
K052 Tank bottoms (leaded) 1mm the petroleum Nonwastewaters Solvent extraction or Incineration for organic and November 8, 1990
refining industry, cyanide constituents, and stabilization or (Rescheduled as a Third
Benzene 14 NA chemical precipitation for metal constituents. Third waste; old standards
Benzo(a)pyrene 12 NA promulgated as of August 8,
o-Creso l 6.2 NA 1988, but waste restricted
p .Creso l 6.2 NA under national capacity
Ethyl benzene 14 NA variance from August 8, 1988
Naphtha lene 42 NA until November 8, 1990)
Phenanthrena 34 NA
Phenol 36 NA
Toluene 14 NA
Xylenes 22 NA
Cyanldes (Total) 1.8 NA
Total Chromium NA 1.7
Nickel NA 0.20
Wastewaters Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation, and August 8, 1990 (Rescheduled
filtration of scrubber water from fluidlzed bed as a Third Third waste, old
Benzene 0011 NA incineration, standards promulgated as of
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.047 NA August 8, 1988, but waste
o-Cresol 0.011 NA restricted under national
p-Cresol 0011 NA capacity variance from
2 ,4-Dimethylphenol 0.033 NA Augusta 1988 until August 8.
Ethy lbenrane 0011 NA 1990)
Naphtha lene 0.033 NA
Phenanthren. 0 039 NA
Phenol 0047 NA
Toluene 0.011 NA
Xylenes 0011 NA
Total Chromium 020 NA
Lead 0.037 NA
DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * 0
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 26 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON 0 0
-------
APPENDIX A4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 57
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
K06O Ammonia still lime sludge from coking Nonwastewat rs IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
operations. a soft hammer waste as of
Benzen. 0.071 NA August 8, 1988)
B.nzo(a) pyrone 3.6 NA
Naphthaiene 3.4 NA
Phenol 3.4 NA
Cyan!des (Total) 32 NA
Wastewaters Chemical reduction followed by chemical August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
precipitation a soft hammer waste as of
Bene 0.17 NA August 8, 1988)
Benzo(a) pyrene 0.035 WA
Naphtalene 0.028 NA
Phero l 0.042 NA
Cyenides (Tote.!) 1 9 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES t
4 .4 58
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
1 (061 Emission control dust/sludge from the primary Nonwastewaters — interim Treatment Standards° Stabilization August 8, 1988
production of steel in electric furnaces.
High Zinc Subcate gory
Cadmium NA 0.14
Chromium NA 5.2
Lead NA 0.24
Nickel NA 0.32
Nonwastewaters — Final Treatment Standards High temperature metals recovery. May 8, 1991
High Zinc Subcate gory
No land disposal based on recycling.
Low Zinc Subcate gory (less than 15% total zinc) StabilIzation. August 8, 1988
Cadmium NA 014
Total Chromium NA 5.2
Lead NA 024
Nickel NA 0.32
Wasfewaters Chemical reduction followed by chemical August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
precipita ton. a soft hammer waste as of
Cadmium 1 61 NA August 8, 1988)
Total Chromium 032 NA
Lead 051 NA
Nickel 0.44 NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFF? PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Emission control dust/sludge from secondary
lead smelting
Nonwastewalers
Calcium Sulfate Subcategor
Cadmium NA
Lead NA
Non-calcium Sulfate Subcategorg
Treatment technology - thermal mco y
Thennal recovery.
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 7990)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
no land disposal as of August
8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1990)
A-4 59
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by a)
noted by *)
K062
Spent pickle liquor generated by steei finishing
Nonwastewatera 7
Chromium reduction followed by chemical
August 8, 1988
operations of facilities within the iron and steel
precipitation.
industry (SIC Codes 331 and 332).
Chromium
Lead
NA 0.094
NA 0.37
Wasfewaters’
Chromium reduction followed by chemIcal
precipitation.
August 8, 1988
ChromIum
Lead
Nickel
032 NA
0.04 NA
044 NA
K069
Stabilization.
Wastewaters
Cadmium
Lead 0.51
0.14
0.24
NA
16
NA
Chemical precipitation
K071 Brine purification muds from the mercury cell
Nonwastewaters
Acid leaching and chemical oxidation
August 8,
1988
process In chlorine production, where
followed by washing/dewatering of
separately prepuduied brine is not used.
Mercury
NA
0.025
solid residues
Wastewafers
Mercury
0030
NA
Sulfide precipitation followed by
filtration
August 8,
1988
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 60
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by *)
Mercury 0 030 NA filtration.
K073 Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from the Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
purification step of the diaphragm cell process a soft hammer waste as of
using graphite anodes In chlorine production. Carbon tetrachloride 6.2 NA August 8, 1988)
Chloroform 6.2 NA
Hexachloroethane 30 NA
Tetrachloroethane 6.2 NA
1,I,I-Tuichioroethane 6.2 NA
Wastowat era Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Carbon tetrachloi’ine 0.057 NA August 8, 1988)
Chloroform 0 046 NA
Hexachloroethane 0.055 NA
Tetrachloroethene 0.058 NA
1,1,1-Tdchlomethane 0.054 NA
* DRAFT 6/90-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE* *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 61
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Sin pie Grab or Composite Sample
Be,st Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
K083 Distillation bottoms from aniline production. Nonwastewaters IncineratIon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Benzene 66 NA August 8, 1988)
Aniline 14 NA
Dlpheny lamlne NA NA
Sum of Diphenylamine and
Dlphenylnltrosamlne NA NA
Nltrobenzene 14 NA
Phenol 1.4 NA
Cyciohezaone 5.6 NA
Nickel 30 0.088
Wastewaters Combination of Mv or more of the following: August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
biological treatment, steam stripping, carbon a soft hammer waste as of
Benzene 0.14 NA absorption liquid extraction and others. August 8, 1988)
Aniline 081 NA
Dlphenylainlne 052 NA
Dlphenyinhtrosamlne 0.40 NA
Sum of Diphenamine and
Dlphenyln,trosmsne 0.40 NA
N,trobenzene 0068 NA
Phenol 0039 NA
Cyclohexanone 036 NA
Nickel 0.47 WA
K084 Wastewater treatment sludges generated during Nonwastewaters Vitrification. May 8. 1992 (Restricted as a
the production of vetennary pharmaceuticals soft hammer waste as of
from arsenic or organoarsenlc compounds Arsenic NA 5.6 August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Chemical precipitation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
ArsenIc 0.79 NA August 8, 1988)
a DRAFT 6/90-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
4-462
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mglkg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by f)
K085 Distillation or fractionation column bottoms Nonwastewate s IncineratIon. August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
from the productIon of chlorobenzenes. a soft hammer waste as of
Benzene 44 NA August 8, 1988)
Chiombenzene 4.4 NA
o-Dlch lorobenzene 4 4 NA
m-D!chlorobenzene 4.4 NA
p-Dlchlorobenzene 4.4 NA
1 2 4-TrlchIorobenzene 4.4 NA
1,2,4 ,5-Tetrachioro-
benzene 4.4 NA
Pentachlorobenzene 4.4 NA
He,xachlorobenzene 44 NA
Arocla, 1018 092 NA
Aroclor 1221 0.92 NA
Aroclor i232 0.92 NA
Aroclor i242 0.92 NA
Aroc!or 1248 0.92 NA
Aroclor 1254 1.8 NA
Aroclor 1260 1.8 NA
DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ...
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPt....( 44
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 63
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mgIl) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
K085 (continued) Wastowaters Wastewater treatment. 5 August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Benzene 0.14 NA August 9, 1988)
Ch lorobenzene 0.057 NA
o-Dlchlorobenzene 0088 NA
m-Oichlorobenzene 0.038 NA
p-Dlchlorobenzene 0.090 NA
1,2,4—Tr!chlorobonzene 0.055 NA
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlom-
benzane 0 055 NA
Pentachlorobenzene 0.055 NA
Hexachlorobenzene 0.055 NA
Aroclar 1016 0.013 NA
Aroclor 1221 0014 NA
Aroclor 1232 0.013 NA
Aroclor 1242 0.017 NA
Aroclor 1248 0.013 NA
Aroclor 1254 0.014 NA
Aroclor 1260 0.014 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMAT iON
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECJ1VE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 64
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
Single 0mb or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
Nonwastewaters
Acetone
Acetophenone
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalete
n-Bulyl alcohol
Cyclohexanone
1,2-Dichloroberizene
Bufylbenzy lphthalate
Diethyl phihalate
Dlmethyl phthelate
DI-n-butyl phthalate
DI-n-octyl phthaiate
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Methanol
Methyl Isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Naphthaiene
Nitrobenzone
To luene
1,1, I-Tuichloro-
ethane
Trichioro ethylene
Xylenes (Total)
Cyanides (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Lead
August 8, 1988 for chromium
and lead; August 8, 1990, (or
all other constituents
(Treatment standards revised
in Third Third rule and are
effective August 8, 1990; old
standards V are ineffect as
of August 8, 1988)
K086 Solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes
end sludges, or water washes and sludges
from the cleaning of tubs end equipment used
In the formulation of Ink from pigments, driers,
soaps, and stabilizers containing chromium
and lead.
incineration for organics followed by stabilization
for metals
160(037)
97
28(049)
26 (037)
NA (049)
62(0.49)
7.9
28
28
28
28
33 (0.37)
6.0)031)
NA (0.37)
33 (0037)
36(037)
33(0.037)
3.1 (0.49)
14 (0.49)
28(031)
5.6 (0.44)
56 (0.31)
28 (0 015)
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0094
037
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A.4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD ThIRD WASTES’
A-4 65
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by’)
K086 (continued) Wastewaters Concentration-based standards for organ/cs Atigust 8, 1988 for chromium
based on biological treatment, steam stripping, and lead; August 8, 1990, for
Acetone 028 (0.015) NA carbon adsoiptlon, liquid extraction and/or other all other constituents
Acotophenono 0.01 NA wastewater treatment. Chromium and lead (Treatment standards revised
b/s (2-ethylhexy l) standards end/or chromium reduction followed by In Third Third rule and are
phthalate 0.28’ (0.044) NA precipitation and filtration. Cyanide standards effective August 8, 1990, old
n-Butyl alcohol 5.6 (0.031) NA based on oikallne chlorination, standards (‘,)are ineffect as
Butylbenrylphthalate 0.017 NA of August 8, 1988)
Cyclohexanone .36 (0.022) NA
I,2-Dlchlorobenzene .088 (0.044) NA
Diethyl phthalate 0.2’ NA
0/methyl phthalate 0.047’ NA
Di-n-butyl phthaiate 0.057 NA
Dl-n-octyl phthalate 0.017 ’ NA
Ethyl acetate 0.34 ’ fO.03 1) NA
Ethyl benzene 0.057 (0.015) NA
Methanol 5.6 (0.031) NA
Methylene chloride 0 089’ (0.031) NA
Methyl ethyl ketone 028 (0.031) NA
Methyl isobutyl ketone 0.14 (0.031) NA
Naphthoiene 0.059’ (0.044) NA
Nitrobenzene 0.068’ (0.044) NA
Toluene 0 080 (0.029) NA
1,1, 1-Trlchloroethane 0 054’ (0.031) NA
Tr lch loro ethylene 0.054’ (0.029) NA
Xylenes (Total) 0.32 (0.015) NA
Cyanides (Total) 1 9 NA
Chromium (Total) 032 (032) NA
Lead 0 037 (0037) NA
* * ‘DRAFT6/90-DO NOTCITE OR QUoTE” *
* ‘SEE REVISED 40 CFA PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND ThIRD THIRD WASTES 1
4-466
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg 1CLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
K087 Decanter tank tar sludge from coking Nonwa ste waters Rotary kiln Incineration. August 8, 1988
operations.
Acenaphtha lene 3.4 NA
Beniene 0.071 NA
Chrysene 3.4 NA
Fiuoranthene 3.4 NA
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)-
pyrene 34 NA
Naphth&ene 34 NA
Phenanthr.ne 34 NA
Toluene 065 NA
Xy lenes 0.07 NA
Lead NA 0.51
Wastewaters Chromium reduction, chemical precipitation and August 8, 1988
filtration of scrubber water from rotary kiln
Acenaphthalene 0.028 NA incineration.
Benzene 0.014 NA
Chrysene 0.028 NA
Fluorenthene 0.028 NA
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)-
pyrene 0028 NA
Naphthalene 0028 NA
Phenanthrene 0028 NA
Toiuene 0.008 NA
Xyienes 0014 NA
Lead 0037 NA
* * DRAFT 6/90-00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 67
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single 0mb or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K093
Distillation light ends from the production of
Nonwastewaters
IncineratIon.
June 8, 1989
phtheiic anhydride from ortho-xylene.
Phtheiic acid
(Phthalic anhydrlde)
28 NA
Wastewatem
IncineratIon.
June 8, 1989
Phthal!c acid
(Phtha!lc anhydilde)
0.054 NA
K094
Distillation bottoms from the production of
Nonwastewaters
incineratIon.
June 8. 1989
phthailc anhydrido from oflho-xylene.
Phthalic acid
(Phthallc anhydride)
28 W A
Wastewa(eis
incineratIon.
June 8 1989
Phthalic acid
(Phtha!ic anhydrido)
0.54 NA
* a a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE • a
a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * 0
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 68
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Slnqjle Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K095 Distillation bottoms from the production of Nonwastewaters IncIneration June 8, 1989
1,1,1- trlchloroethane
1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethene 5.6 NA
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethsne 5.6 NA
Tetrachloroethene 6.0
1,1,2-
Trlchloroethane 6.0 NA
Trlch loroethy iene 5.6 NA
Hexachloroethane 28 NA
Pentachloroethane 5.6 NA
Wastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1,1,1,2- June 8, 1989)
Tetrachloroethane 0.057 NA
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane 0057 NA
Tetrach loroethene 0.056
1,1,2-
Trich loroethane 0.054 NA
Trlchioro ethylene 0.054 NA
Hexachloroethane 0.055 NA
Pentachloroethane 0.055 NA
a a * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * a a
-------
APPENDIX A4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4.69
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K096 fleaW ends from the heaW end column from Nonwastewaters Incineration. June 8, 1989
the production oil, 1,1- trlchlomethane
1,1,1,2-
Tetrachloroethane 5.6 NA
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane 5.6 NA
Tetrachloro ethylene 6.0 NA
1,1,2-
Trichloroethane 6.0 NA
Trtchloroethene 5.6 NA
1,3 Dlchlombenzene 5.6 NA
Pentachloroethane 5.6 NA
1,2,4-
Trlchlorobenzene 19 NA
Wastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1,I,1 ,2-Tetrachloro- June 8, 1989)
ethane 0.057 NA
I, 1,2,2-Tetrachloro-
ethane 0.057 NA
Tetrach loroethene 0.056 NA
1, 1 ,2-Tdchloroethane 0.054 NA
Tr lchloroethene 0.054 NA
1 ,3-Dlchlombenzene 0036 NA
Pentach loroothane 0055 NA
I,2,4-Tnchlorobenzene 0.055 NA
* *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD ThIRD WASTES 1
A-4.70
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mgIi)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by *ã)
noted by *)
1(097 Vacuum stripper discharge from the chlordane Nonwastewetørs IncineratIon. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
chlorinator In the production of chlordane. a soft hammer waste as of
Hexach lom- June 8, 1989)
cyclopuntadiene 2.4 NA
Ch lordane 0.26 NA
Heptachlor 0.066 NA
Heptachlor expoxido 0.066 NA
Wastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Hexach loro . June 8, 1989)
cyclopontadl ene 0057 NA
Chlordane 0.0033 NA
Heptachlor 0.0012 NA
Heptachlor epoxlde 0.016 NA
1(098 Untreated process wastewster from the Nonwastewaters IncineratIon. August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
production of toxaphene. a soft hammer waste as of
Toxaphene 2.6 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters IncineratIon. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Toxaphene 0.0095 NA June 8, 1989)
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 71
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
K099 Untreated wastewater from the production of Nonwastowaters Chemical oxidation using chiorlno. August 8, 1988
2,4 -dichlorophenoxyacelic acid (2,4-0).
2,4-D lchlorophenwryacet lc
acid 1.0 NA
Hexachlomdlbenzo-
p-d lox lns 0.001 NA
tlexach loa-odlbenzo-
furans 0001 NA
Pentachlorodibonzo-
p-dloxins 0.001 NA
Pentach lorod lbenzo-
furans 0.001 NA
Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxlns 0.001 NA
Tetrachlorn4lbonzo-
furans 0001 NA
Wastewatora Chemical oxidation using chlorfne August 8, 1988
2 ,4 -Dichiorophenoxyacetic
acid 10 NA
Hexachiorodlbenzo-
p-diox lns 0.001 NA
Hexachlorodlbenzo-
lurans 0.001 NA
Pentachlorodibenzo-
p-diox lns 0001 NA
Pentach lorodibenzo-
furans 0001 NA
Tet,achlorod,benzo-
p-dioxlns 0.001 NA
Tetrachlorod,benzo-
a a * DRAFT 8/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
ft * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATiON a a *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST. SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 72
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
K100 Waste leaching solution from acid
leaching of emission control
dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting.
furuns 0.001
Nonwastewat era
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste or as no
land disposal as of August 8,
1988)
For chromium, cadmium chromium reduction August 8, 1990
followed by lime and sulfide precipitation br
lead. Chemical precipitation followed by sludge
dewaterfng.
Stabilization.
Cadmium
NA
Chromium (Total)
NA
Lead NA
0.51
Wastewaters
CadmIum
1 6
Chromium (Total)
0.32
LeadO5 l
NA
NA
0.066
5.2
NA
NA
K101 Distillation tar residues from the distillation of
aniline-based compounds in the production of
veterinary pharmaceuticals from arsenic or
organoarsenic compounds
Nonwastewafora
o-Nitroanhilne
Arsenic
14
NA
NA
5.8**
Vitrification.
Maya, 1992 (Standards
replace high and low
subcategones from August 8,
1988)
Wastewaters
o-Nitroanhline
Arsenic
CadmIum
Lead
Mercury
027 (0.27)
0.79 (20)
024 (0.24)
017 (0.1 1)
0082 (0.027)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chemical precipitation.
August 8, 1990 Treatment
standards revised in Third
Third rule and are effective
August 8, 1990, old
standards (‘):n effect as of
August 8, 1988)
* DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CffE OR QUOTE *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST. SECOND, AND THiRD ThIRD WASTES’
A-4 73
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP. noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
K102 Residue from the use of activated carbon for Nonwastewaters
decolonzatlon in the production of veterlnar,’
pharmaceuticals from arsenic or organoarsenic o-Nitrophenol
compounds. Arsenic
Wastewaters
o-nifrophenol
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercu,y
0028 (0.028)
079(20)
024 (024)
0.17(011)
0082 (0027)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
August 8, 1988 (Treatment
standards revised in Third
Third rule and are effective
August 8, 1990, old
standards (lb effect as of
August 8, 1988)
Aniline
Benzene
2,4-Dinitropheno l
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
5.6
60
56
56
5.6
45
015
061
0073
1.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
5.6
1(103 Process residues from aniline extraction from
the production of aniline
VitriFication
Chemical precipitation and filtration of scrubber
water from rotary’ kiln incineration
May 8, 1992 (Standards
replace high and low
subcategories from August 8,
1988)
Nonwasfewaters
Aniline
Benzene
2,4-Dbnilropheno!
Phenol
Cyanides (Total)
Wastewaters
Solvent extraction followed by steam stripping of August 8, 1988
wastewater and incineration of spent solvent.
Activated carbon adsorption of steam stripping
effluent (water).
Solvent extraction followed by steam stripping of August 8, 1988
wastewater and Incineration of spent solvent.
Activated carbon adsorption of steam stripping
effluent (water).
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 74
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by )
K104 Combined wastewater streams generated from Nonwastewaters Solvent extraction followed by steam stripping of August 8, 1988
nitrobenzene/anlilne production. wastewater and incIneration of spent solvent.
Aniline 5.6 NA Activated carbon adsorption of steam strippIng
Berizene 8.0 NA effluent (water).
2 ,4-Diaftro phenol 5.6 NA
Nltrobenzene 5.6 NA
Phenol 5 6 NA
Cyanldes 1.8 NA
Wastewaters Solvent extraction followed by stream stripping of August 8, 1988
wastowater and incineration of spent so Went.
Aniline 4 5 NA Activated carbon adsorption of steam stripping
Benzene 0.15 NA effluent (water).
2,4-Din ltrophenol 0.61 NA
Nitrobenzene 0.073 NA
Phenol 1.4 NA
Total cyanides 2.7 NA
* * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES t
44 75
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
K105 Separated aqueous stream from the reactor Nonwastewat rs IncIneration. August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
product washing step In the production of a soft hammer waste as of
chlorobenzene. Benzene 4.4 NA June 8, 1989)
Ch lombenzene 4.4 NA
o-Dictilorobenzene 44 NA
p-Dlch lorobenzene 4.4 NA
2,4,5-Tdchlorophenol 4.4 NA
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 44 NA
2-Chlorophenol 4.4 NA
Phenol 4.4 NA
Wastewaters Waslewater treatmenL 5 August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Benzene 0.14 NA June 8, 1989)
Chlorobenzene 0.057 NA
oDichlorobenzene 0 088 NA
p-D lchlorobenzene 0.090 NA
2,4,5-Trfchlorophenol 0.18 NA
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0035 NA
2-Chlorppheno l 0.044 NA
Phenol 0.039 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL iNFORMA TION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES
A-4 76
Waste
Code
Descrip Hon
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg ItLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
1 (106 Wastewater treatment sludges from the mercwy Nonwastowaters August 8, 1992 (RestrIcted as
cell process In chlorine production, a soft hammer waste as of
High mercu,y subcategorj, ( 260 mg/kg) Roasting or retorting August 8, 1988)
Treatment technology - roasting or retortIng
Low mercury subcategory (< 260 mg/kg)
Residues from roasting or retailing Roasting or retailing.
Mercury NA 0.20
Non-residues Acid leaching.
Mercury NA 0.025
Wastewatem Chemical precipItation. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Mercury 0 030 NA August 8, 1988)
1(111
Product washwatera from the production of
din ftrotoiuene via nitration of toluen.
No BOAT treatment standards promulgated. Land disposal
not subject to soft hammer provisions because waste was
fisted as a hazardous waste after November 8, 1984.
—
None
1(112
Reaction byproduct water from the drying
No BOAT treatment standards promulgated. Land disposal
-
None
column in the production of toluenediamine via
not subject to soft hammer provisions because waste was
hydrogenation of dinitrotoluene.
listed as a hazardous waste after November 8, 1984.
* *flp4fl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* C’ *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION C’ C’ C’
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTiVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 77
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single 0mb or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by”)
noted by *)
Kl 13
Condensed liquid light ends from the
Nonwaste waters
incineration or fuel substitution.
June 8, 1989
production of toiuenediamlne via hydrogenation
of dlnltroluene.
Treatment technology - incineration or
fuel substitution
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incineratIon.
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption, or incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration.
Ki 14
VIcinala from the purification of toluenediamine
Nonwestewatars
incineration or fuel substitution.
June 8, 1989
in the production of toluenedlamlne via
hydrogenation of dInltrotoluene
Treatment technology - Incineration or
fuel substitution.
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incIneration.
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption
or Incineration; or pretreatment (such as
biological treatment or chemical oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration.
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE . . .
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 78
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by AA)
noted by A)
K115
Hear ’, ends from the purification of
Nonwastawaters
Incineration or fuel substitution; and
June 8, 1989
toluenedlamlne In the production of
toluenedlamine vie hydrogenation of
Treatment technology - Incineration or fuel substitution; and
dinitrotoluene.
Nickel NA 0.32
StabIlization (of metals).
Wastewat era
Carbon adsorption or Incineration; and
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or Incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment’ or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration;
and
Nickel 047 NA
Stablizatlon (of metals).
Ki 16
OrganIc condensate from the solvent
recovery column In the production of
Nonwastewaters
Incineration or fuel substitution
June 8, 1989
toluene dllsocyanate via phosgenatlon
Treatment technology - Incineration or
of toluenedlamine.
fuel substitution
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or IncIneration.
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption
or Incineration; or pretreatment (such as
biological treatment or chemical oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration.
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE A A A
‘“SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * A A
-------
APP. A.4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 79
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Data 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
POOl Wa,lann. when present at Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or Incineration. AuguSt 8, 1990 (Restricted as
concentration > 03% a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology — fuel substitution or incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed 4ugust 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
P002 1-Acetyl-2-thiourea Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology, incIneration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemIcal June 8. 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
P003 Acrolein Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-afr oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * O
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 80
Waste
Code
Descnptlon
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
P004 Aldr,n Nonwastewaters incineration. August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
AIdrin 0086 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Aidrin 0021 NA August 8, 1988)
P005 AIlyl alcohol Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or incIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incIneration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Net-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) August 8, 1988)
followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P006 AlumInum phosphide Noriwaste waters Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction; or August 8, 1990
incineration.
Technology standard - chemical oxidation; chemical
reduction, or incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction, or August 8, 1990
incineration.
Technology standard - chemical oxidation; chemical
reduction; or incineration
a a a )fl fl /9 ) DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
Al-. .,IXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 81
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effectwe Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
P007 5-(Aminoethyl)-3- Isoxazolol Nonwustewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - IncIneration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (‘Met-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P008 4-AminopyrIdine Nonwastewators IncineratIon. August 8. 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hemmer waste as ot
Treatment technology - IncIneration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
P009 Animonlum picrate Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation; chemical August 8, 1990
reduction, or incineration.
Treatment technology - fuel substitution; chemical oxidation;
chemical reduction; or Incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction; carbon August 8, 1990
adsorption; biodegradation; or Incineration.
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; chemical
reduction; carbon adsorption; biodegradation, or Incineration
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 82
Waste
Code
Descnption
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg(1)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by aa)
noted by *)
POlO Arsenic acid Nonwastewaters Vitrification. May 8, 1992 (RestrIcted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Arsenic NA 5.8 August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Chemical precipitation August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Arsenic 0.79 NA August 8, 1988)
POll Arsenic (1/) oxide Nonwastewaters Vitrification. May 8, 1992 (Restricted as a
soft hemmer waste as of
Arsenic NA 5.6 August 8. 1988)
Wastewaters Chemical precipitatIon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Arsenic 0 79 NA August 8, 1988)
P012 Arsenic (ill) oxide Nonwastewaters Vitnilcatlon. May 8, 1992 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Arsenic NA 5.6 August 9. 1988)
Wastewaters Chemical precipitatIon. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
oft hammer waste as of
ArsenIc 0.79 NA ugust 8, 1988)
a a a DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMAT iON a a *
-------
AP , _OIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTiVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 83
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective 08102
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
P013 Barium cyanide Nonwastewafers Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline June 8, 1989; August 8, 1990
chlorination. Stabilization for barium for barium (constituent
Cyanide (Total) 110 NA restricted for lust time in
Cyanide (Amenable) 9.1 NA Third Third rule)
Barium NA 52
Wastewaters Alkaline chlorination. June 8, 1989
Cyanide (Total) 1.9 NA
Cyanide (Amenable) 0 10 NA
P014 Thiophenol Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology- incineratIon June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-ak oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
P015 Beryllium dust Nonwastewaters
Thermal recovery or metal recovery.
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or metal recovery
Wastewaters
Thermal recovery or metal recovery
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or metal recovery
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ***
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND ThIRD THIRD WASTES 1
4484
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
P016 Bis-(chloromethy!) ether Nonwestewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P017 Bromoacetone Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
August 8. 1990
Treatment technology - Incinerat ion
Wastewalers
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration.
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P018 Brucine Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineratIon August 8, 1990)
Wastewatera (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1990)
oxidation) lollowed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
a a a DRAFT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a a a
a a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON *
-------
APPEI . .. A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 85
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
P020 Dlnoseb
Nonwastewaters
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-
dinitrophenol 2.5
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
Wastewaters
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-
dinitrophenol
(B!ologlcai treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Incineration.
NA
0066 NA
P021
Calcium cyanide
Nonwastewaters
Cyanide (rota !) 110
Cyanide (Amenable) 9.1
NA
NA
Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkalIne
chlorination.
June 8. 1989
Westewaters
Nkul!ne chlorination.
June 8, 1989
Cyanide (Total) 1.9
Cyanide (Amenable) 0.10
NA
NA
P022
Carbon disuifide
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Carbon d,su!f,de 0 014
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
* * *DR.4fl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a a a
a * *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8. 1989)
Wastewa tots
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration.
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
A-4 86
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
P023
Chloroacetaldehyde
Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
August 8. 1990
Treatment technology - incineratIon
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration.
August 8, 1990
P024
p-Chloroan,iine
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
p-Ch loroan lhne 16 NA
Wastewaters
p-ChioroanllIne 046 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxIdation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990
P026 I-(o-Chlorophenyl) thiourea Nonwastewatars Incineration.
Treatment technology- IncineratIon
* * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a * *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
APPLriDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
4487
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by ‘9
P027 3-Chloropropionhtnie Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidatIon or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemIcal June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
P028
Benzyl chloride
Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology- incIneration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
August 8, 1990
P029
Copper cyanides
Nonwastewaters
Cyanide (Total) 110 NA
Cyanide (Amenable) 9.1 NA
Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination.
June 8, 1989
Wastewaters
Alkaline chlorination.
June 8, 1989
Cyanide (Total) 1 9 NA
Cyanide (Amenable) 0 10 NA
* a * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * a
a Ra’ISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION O a *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 88
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by *•)
noted by *)
P030 Soluble cyanide salts not elsewhere specified Nonwastewaters Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
chlorination, soft hammer waste as of
Cyanide (Total) 110 NA August 8, i988)
Cyanide (Amenable) 9 1 NA
Wastewaters Alkaline chlorination June 8. 1989 (Restdcted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Cyanide (Total) 1 9 NA August 8, 1988)
Cyanide (Amenable) 0 10 NA
P031
Cyanogen
Nonwastewaters
Chemical oxidation; wet-air oxidation, or
August 8,
1990
Incineration.
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; wet-air oxidation;
or incineration
Wastewaters
Chemical oxidation; wet-air oxidation; or
August 8,
1990
Incineration.
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; wet-air oxidation;
or incineration
P033
Cyanogan chloride
Nonwastewaters
Chemical oxidation; wet-air oxidation; or
incineration,
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; wet-air oxidation;
or incineration
Wastewaters
Chemical oxidation; wet-air oxidation; or
incineration
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, wet-air oxidation;
or incineration
* * * p 4fl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATiON
-------
AP lXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 89
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by )
2-Oyclohexyi 4,6-dinstrophonol
Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
August 8, 1990
P034
Treatment technology - Incineration
Waslewafers
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P036 Dichlorophenylarsine Nonwastewaters Vitrification. May 8, 1992 (Restncted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Arsenic NA 5 6” August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Chemical precIpitation. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
ArsenIc 0.79 NA August 8, 1988)
P037 Di&drln Nonwastewaters IncineratIon. August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Dleldrln 0.13 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
followed by carbon adsorption 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Dieldrin 0017 NA August 8, 1988)
P038 Diethylarsine Nonwastewaters
Vitrification
May 8, 1992
Arsenic
NA
5 6 ’
Waslewaters
Chemical precipitation
August 8,
1990
Arsenic
0.79
NA
a * )flAfl 6/90-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* A SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION A * A
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTiVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 90
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
Nonwastewaters
Dlsulfoton 0 1
Wastewaters
Dlsulfoton 0017
Treatment technology - Incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption
or incineration; or pretreatment (such as
biological treatment or chemical oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration
June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
June 8. 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
P039 Disulfoton
NA
NA
Incineration.
Biological treatment.
P040 Diethyl 2-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate Nonwastewaters
IncineratIon.
June 8,
1989
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incineration.
June 8,
1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or Incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration
August 8, 1990 (Revised from
June 8, 1989 - originally soft
hammer as of August 8,
1988)
P041 Diethyi-p-n ,trophenyl phosphate Nonwastewaters Incineration.
Carbon adsorption or incineration.
A * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
A . DiXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
4-4 91
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
P042
Epinephrlne
Nonwastewaters
incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology. incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology. (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration.
August 8, 1990
P043
Olisopropyl fluorophosphate
Nonwastewatera
incineration.
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - Incineration
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incineration
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or Incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration
P044
Dimetho ate
Nonwasfewaters
IncIneration.
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - incineration
Wasfewaters
Carbon adsorption or incIneration
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or incIneration, or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and incineration
* * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ***
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * 0
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 92
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by at.)
noted by )
P045
Thlolanox
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - Incineration
Wastewate s
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990
P046
alpha, alpha - D lmet llylphenethylamine
Nonwastewaters
IncineratIon
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - Incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
August 8. 1990
P047
4.6 - Dinltro-o-cresol salts
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
4,6 - Dinitro-o-cresol 160 NA
Wastewaters
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
4,6 - D,nitro-o-cresol 0 28 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxldaton) followed
by carbon adsorption 5
* * * DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a *
• SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
AP. .jIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 93
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Oescnption
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
P048 2.4 - DInit,opheno l Nonwastewators IncIneration. August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
2, 4 - Dinltrophenol 160 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
2, 4 - Dinifrophenol 0 12 NA August 8, 1988)
P049 2, 4 - Dithiobwret Nonwastewaters incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
P050 Endosulfan Nonwastewaters IncIneration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Endosulfan I 0.066 NA August 8, 1988)
Endosulfan II 0.13 NA
Endosulfen sulfate 0 13 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Endosulfan I 0.023 NA August 8, 1988)
Endosuifan Ii 0 029’ NA
Endosulfan sulfate 0.029’ NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * a
a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
APPENDIX A4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
P056 Fluorine
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - venting of compressed gases Into an
absorbing or reacting medium followed by neutralization
Venting of compressed gases into an absorbing
or reacting medium followed by neutralization.
August 8, 1990
Wastewatera
Fluonne
35 NA
Chemical precipitation
August 8, 1990
A-494
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by A*)
noted by A)
P051
Endrine
Nonwastewaters
incineration.
August 8, 1990
Endrine
Endrino aidehyde
0.13 NA
0 13 NA
Wastewaters
Endrine
Endrine aidehyde
00028 NA
0025 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
P054 Azindine Nonwastewaters incineration
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastowateis
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
A A *DJ 4fl 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * A A
A A * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION A * A
-------
APP 4-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 95
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by ‘9
P057 Fluoracotamlde Nonwastewaters IncineratIon. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8. 1990 (RestrIcted as
by carton adsorption; or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
P058 Fluoracetic acid sodium salt Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewatera (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
P059 Heptachlor Nonwastewaters IncIneration August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Heptachlor 0.066 NA August 8, 1988)
Heptachlor epoxide 0.066 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Heptachior 0.0012 ’ NA August 8. 1988)
Heptachlor epoxide 0016 NA
DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 It VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 96
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg YCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
P060 Isodrin Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Isodrln 0066 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxIdation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Isodrln 0021 NA June 8, 1989)
P062 Hexaethyltetaphosphate Nonwastewaters
incineration.
June 8,
1989
Treatment technology- incineration
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incineration.
June 8,
1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and incineration.
P063 Hydrogen cyanide Nonwastewa lets Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
chlorination, soft hammer waste as of
Cyanide (Total) 110 NA August 8, 1988)
Cyanide (Amenable) 9 1 NA
Wastewaters Alkaline chlorination
Cyanide (Total) 1 9 NA
Cyanide (Amenable) 010 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APE-. .AXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 97
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg!1)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
P064 Isocyanic acid, ethyl ester Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8. 1990
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical -
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES t
A-4 98
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Tote! (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP. noted
(composite by )
noted by )
P065 Mercur,, fulminate Nonwastewaters May 8. 1992
Treatment technology - mercury retorting Mercury retorting
(when 260 mg/kg total mercury)
Treatment technology - Incineration Al! nonwastewaters that Incineration
are not incinerator residues from mercury retorting; regardless
of mercury content
Mercury (< 260 mg/kg mercury Acid leaching followed by chemcl& prociplatlon
retorting residues NA 020
Mercury (< 260 mg/kg Incinerator Acid leaching followed by chemical precipitation
residues) NA 0025
Wastewaters Chemical precipitatIon. August 8, 1990
Mercury 0030 NA
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE• * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION 0 * 6
-------
A. iIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 99
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by *)
P066 Melhomyl Nonwas lewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineratIon June 8. 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1984)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P067 2-Methyl aziridine Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology. (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 100
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
P068 Methyl hydrazlne Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation, chemIcal August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
reduction; or incineration, a soft hemmer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution; chemical oxIdation; August 8, 1988)
chemical reduction; or Incineration.
Wastewaters Incineration; chemical oxidation; chemical August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
reduction; carbon adsorption; or biodegradation a soft hemmer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration; chemical oxidation; August 8, 1988)
chemical reduction; carbon adsorption, or biodegradation
P069 Methyllactonltrile Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P070 Aldicarb Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastowaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
A. IDIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 101
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
P071 Methyl parathion Nonwastowaters Incineration June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Methyl parathion 0 1 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Biological treatment June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Methyl parathion 0025 NA August 8, 1988)
P072 Alpha-naphthylthiourea (ANTU) Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incIneration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology- (Wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P073 Nickel carbonyl Nonwastewaters Stabilization. August 8, 1990
Nickel NA .032
Nonwastewaters Incineration or chemical oxIdation. August 8, 1990
Nickel 044 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a
* * * SEE REViSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST. SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 102
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
P074
Nickel cyanide
Nonwastowaters
Cyanide (lotal) 110 NA
Cyanide (Amenable) 9 I NA
Nickel NA 032
Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination for cyanide constituents;
precipitation, settling, filtration, and stabilization
for metals.
June 8, 1989
Wastowaters
Aikaline chlorination for cyanide constituents,
precipitation, settling for metals
June 8, 1989
Cyanide (Total) 1.9 NA
Cyanide (Amenable) 0.10 NA
Nickel 044 NA
P075
NicotIne and salts
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology- (wet-alt oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
P076
Nitric oxide
Nonwastewalers
Venting of compressed gases into an absorbing
or reacting media.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - venting of compressed gases Into an
absorbing or reacting media
Wastewaters
Venting of compressed gases into an absorbing
or reacting media.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - venting of compressed gases into an
absorbing or reacting media
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APP . XA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration (or My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by”)
noted by *)
P077
p-Nitroanthne
Nor,wastewarers
Incineration.
August 8. 1990
p-Nitroanhline 28 NA
Wastewaters
p-Nitroaniline 0028 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxIdation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
P078
Nitrogen dioxide
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - venting of compressed gases into an
absorbing or reacting media
Venting of compressed gases into an absorbing
or reacting media.
August 8, 1990
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - ventIng of compressed gases into an
absorbing or reacting media
Venting of compressed gases Into en absorbing
or reacting media.
August 8, 1990
P081 Nitroglycerin Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chemical
reduction, carbon adsorption, biodegradation, or incineration
Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction, carbon
adsorption, biodegradation, or Incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
A-4 103
Treatment technology - fuel substitution; chemical oxidation;
chemical reduction, or incineration
Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation; chemical
reduction, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OF? QUOTE * a a
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 104
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by *)
P082 N-Nitrosodimethylamine Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology- incIneration August 8. 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
N-Nitrosodimelhylamine 040 NA August 8. 1988)
P084 N-Nitrosomethylvlnylamine Nonwastewaters incIneration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - IncIneration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology. (wet-eir oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
P085 Octamethyipyrophosphoramide Nonwastewaters IncIneration. June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters Carbon adsorption or Incineration. Juno 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a a * SEE REVISED 40 CPA PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APP A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
Tr s tmqnt Standa”
Maximum Concentration for Any
•c’ngle Grab or mpos ,te Sampfr Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I) As Basis for Standards
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by )
A-4 105
Effective Date 2
Code
Description
Constituent
P087
Osmium tetra oxide
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or metal recovery
Thermal recovery or metal recovery.
May 8. 1992 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Thermal recovery or metal recovery.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or metal recovery
P088
Enothall
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8. 1990
Treatment technology- fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewators
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8. 1990
P089
Parathion
Nonwastewaters
Parathion 0 1 NA
Incineration
June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Parathion 0025 NA
Biological treatment.
June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 106
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by * )
noted by *)
P092 Phenyimercuric acetate Nonwastewaters May 8, 1992 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - roasting or retorting ( 260 mg/kg Roasting or retorting August 8, 1988)
total mercury - incinerator residues or mercury retorting
residues)
Treatment technology - Incineration or wastes with organlcs incineration or masting or ratoring
and mercury, or roasting or retorting (all nonwastewaters that
are not incinerator residues or residues from mercury
retorting, regardless of mercury content)
Mercury (< 260 mg/kg residues Acid leaching followed by chemical precipitation
from mercury retorting) NA 020
Mercury (< 260 mg/kg incinerator Acid leaching followed by chemical precipitation
residues) NA 0.025
Wastewaters Chemical precipitation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Mercury 0030 NA August 8. 1988)
P093 N-Phenylthiourea Nonwastowaters
IncineratIon.
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8,
1990
* * DRAFT 6/90-DO NOT CffE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE R VlSED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
A . .J 1XA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 107
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentrat ion for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
P094 Pho rate Nonwaslewaters IncineratIon June 8. 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as ol
Pho rate 0 1 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Biological treatment June 8, 1989 (Restncted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Phorate 0025 NA August 8, 1988)
P095
Phosgene
Nonwaslewaters
IncineratIon.
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - Incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8,
1990
P096
Phosphine
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chemical
reduction, or incineration
Chemical oxidatIon, chemical reduction; or
incineration.
August 8,
1990
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; chemical
reduction, or incineration
Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction, or
incineration
August 8,
1990
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX 4 -4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 108
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by’)
P097 Famphur
Nonwastewaters
Famphur 0 1
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
Silver NA
Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chionnation for cyanide constituents;
precipitation, sewing, filtration, and stabilization
for metals
June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
June 8, 1989
June 8. 1989; August 8, 1990
for silver (constituent
restricted for first time In
Third Third rule)
Wastewaters
Famphur 0025
NA
NA
Incineration.
Biological treatment
P098 PotassIum cyanide Nonwastewaters
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
110
9 1
NA
NA
Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination
June 8.
1989
Wastewaters
Alkaline chlorination
June 8,
1989
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
1.9
010
NA
NA
P099 PotassIum silver cyanide Nonwasrewaters
110
91
Wastewaters
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
Silver
NA
NA
0072
NA
NA
NA
19
010
029
Alkaline chlorination, chemical precipitation for
silver
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APP (A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or IncIneration.
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8. 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990
Wastewaters
Selenium
10 NA
Chemical precipitation.
August 8, 1990
A-4.109
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
P101
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
Ethyl cyanide
(propanenitnle)
360 NA
Nonwastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8. 1990
Ethyl cyanide
(Propanenifrile)
024 NA
P102 Propargyl alcohol Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or incineration.
P103 Selenourea
Treatment technology- fuel substitution or Incineration
Wastewators
Treatment technology - (wet-aIr oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
Nonwastewaters
Selenium NA
5.7
Stabilization
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 110
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effectwe Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP. noted
(composite by
noted by *)
P104 Silver cyanide Nonwastewaters Electrolytic oxidation lollowed by alkaline June 8, 1989
chlorination for cyanide constituents,
Cyanide (Total) 110 NA precipitation, settling, filtration, end stabilization
Cyanide (Amenable) 9 1 NA for metals.
Silver NA 0072
Wastewaters Alkaline chlorination, chemical precipitation for June 8, 1989; August 8, 1990
silver for silver (constituent
Cyanide (Total) 1 9 NA restricted for first time in
Cyanide (Amenable) 0 10 NA Third Third rule)
Silver 029 NA
P105 Sodium azide Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation, chemical August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
reduction; or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitutIon, chemical oxidation; August 8, 1988)
chemical reduction; or Incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction, carbon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
adsorption; biodegradation; or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chemical August 8, 1988)
reduction, carbon adsorption, biodegradation, or incineration
P106 Sodium cyanide Nonwastewaters
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
110
9 1
NA
NA
Electrolytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination
June 8.
1989
Wastewaters
Alkaline chlorination
June 8,
1989
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
1 9
0 10
NA
NA
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
a a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a * a
-------
AP. .X A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restnctod as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
P107 Strontium
sulfide
Removed Irorn ACRA hazardous waste listings on 10/31/88.
No treatment standards promulgated
NA
NA
A-4 111
P108 Stiychnine and salts Nonwastewaters Incineration.
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastowaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
P109 Tetraethyi difhlopyrophosphate Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incineration
June 8,
1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption, or incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and incineration
P110 Tetraethyi lead Nonwestewaters
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Lead
Wastawaters
Lead
NA
051
0040 NA
Stabilization (incineration may be needed when
contaminated with high levels of organics)
Chemical oxidation followed by chemical
precipitation
* * *DRAF 6/90 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by è)
Pill
Tetraethyl pyrophosphate
Nonwaslewaters
Incineration.
June 8. 1989
Treatment techno!ogy - incineration
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incineratIon.
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration
P112 Tetranitromethane Nonwastewaters
Wasteweters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chemical
reduction, carbon adsorption, biodegradation; or Incineration
Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction, carbon
adsorption; biodegradation, or Incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
P113 The/tic oxide
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technotogy - thermal recovery or stabilization
Thermal recovery or stabilization
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters
Thallium 0 14
Chemical precipitation
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
A-4 112
Treatment technology - fuel substitution; chemical oxidation,
chemical reduction, or incineration
Fuel substitution, chemical oxidation; chemical
reduction; or Incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
API -.. iX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 113
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (Or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
P114 Thallium (I) se/anita Nonwasfewaters Stabilization August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Selenium NA 5 7 June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters Chemical precipitation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Selenium 1 0 NA June 8, 1989)
P115 Thallium (I) sulfate Nonwastewafers Thermal recovery or stabilization August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or stabilization August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Chemical precipitation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Thallium 0 14 NA August 8. 1988)
P116 Thiosemlcarbazlde Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewalers (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chamicel
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
T... ..._ .1nt Standar-’
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I) As Basis for Standards
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
I I COhII
Waste
Code Description Constituent
A-4 114
Effective Date 2
P118
Trichloromethane-thiol
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
(Wet -air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
P119
Ammonium vanadate
Nonwastewaters
Stabilization.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - stabilization
Wastewaters
ChemIcal precIpitation
August 8, 1990
Vanadium 28’ NA
P120
Vanadium pentoxide
Nonwastewaters
Stabilization
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology- stabilization
Wastewaters
Chemical precipitation
August 8, 1990
Vanadium 28’ NA
* “ DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a a
a * a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * a
-------
At- IXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 115
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
P121
Zinc cyanide
Nonwastewaters
Eiectmlytic oxidation followed by alkaline
chlorination.
June 8, 1989
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
110 NA
9 1 NA
Wastewaters
Alkaline chlorination
June 8, 1989
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
1 9 NA
0 10 NA
P122 Zinc phosphide, > 10 percent Nonwastewaters Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction; or August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
Incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology- chemical oxidation; chemical August 8, 1988)
reduction, or incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction, or August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; chemical August 8, 1988)
reduction, or incineration
P123 Toxaphene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted es
a soft hammer waste as of
Toxaphene 1 3 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
tollowed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Toxapheno 00095 NA August 8, 1988)
“a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * *SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALE. INFORMATiON * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989
U003 Aceton,tr,le
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - incineration
incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
A-4 116
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
U0O1
Acetaldahyde
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastawatars
(?/et-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
U002 Acetone Nonwastewaters Incineration
Acetone
Wastewaters
Acetone
160 NA
028 NA
Wastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
Acetonitnie 0 17
NA
U004 Acetophonone Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8.
1990
Acetophenone
97
NA
Wastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
Acetophenone
0010
NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APP . A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 117
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
U005 o-AcetylamvnofIuorene Nonwastewaters incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
2-Acetyiamino-fluorene 140 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
2-Acelylaminofluorene 0059 NA June 8, 1989)
U006 AcetyI chloride Nonwastewaters
IncIneration
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewatars
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8,
1990
U007 Acr) lamide Nonwastewatars IncIneration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineratIon August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8. 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
* * * DRAFT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE• * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX 4-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 118
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U008 Acr, lic acid Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewalers (‘Net-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U009 Acrylonitrile Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Aciylon itrsle 84 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastowaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Ac ,y lonitn le 0 24 NA August 8, 1988)
U010 Mitomycin C Nonwastewafers Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) Followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
Al- AXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 119
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
vol 1 Amitrole Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restnc ted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8. 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U012 Aniline Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Aniline 14 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Aniline 0 81 NA August 8, 1988)
U014 Auramine Nonwastewaters IncineratIon August 8, 1990 (Restricted a
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 120
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Descnption
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis (or Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U015 Azaserine Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Net-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption: or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U016 Benz (c)acridine Nonwastowaters Fuel substitution or incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hemmer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Met-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U0I 7 Bengal chloride Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastowaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
... DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * **
-------
APe •X A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 121
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by )
U018 Benz (a)anthracene Nonwastewators Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Benz(a)anthracene 82 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
followed by carbon adsorption 3 a soft hammer waste as of
Benz(a)anthraene 0 059 NA August 8, 1988)
U019 Benzene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Benzene 36 NA August 8, 1988)
Was tewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Benzene 0 14 NA August 8, 1988)
U020 Benzenesultonyl chloride Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Waslowaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption: or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * ‘SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 122
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by *)
U021 Benzld,ne Nonwastewalers IncineratIon August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U022 Benzo(a)pyrena Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Benzo(a)pyrane 82 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Benzo(a)pyreno 0061 NA August 8. 1988)
U023 Benzotrichloride Nonwastewators Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation; chromium August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
reduction; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution, chemical oxidation, August 8, 1988)
chromium reduction, or incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation; chromium reduction; carbon August 8, 1990 (Rostncted as
adsorption; biodegradation, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chromium June 8, 1989)
reduction, carbon adsorption, biodegradation, or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
Al- iIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES t
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
U026 Chiornaphazine
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - incineration
incineration
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
4-4 723
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by •
noted by )
U024
BIs(2-chloroethosy) methane
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8. 1990
Bis(2.chloroethoxy)
methane
72 NA
Wastowaters
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)
methane
0036 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
U025 Dichloroethyl ether Nonwastewaters Incineration
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Wastewaters
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
72 NA
0033 NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE• * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VEPIFYALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
Bromomethane (Methyl
bromide
Wastewaters
Bromomethane (Methyl
bromide
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
A-4 124
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCL.P (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by”)
noted by )
U027
Bis(2-chloro,sopropyl) ether
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
B,s(2-chloroisopropyi)
ether
72 NA
Wastewaters
Bis(2-chloroisopropyi)
ether
0055 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption 5
August 8, 1990
U028
Bss(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Nonwastewaters
Rotary kiln incIneration
June 8, 1989
Bis (2-ethy!hex-yl)phthalate
28 NA
Wastewaters
Concentrations In scrubbeiwater from rotary kiln
incineration.
June 8, 1989
Bis (2-athylhexyl)phthalate
0 54 NA
U029 Methyl bromide Nonwastewaters Incineration
15 NA
011 NA
DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE•
a * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
A. .dDIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 125
Tre
atment Standards
Maximum Concentration br Any
Waste
Code
Descnption
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U030
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Nonwastewaters
incineration
August 8, 1990
4-Bromophenyl phenyl
ether
15 NA
Wastewaters
4-Bromophenyl phenyl
ether
0055 NA
(81010 gicel treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
U031 n-Butanol Nonwastewaters IncineratIon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
n-Butyl alcohol 26 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
n-Butyi alcohol 5 6 NA August 8, 1988)
U032 Calcium chromate Nonwastewaters Chromium reduction followed by stabilization August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Chromium (Total) NA 0094 June 8, 1989)
Wastewalars Chromium reduction followed by chemical August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
precipitation a soft hammer waste as of
Chromium (Total) 032 NA June 8, 1989)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Juno 8, 1989)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
A-4 126
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
U033
Carbonyl fluoride
Nonwastewaters
incIneration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or Chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption: or incineration.
August 8, 1990
U034
Trichioroacotaldehyde (chloral)
Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology, incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption: or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
U035 Chlorambuci! Nonwastewaters incIneration
Treatment technology - incineration
DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
AF QIX 4-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 127
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by ‘)
noted by *)
U036 Chiordane, technical Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Chiordane (alpha and August 8, 1988)
gamma) 0 13 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Chiordane (alpha and August 8, 1988)
gamma) 00033 NA
U037 Chlorobenzene Nonwastowatars Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Chlorobenzene 5 7 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Chiorobenzene 0057 NA August 8, 1988)
U038 Chlorobenzilate Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Was fewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990
foliowed by carbon adsorption
Chlorobenziiate 0 10 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
(ollowed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
A-4 128
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mgII)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by *)
U039
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Nonwastewa lers
Incineration
August 8, 1990
p-Ch!oro-m-creso l
14 NA
Wastewaters
p-Ch!oro-m-creso l
0018 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption 5
August 8, 1990
U04 I n-Chloro-2,3-epoxypro pane Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - Incineration
Wastawaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U042 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
2-Chioroethyl vinyl 0057 NA
U043 Vinyl chloride Nonwastewaters incineration
Vinyl chloride
Wastewaters
Vinyl chloride
33
NA
027’ NA
• DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
At-, .iDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
. 4-4 129
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Sing/a Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U044 Chloroform Nonwasfewaters IncIneration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Chloroform 5 6 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Chloroform 0046 NA August 8, 1988)
U045 Chioromethane (methyl chloride) Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
Chioromethane (methyl
chlonde)
33
NA
Wastewaters
Chioromethane (methyl
chloride)
0 19
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
U046 Chloromethyl methyl ether Nonwastewaters IncineratIon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration August 8, 1988)
Was fewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMA TIOW ** *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 130
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U047 2 -Chloronaphthalene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
2-Chloronaphthalene 5 6 NA June 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air ox, dation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
2-Chloronephihalene 0055 NA June 8, 1989)
U048 2-Chlorophenol Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
August 8, 1990
2-Ch loropheno!
5 7
NA
Wastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
2-Chiorophenol
0 044
NA
U049 4-ch!oro-o-toluidine, hydrochloride Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U050 Chrysene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Chrysene 82 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Chrysene 0059 NA August 8, 1988)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
AP . )tXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 131
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U05i Creosote Nonwastewalers Incineration followed by stabilization August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Naphthaleno 1 5 NA August 8 1988)
Pantachlorophenol 74 NA
Phenanthrene 1 5 NA
Pyrene 1 5 NA
Toluene 28 NA
Xylenes (Total) 33 NA
Lead NA 051
Wastewaters Incineration followed by chemical precIpitation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Naphthalene 0031 NA August 8, 1988)
Pentachlorophenol 0 18 NA
Phenanthrene 0031 NA
Pyrene 0028 NA
Toluene 0028 NA
Xylenes (Total) 0032 NA
Lead 0037 NA
U052 Cresols (Cresylic acid) Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
o-Cresol
5 6
NA
Cresols (m- and p-
isomers)
3 2
NA
Wastowaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
tollowed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
o-Cresol
0 II
NA
Cresols (m- and p-
isomers)
0 77
NA
• * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
T .. ntStanda h.
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or ‘-‘mposiIe Sampfr Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
Tota’ (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I) As Basis for Standards
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by *
noted by )
Waste
Code Description Constituent
A-4 132
Effective Date 2
U053
Crotonaldehyde
Nonwastewators
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Fuel substitution or Incineration.
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
U055
Cumene
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or Incineration
Wastewalers
Treatment technology - (Wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, Of incineration
August 8, 1990
U056
Cyclohexane
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration.
August 8, 1990
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * •
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APF A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 7
A-4 133
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
U057 Cyclohexanone Nonwastawaters Fuel substitution or incineration August 6, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Cyclohexanone 036 NA June 8, 1989)
U058 Cyciophosphamide Nonwastewaters
Incineration
June 8,
1989
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incineration.
June 8.
1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or incineration, or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and Incineration
U059 Daunomycin Nonwastewaters IncIneration August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology. Incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical by carbon adsorption, or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration June 8, 1989)
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 134
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
U060 DDD Nonwasfewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
O,P ’-DDD 0087 NA June 8, 1989)
P,P’-DDD 0087 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
O,P ’-DDD 0023 NA June 8, 1989)
P,P’-DDO 0023 NA
U061 DDT Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
O,P’-DDT 0087 NA August 8, 1988)
P,P’-DDT 0087 NA
O,P’-DDD 0087 NA
P,P’-DDD 0087 NA
O,P’-DDE 0087 NA
O,P ’-DDE 0087 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
O,P’-DDT NA 00039 August 8, 1988)
P.P’-DDT NA 0 0039*
O,P DDD NA 0023*
P,P’-DDD NA 0023*
O,P ’ -DDE NA 0031*
O,P ’-DDE NA 0031
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE - -
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
A JIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 135
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by”)
noted by ‘9
U062 Diallate Nonwastuwaters Incineration August 8. 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemica’ oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
U063 D:benz o (a h) anthracene Nonwastowaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Dibenz o(a h) anthracene 8 2 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological freatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
D,benz o(a h) anlhracene 0055 NA August 8, 1988)
U064 2,2,7, 8-Dibenzopyrene Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitutIon or incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology -(Wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
* *DRAFJ6/9 0 DONOTCITE OR QUOTE * **
* ‘ ‘SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 136
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As BasIs for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
U066 Dibromo-3chloro propane Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1,2-Dibromo-3- August 8, 1988)
chloropropane 15 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxIdation) August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
1,2-Dibromo-3- August 8, 1988)
chloropropane 0 11 NA
U067 Ethylene-1,2-dichloro- Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restiicted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1,2-Dibromoethane August 8. 1988)
(Ethylene dibromide) 15 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
1,2-Dibromoethane August 8, 1988)
(Ethylene d,bromlde) 0078 NA
U068 Dibromomethane Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
Dibromomethane
15
NA
Wastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
Dibromomethane
0 II
NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION ***
-------
APP. A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I) As Basis (or Standards
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *19
noted by 19
Waste
Code Description Constituent
A-4 137
Effective Date 2
U069
DI-n-butyl phthalate
Nonwaslewaters
IncIneration
June 8. 1989
DI-n-butyl phthalata
28
NA
Wastewaters
Incineration
June 8, 1989
Di-n-butyl phthalate
054
NA
U070
o-Dschlorobenzene
Nonwastewaters
o-Dichlorobenzene
62
NA
IncIneration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters
o-D,chlorobenzene
0088
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
U071
m-Dichlorobenzene
Nonwastewaters
IncineratIon
August 8, 1990
m-Dichlorobenzene
6 2
NA
Wastewaters
m-Dichlorobenzene
0036
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990
U072
p-Dichlorobenzene
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
p-Dich!orobenzene
6 2
NA
Wastewaters
p-Dich!orobenzene
0 090
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 138
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U073 Qschlorobenzldene,3,3- Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Net-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemIcal June 9, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
U074 css-1,4-Dich!oro-2-butene and trans-1,4- Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
D,chloro-2- butane a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Net-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
U075 Oichlorod,fluoromethane Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990
Dichlorodifluoromethene 72 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990
followed by carbon adsorption
hlorod,fluoromethane 023 NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APe X A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 139
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
U076
1 • I -Dichloroethane
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
I, 1-Dichloroethane
72 NA
Wastawaters
1,1-Dichloroethane
0059’ NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
U077 Ethane, 1,2-dichloro- Nonwastewatars IncIneration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1,2-D lchioroethane 72 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
1,2-Dichioroethane 021 NA August 8, 1988)
U078 Dichioroethylene, I • 1- Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1, 1-Dichloroetliylene 33 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
1, 1-Dicliloroethylena 0025’ NA August 8, 1988)
U079 l,2-D:chloroethylane Nonwastewaters
Incinaration
August 8,
1990
trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
33
NA
Wastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
August 8,
1990
trans-I ,2-Dichloroelhylene
0054’
NA
followed by carbon adsorption
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a
a. a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a a
-------
APPENDIX A.4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 140
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
U080 Methylene chloride
Nonwastewaters
Methylone chlonde 33
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8. 1989)
Wastewaters
Methylene chloride
NA
0089 ’ NA
Incineration
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption 5
U081
2,4-D,ch!orophenol
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
2 ,4-Dichlorophenol
14
NA
Wastewaters
2,4-Dlch lorophenol
0 044
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxIdation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
U082
2,6-Dichiorophenol
Nonwastewaters
incineration
August 8,
1990
2,6-Dichloropheno!
14
NA
Wastowaters
2.6-D,chlorophenol
0044
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
U083 Dichloropropane, 1,2- Nonwastewaters Incineration
1,2-Dichioropropane
Wastewaters
I ,2-D,ch!oropropane
18 NA
085’ NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * a a
-------
APPI. A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by a )
noted by *)
U084
1,3-Dlchloropropene
Nonwastowaters
IncIneration.
August 8, 1990
cls- 1,3-Dichloropropylene 18 NA
trans-1,3 -
Dichloropropylene 18 NA
Wastewaters
cis-1,3-Dichloropropy!ene 0036 NA
trans-I,3-
Dictiloropropylene 0036 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation followed
by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
U085
1,2 3,4-Die poxybutane
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) Followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
U086 N,N-Diethylhydrazine Nonwastewaters
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chromium
reduction, carbon adsorption: biodegradation; or incineration
Chemical oxidation; chromium reduction; carbon
adsorption, biodegradation, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
A-4 141
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chromium
reduction, fuel substitution, or incineration
Fuel substitution, chemical oxidation, chromium
reduction, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
* * ‘DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * ‘SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION ‘ * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 198é)
A-4 142
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by )
U087
O .O-Diethyl-S -methyl dithiophosphate
Nonwastewaters
incineration
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology- incineration
Wastewaters
Carbon adsorption or incineratIon
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or incineration; or
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption and incineration.
U088
Diethyl phthalate
Nonwastewaters
IncineratIon
June 8, 1989
Diethyl phthalate 28 NA
Wastewaters
incineration
June 8, 1989
Diethyl phthalat 054 NA
U089 Diethylstilbestrol Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or incineration
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or Incineration
* * *D 4fl 6/90. DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
AP. IXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Juno 8, 1989)
Was(owaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989
4-4 143
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *A)
noted by )
U090
Dihydrosafrole
Nonwaslewaters
Fuel substitution or Incineration
Augusl 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Waf-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
U091
3,3-DImetho ybenzidine
Nonwastewaters
IncineratIon
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration.
August 8, 1990
U092 Dimethylamine Nonwastewaters Incineration.
Treatment technology - Incineration
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * A *
* * A SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION A * A
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
#4 144
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by”)
noted by )
U093 Dimethylaminoazobenzene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 9, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wasteweters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
p-Dimethy!amino- June 8, 1989)
azobenzone 0 13 NA
U094 Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene,7,12- Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or incineratIon. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology- (wet-air oxidation or chemIcal June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U095 Dimelhylbenzidine,3,3- Nonwastewaters Incineration August 9, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
* * OR4FT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
0 * 0 SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPEs..... ... A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology. (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxIdation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8. 1989)
U098 Dimethylhydrazine, 1,1 -
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - fuel substitution; chemical oxidation,
chromium reduction, or incineration
Fuel substitution, chemical oxidation; chromium
reduction, or Incineration.
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; chromium
reduction, carbon adsorption; biodegradation; or incineration
Chemical oxidation; chromium reduction; carbon
adsorption, biodegradation; or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
A-4 145
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by )
U096
a,a-Dimothyi benzyl hydroperoxido
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation, chromium
reduction, or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution, chemical oxidation,
chromium reduction, or incineration
Wastewaters
Chemical oxidation, chromium reduction; carbon
adsorption; biodegradation, or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; chromium
reduction, carbon adsorption, biodegradation, or Incineration
U097 Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride Nonwastewators Incineration
Treatment technology- incineration
* * *DRAFT6/90.DONOTCITEORQUQTE* *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 146
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (orEP. noted
(composite by * 19
noted by *)
U099 Dimethyihydrazine,1,2- Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation, chromium August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
reduction, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation, June 8, 1989)
chromium reduction. or incineration
Was tewaters Chemical oxidation, chromium reduction, carbon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
adsorption; biodegradation; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; chromium June 8, 1989)
reduction; carbon adsorption, biodegradation, or incineration
UlOl Dimethyiphenol, 2.4- Nonwasfewaters Incineration August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
2,4-Dimethylphenol 14 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
2,4-Dimethy iphenol 0036* NA June 8, 1989)
U102 Dimethyl phthalate Nonwasfewaters Incineration June 8. 1989
Dimethyl phthalale 28 NA
Wastewaters Incineration June 8, 1989
Dimethyl phthalate 054 NA
* * *op 4F 76/9o DONOTCITEOR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPEI. A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 747
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis (or Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
U103 Dlmethyi sulfate Nonwastewatars Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation, chromium August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
reduction, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Tm atment technology - Fuel substitution, chemical oxidation, August 8, 1988)
chromium reduction, or incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation; chromium reduction, carbon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
adsorption; biodegradation; or Incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; chromium August 8, 1988)
reduction, carbon adsorption, biodegradation, or incineration
U705 2,4-D,nitrotoiuene Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
2,4-Dinutrotoluene 140 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 032 NA August 8, 1988)
U106 Din,trotoluene,2,6- Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
2,6-Dinitrotolueno 28 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
2,6-Dinutroltoluene 0 55 NA June 8, 1989)
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 148
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis (or Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
U107
Qi-n-octy! phI halate
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
June 8, 1989
Di-n-octyl phthalate
28 NA
Wastewaters
Incineration
June 8, 1989
Di-n-octyl phthalate
054 NA
U108 Dioxane, 1,4- Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1,4-Dioxano 170 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
1,4-Dioxane 0 12 NA August 8, 1988)
U109 1,2-Diphenyihydrazine Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation; chromium August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
reduction; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution, chemical oxidation, June 8, 1989)
chromium reduction, or incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation, chromium reduction, carbon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
adsorption; biodegradation, or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chromium June 8, 1989)
reduction; carbon adsorption, biodegradation; or incineration
* a DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
AR. JIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND. AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
4-4 149
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Descnplion
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by )
noted by *)
UI 10 Dipropylamine Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air ox idation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
Ui 11 Di-N-Propyinitrosamlne Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Di-n-Propylnitrosamine 14 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Di-n-propylnitrosamine 040 NA June 8. 1989)
LII 12 Ethyl acetate Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990
Ethyl acetate 33 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990
followed by carbon adsorption
Ethyl acetate 034 NA
* * *DaAn -6,9000NoTc,TE0RQu0TE* * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
U115 Ehtylene oxide
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation or incineration
Incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewators
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
el-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
A-4 150
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration (or Any
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
UI 13
Ethyl acrylate
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
UI 14 Elhyleneb,s-(Dith,ocarbamic acid) Nonwastewa tars Incineration
Treatment technology - incineration
* • *Da4F-7 -6/9o DONOTCITEOROUOTE * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
AP. iXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
4-4 151
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (Or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
Ui 16 Ethylene thiourea Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wasfewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
UI 17
Ethyl ether
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
Ethyl ether
160
NA
Wastewaters
Ethyl ether
0 12
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
foliowed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
UI 18
Ethyl methaciy!ate
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
Ethyl methacryiate
160
NA
Wastewaters
Ethyl methacrylate
0 14
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
* DRAFT 6(90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE• * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * **
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 152
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Descnption
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
Ui 19 Ethyl methanesullonate Nonwas lewaters IncIneration August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - IncIneration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Vet-aIr oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U120
Fluoranthene
Nonwastawaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
Fluoranthone
8 2
NA
Wastewaters
Fluoranthene
0068
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8,
1990
U121
Trichloromonofluoromethane
Nonwastewaters
IncineratIon
August 8,
1990
Tr,chloromono-
fluoromethane
33
NA
Wastewaters
Tnchloromono-
fluoromethane
0 020’
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION ...
-------
Af . jIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I) As Basis for Standards
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
Waste
Code Description Constituent
A-4 153
Effective Date 2
U122
Formaldehyde
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Fuel substitution or incineration.
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
U123
Formic acid
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology, fuel substitution or incineration
Waslewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) foliowed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
August 8, 1990
U124
Furan
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
• * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 154
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by ‘9
U125
Furfural
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or Incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration.
August 8, 1990
U126
Glycidaldohyde
Nonwastewafers
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or Incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990
.
UI27 Hexachlorobenzene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Hexachlorobonzene 37 NA June 8. 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. a soft hammer waste as ol
Hexachlorobensene 0055 NA June 8, 1989)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE• * *
** * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPL A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 155
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by • 9
noted by )
U128 Haxechorobutad,ene Nonwaslewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Hexachorobutadiene 28 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wel-?Fr oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. a soft hammer waste as of
Hexachorobutadieno 0 055 NA June 8, 1989)
U129 Lindone Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
alpha-BHC 0066 NA August 8, 1988)
beta-BHC 0066 NA
delta-BHC 0.066 NA
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0066 NA
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
aipha-BHC 0 00014 NA August 8. 1988)
beta-BHC 000014 NA
delta- BHC 0 023’ NA
gamrna-BHC (Lindane) 00017’ NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION ’ *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4. 156
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Totat (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by *
noted by )
U130 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Hexachlorocyc!o- August 8, 1988)
pentadiene 3 6 NA
Wastewafers (Biological treatment or wet-air oxIdation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Hexachlorocyclo- August 8, 1988)
pentadiene 0057 NA
U131 l-lexachloroethane Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Hexachloroefhane 28 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
1-lexachloroethane 0055 NA June 8, 1989)
U132 Hexachiorophenene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8. 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTES * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APP _ .A 4.4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 157
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by “)
U133 Hydrazine Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation, chromium August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
reduction, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution, chemical oxidation; August 8, 1988)
chromium reduction; or incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation; chemical reduction; carbon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
adsorption, biodegradation; or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology- chemical oxidation, chemical August 8, 1988)
reduction; carbon adsorption, biodegradation; or incineration
U134 Hydrofluoric acid Nonwastewaters Venting of gases followed by neutralization; or August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
neutralization a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology, venting of gases followed by August 8, 1988)
neutralization, or neutralization
Wastewaters Venting of gases followed by neutralization, or August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
neutralization a soft hammer waste as of
Fluoride 35 NA August 8, 1988)
U135 Hydrogen sulfide Nonwastewaters Chemical oxidation, chromium reduction, or August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chromium June 8, 1989)
reduction, or incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation; chromiUm reduction, or August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chromium June 8, 1989)
reduction, or incineration
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 158
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by (9
U136
Cacodylic acid
Nonwastewaters
Vitrification.
May 8, 1992
Arsenic
NA 56
Wastewaters
Chemical precIpitation
August 8, 1990
Arsenic
0 79 NA
U137 Indeno (1.2,3-cd) pyrene Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 82 NA August 8. 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-alt oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Indeno (1.2,3-cd) pyrene 00055 NA August 8, 1988)
U138 Methyl iodide or lodomethene Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
lodomethane 65 NA June 8. 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
lodomethane 0 19 NA June 8, 1989)
U139 Iron dextran Removed from the hazardous waste NA NA
listing on 10131188, no treatment
standards promulgated
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPE A .4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 159
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
-Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Trnatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP. noted
(composite by
noted by )
U140 Isobutyl alcohol Nonwastowaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Isobutyl alcohol 170 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewalers (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Isobutyl alcohol 56 NA June 8, 1989)
U141 Isosairole Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
isosfrble
26
NA
Wastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
Isos frole
0081
NA
UI42 Kepone Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Kepone 0 13 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Kepone 00011 NA June 8, 1989)
UI 43 Lasiocarpine Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
a a aD ,4fl 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a a a
* a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMA TION a *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FiRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 160
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
(1144 Lead acetate Nonwastewaters Stabilization (incineration maybe needed when August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
contaminated with high levels of organics) a soft hammer waste as of
Lead NA 051 June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation followed by chemical August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
precipitation a soft hammer waste as of
Lead 0040 NA Juno 8, 1989)
(1145 Lead phosphate Nonwastewaters
Stabilization (incineration may be needed when
August 8,
1990
contaminated with high levels of organics)
Lead
NA
051
Wastewaters
Chemical oxidation followed by chemical
precipitation
August 8,
1990
Lead
0040
NA
U146 Lead subacetate Nonwastewaters Stabilization (incineration may be needed when August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
contaminated with high levels of organics). a soft hammer waste as of
Lead NA 051 June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation followed by chemical August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
precipitation a soft hammer waste as of
Lead 0 040 NA June 8,1989)
(1147 MaIeic anhydride Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
• * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPL A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989
Was tewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
A-4 161
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Data 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U148
Male/c hydrazide
Nonwastewaters
incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U149 Malononit rile Nonwastewaters Incineration
Treatment technology - incineration
U150 Melphalan Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 162
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
Nonwastewaters
High mercur,’ subcategory ( 260 mg/kq)
Treatment technology - roasting or retorting
Low mercury subcategoi’y (<260 mg/kg)
Residues from roast,nglretorting
Mercury NA
Non-residues
Mercury NA
Wastewaters
Mercury 0030
Nonwastowaters
Met hacrylonitrile
Wastewaters
Methaciylonitrile
U151 Mercury
1)152 Methacr, ’Ionitr,le
Roasting or retorting
Acid Ieaching
Chemical precipitation
020
0 025
NA
May 8, 1992 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8. 1990
Incineration
84
NA
024
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by cathon adsorption
August 8,
1990
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPIrDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology- (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
Ui 55 Methapyrilene
Nonwastewaters
Methapyrilene
Wastewaters
Methapyrilene
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
A-4 163
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Descnption
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
U153
Methane thiol
Nonwastewaters
incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemica!
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U154 Methanol Nonwastewaters Fuel substitution or Incineration
Incineration.
15 NA
0081 NA
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * a
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Wastewaters
3-Methyicholanthrene
Nonwastewaters
4.4-Moth ylene-bis-
(2-chioroaniline)
Wastewaters
4,4-Methy lene•bis -
(2-ch loroanthne)
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
(61010 glcal treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
44 164
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Techno’ogy Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *)
noted by )
UI56
Methyl chlorocarbonate
Nonwastewaters
incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
U157 3-Methylchol-anthrene
Nonwastowaters
3-Moth ylcholanthrene
UI 58 4.4-Methyiene-bis-(2.chloroanhline)
Incineration
15 NA
00055 NA
IncineratIon.
35 NA
050 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
AP i .X A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 165
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by )
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8. 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
U 159 Methyl ethyl ketone
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
Methyl ethyl ketone
36
NA
Was tewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
Methyl ethyl ketone
028
NA
U 160 Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution; chemical oxidation; chromium
August 8,
1990
reduction; or Incineration
Treatment technology - fuel substitution, chemical oxidation,
chromium reduction, or incineration
Wastowaters
Chemical oxidation, chromium reduction; carbon
adsorption, biodegradation; or incineration.
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation; chromium
reduction, carbon adsorption; biodegradation; or incineration
U161 Methyl isobutyl ketone Nonwastewaters Incineration
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Wastewaters
Methyl isobutyl
33 NA
014 NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFYALL INFORMATION “
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FlRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 166
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Sincjle Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
U162 Methyl methacrylate Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Methyl methaciylate 160 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Methyl mothacrylate 0 14 NA June 8, 1989)
U163 N-methyl-n-nltro-n-nitrosoguanidine Nonwastewaters incIneration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U164 Methylthiouraci! Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - IncineratIon June 8, 1989)
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical (‘Net-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hemmer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
U165 Naphthalene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Naphthalene 3 1 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Naphlhalene 0059 NA June 8, 1989)
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APP. , A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
A-4 167
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by
noted by *)
U166
14-Naphthoqu,none
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
U167
I-Naphthylamlne
Nonwastawaters
incineratIon
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Waste waters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990
UI 68 2-Naphthlyamine Nonwastewaters incineration
Treatment technology - Incineration
Wastowaters
2-Na phthlyarnine
052’ NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
• * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 168
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U169 Nitrobenzene Non wastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
N,trobenzene 14 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Nitrobenzene 0068 NA June 8. 1989)
UI 70 4-Nitrophenol Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
4-Nitrophenol 29 NA June 8, 1989)
Was tewa tars (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
4-Nitrophenol 0 12 NA June 8, 1989)
UI 71 Nitropropane ,2- Nonwastewalers IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineratIon August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
* * *DM 6I9O DONOTCITEORCUOTE a * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APP.. . A.4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 169
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
UI 72 N-n,troso-d,-n-butylamine Nonwastewatars Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
n-nitrosodi-n-buty lamine 17 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
n-nitrosodi-n-butyiamine 040 NA June 8, 1989)
UI 73 N-nifroso-dlethanoiamine Nonwastewa tars IncineratIon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treathient technology - incineration June 8. 1999)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology. (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8. 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption: or incineration
UI 74 N-nitroso-diethylamine Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
N-nitroso-diethylamine 28 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
N-nstroso-diefhylamine 040 NA June 8, 1989)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION••
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 170
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
Ut 76 N-nitroso-n-ethylurea Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hemmer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
Ui 77 N-Nitroso-n-methyiurea Nonwestewaters IncIneration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastowaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidatIon or chemical August 8, 1988
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
Ui 78 N-nitroso-n-methylurethane Nonwastewaters IncIneration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERiFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APe XA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 171
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective D ate 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
UI 79 N-Nitrosoplperidino Nonwastewaters IncineratIon August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
N-Nitrosop iperidine 35 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
N-Nitrosop,per,dina 0013 NA June 8. 1989)
U180 N-Nitrosopyrro!idine Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 35 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 0013 NA August 8, 1988)
U181
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration
August 8,
1990
5-N ,tro-o-tolu ld,no 28 NA
Wastewaters
5-N,tro-o-toluid,ne 032 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
UI82
Paraldehyde
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or Incineration.
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8,
1990
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Pentachloron ,trobenzene 0 055 ’
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
A-4 172
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by )
U183
Pentachlorobenzene
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8. 1990
Pentachlorobenzene 37 NA
Wastewaters
Pentachlorobensene 0055 NS
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8. 1990
U184
Pentachioroethane
Nonwastewaters
IncineratIon
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology- incineration
Wastewaters
(Net-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology- (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
UI 85 Pentachloronitrobenzene Nonwastewaters Incineration
Pentachloronitrobenzene 4 8
NA
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 269 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APP.. AA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 173
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Maximum Concentration for My
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by”)
noted by )
U186
1,3-Pentadiene
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or Incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990
U187
Phenacetin
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration
August 8, 1990
Phenacetin 16 NA
Waslewaters
Phenacet,n 0081 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8, 1990
U188 Phenol Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Phenol 62 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Phenol 0039 NA August 8, 1988)
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * **
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
44 174
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mgi I) (or EP, noted
(composite by )
noted by )
U189 Phosphorus sulfide
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chemical
reduction, or incineration
Chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, or
incineration
Chemical oxidation, chemical reduction; or
incineration.
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chemical
reduction, or incineration
U191 2-Pico!,ne Nonwastewators
incineration
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology. (wet-air oxidation
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption,
or chemical
or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8,
1990
U192 Pronamide Nonwastewaters Incineration
Pronamide
Wastewaters
Pronamide
15 NA
0093 NA
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE• *
a * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
A )IXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 75
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by 1.)
U193 1,3-Propane Sultone Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical Jun e8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U194 1-Propanamine Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8,
1990
U196 Pyridine Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Pyridine 16 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon Adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Pyridine 0014 NA June 8, 1989)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
*** SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
(Wet-afr oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
U20 1 Resorcanol
Nonwestowaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or Incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8, 1990
A-4 176
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effoclive Date 2
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U197
P-Benzoqulnone
Nonwastewaters
Fuel substitution or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U200 Reserpino Nonwastewaters incineration
Treatment technology - incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
API - A A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
Selenium
Wastewa ters
Selenium
Chemical precipitation
August 8, 1990 (RestrIcted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
A-4 177
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by “)
U202
Saccharin and salts
Nonwas(ewaters
Incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - Incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-ai, oxidation or chemical
oxidation) to//owed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
U203 Se (role Nonwastewaters Incineration.
Safrole
Wastewaters
Se (role
22 NA
0081 NA
U205 Selenium sulfide
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
U204 Selenious Dioxide Nonwastewaters
Stabilization, vitnfication,or recoveiy.
August 8,
1990
Selenium
NA
5 7
Wastewa tars
Chemical precipitation
August 8,
1990
Selenium
1 0
NA
Nonwastewaters
NA 57
10 NA
Stabilization, vitrification or recovery
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A-4 178
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis (or Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by “)
noted by )
U206 Streptozotocan
Nonwastewaters
Treatment technology - Incineration
Incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
eNet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration.
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8. 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
U207 1,2,4,5-tetra-chlorobenzene Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
1 ,2,4,5-tetra-chlorobenzene
1 9NA
Wastewaters
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
1,2,4,5-tetra-ch lorobenzene
0055 NA
U208 1,1,1 ,2-tetrachloroethana Nonwastewaters Incineration.
1,1, 1,2-tetrachloroethane 42
Wastewaters
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane 0057
NA
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
* * * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMA TION * *
-------
At-. ,IXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 179
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective 08(82
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U209 I, 1,2 ,2-Tetrachforoethane Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1 , 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 42 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
foiloi ied by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethaneo 057 NA August 8, 1988)
U210 Tetrachioro ethylene Nonwastewaters Incineration Augusta, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Tetrachloroethylene 56 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxIdation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Tefrat hiornethviene 0056 NA August 8, 1988)
U21 1 Carbontetrachlonde Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Carbontetrachlor,de 56 NA August 8, 1988)
Waslewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Carbontetrachloride 0057 NA August 8, 1988)
U213 Teirahydrofuran Nonwastewalers Fuel substitution or incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 180
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mgfkg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by “)
noted by *)
U214 Thai!,um( I) acetate Nonwastewaters Thermal recovery or stabilization August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or stabilization June 8. 1989)
Wastewaters Chemical precipitation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Thallium 0 14 NA June 8, 1989)
U215 Thallium (I) carbonate Nonwastewaters Thermal recovery or stabilization. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or stabilization June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters Chemica! precipitation August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Thallium (I) carbonate 0 14 NA June 8, 1989)
U216 Thallium (I) chloride Nonwastewaters Thermal recovery or stabilization August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or stabilization June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters Chemical precipitation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Thallium (I) Chloride 0 14 MA June 8. 1989)
U2 17 Thallium (I) nitrate Nonwastewaters Thermal recovery or stabilization. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - thermal recovery or stabilization June 8, 1989)
Wastawaters Chemical precipitation August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Thallium (I) nitrate 0 14 NA June 8, 1989)
DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE•”
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
API- AA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST. SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4181
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Dale 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
U218 Thioacetamida Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incIneration June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8. 1990 (Restncted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U219 Thioutea Nonwestewaters incIneration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration August 8, 1988)
Wasfewalers (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8. 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U220 Toluene Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Toluene 28 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8. 1990 (RestrIcted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
Toluene 0080 NA August 8, 1988)
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE• *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * **
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 182
Waste
Code
Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent
Maximum Concentration for Any
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U221 Toluenedlamine Nonwastewaters Incineration or fuel substitutIon. June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration or fuel substitution August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters Carbon adsorption or incIneration June 8, 1989 (Restricted as a
soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - carbon adsorption or Incineration, or August 8, 1988)
pretreatment (such as biological treatment or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption or incineration
U222
o-Tolu,d,ne hydrochloride
Nonwastawaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
Treatment technology- (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption; or incineration
August 8,
1990
U225
Tribromomethane (Bromo form)
Nonwastewalers
Incineration
August 8,
1990
Tnbromomethane
(Bromolorm) 15 NA
Wastewaters
Tribromomethane
(Bromolorm) 063 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8,
1990
* *QR 1 AF7S/90 DONOTCITEOR QUOTE * * *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APP A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES’
A-4 183
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration (or My
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by **)
noted by *)
U226 1,1, 1-Tnchloroethane Nonwastewaters incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1,1, 1-Trichloroethano 5 6 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
1,1 1-Tr,chloroethane 0 054 NA August 8, 1988)
U227 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane Nonwaslewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 56 NA August 8. 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8. 1990 (Restncted as
followed by carbon adsorption a soft hammer waste as of
1, 1,2-Tnchloroethane 0054’ NA August 8, 1988)
U228 Trichloro ethylene Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Trichloroethylene 5 6 NA August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption. 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Tnchloroethylene 0 054 NA August 8, 1988)
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION•••
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES t
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
Wastewaters
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
(‘Nat-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration
August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
August 8, 1988)
A-4 184
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for My
Waste
Code
Description
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by ‘)
noted by )
U234
Syn-tr,nhtrobenzene
Nonwastewaters
Incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration.
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - (war-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or Incineration
U236
Trypan blue
Nonwastowaters
incineration
August 8, 1990
Treatment technology - incineration
Wastewaters
(Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed
by carbon adsorption, or incineration.
August 8. 1990
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or Incineration
U237 Uraeil mustard Nonwastewaters Incineration
Treatment technology - incineration
* * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ...
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
AP AX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES 1
A -4 185
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
U238 Ethyl carbamate Nonwastewaters Incineration. August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - incineration August 8, 1988)
Wastewators (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) tel/owed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U239 Xyleries Nonwastewaters IncineratIon August 8, 1990 (Restncted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Xylenes 28 NA June 8, 1989)
Wastewaters (Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation) August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
followed by carbon adsorption 5 a soft hammer waste as of
Xylenes 032 NA June 8, 1989)
U240
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetlc
Nonwastewaters
IncIneration.
August 8,
1990
2,4-Dlchlorophenoxyacetic 10
NA
Wastewaters
2.4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic 0.72
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxIdation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8,
1990
U243
Nexychloropropone
Nonwastewaters
Incineration
August 8,
1990
Nexychloropropene 28
NA
Wastewaters
Nexychloropropene 0 03&
NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption
August 8,
1990
DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION* *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES t
A-4 186
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by *)
U244 Thiram Nonwastewaters Incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - Incineration June 8, 1989)
Wastewatars (Wet-air oxIdation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption; or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical June 8, 1989)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption; or incineration
U246
Cyanogen bromide
Nonwastewaters
Chemical oxidation, wet-air oxidation, or
August 8,
1990
incineration
Treatment technology- chemical oxidation, wet-air oxidation,
or incineration
Wastewaters
Chemical oxidation, wet-air oxidation; or
August 8,
1990
incineration.
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, wet-air oxidation,
or incineration
U247
Methoxychlor
Nonwestowaters
incineration
August 8,
1990
Methoxychlor 0 18 NA
Wastewaters
Methoxychior 025 NA
(Biological treatment or wet-air oxidation)
followed by carbon adsorption. 5
August 8.
1990
• * Jfl4fl /9g DONOTCITEOR QUOTE “
a * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
A. JIXA-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD ThIRD WASTES 7
4.4 187
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration for Any
Waste
Code
Description
Constituent
Single Grab or Composite Sample
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date 2
Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I) (or EP, noted
(composite by *
noted by )
U248 Wan ’arin (greater then or equal to 3%) Nonwastewators Fuel substitution or incineration August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - fuel substitution or incIneration August 8. 1988)
Wasfewaters (Wet-air oxidation or chemical oxidation) followed August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
by carbon adsorption, or incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - (wet-air oxidation or chemical August 8, 1988)
oxidation) followed by carbon adsorption, or incineration
U249 Zinc phosphide (<10%) Nonwastawaters Chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, or August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
Incineration a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chemical August 8, 1988)
reduction, or incineration
Wastewaters Chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, or August 8, 1990 (Restricted as
Incineration, a soft hammer waste as of
Treatment technology - chemical oxidation, chemical August 8, 1988)
reduction,or incineration
* * DRAFT6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * * *
a * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR PART 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX A-4
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD THIRD WASTES
A-4 188
This appendix does not address deepwell-InJected wastes Treatment standards end effect We dates for these wastes are found in 40 CFR 148. Treatment standards and
effective dates for multi-source leachate are found in Appendix A-5 Treatment standards for mixed radioactive wastes are based on the nonwastewaler treatment standard
for the hazardous waste; for (he other specific treatability groups for mixed radioactive wastes, see 40 CFA 268
2 Effective date is the date the treatment standards take effect for all First, Second, or Third Third wastes, with the following exceptions: for soil and debris wastes
contaminated with First Third wastes for which BOAT is incineration, the effective date is August 8, 1990, based on a capacity extension. For soil and debns wastes
contaminated with Second Third wastes for which BOAT is incineration, the effective date Is June 8, 1991, based on a capacity extension. For soil and debns
contaminated with Third Third wastes for which BOAT is incineration, mercury retorting, or vitrification, and ‘Inorganic solid debris,’ the effective date Is May 8. 1992, based
on a capacity extension Until these dates, soil and debns must be disposed olin a unit that meats the F 1CRA minimum technology requirements.
See 40 CFR 268 Appendix VI for recommended technologies to achieve deactivation oi these hazardous wastes
Not applicable
Detailed information on the basis of wastewater treatment standards by constituent can be found in the document entitled, ‘Final Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) Background Document for U and P Wastes and Multi-Source Leachate (F039), Volume P Wastewater forms of Organic U and P Wastes and Multi-Source Leachate
(F039) for WhIch There Are Concentration-Based Treatment Standards’
6 Effective until May 8, 1991 The effective date of final treatment standards for noriwastewaters is being deferred until after this date because of inadequate high
temperature metals recovery capacity
Standards do not apply to residues generated as a result of lime (Ca(OH) l treatment that are not classified as hazardous wastes according to 40 CFR 261 3(c) (2) (ii),
unless they are hazardous due to the charactenstic of EP toxicity
6 Emission control sludges generated as calcium sulfate from secondary wet scrubbers using lime neutralization.
Emission control sludges that are not generated as a calcium sulfate from secondary wet scrubbers using lime neutralization
-------
VI
-------
APPENDIX A-5
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES
FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
JUNE 1990
* * DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
-------
APPL. -5
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULJI-SOURCE [ EACHATE
A-5.l
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
for My Sinqie Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I)
Best Demonstrated Treatment TechnologY Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date’
F039 Multi-Source Leachate Nonwaslewaters Incineration for organic constituents and May 8, 1992
stabilization for metals.
Acetone 160 NA 2
Acenaphthaleno 34 NA
Acenaphtheno 40 NA
Acetophenone 9.7 NA
2-Acetylamlnofluorene 140 NA
Aciyionitrlle 84 NA
AId,ln 0.066 NA
AnilIne 14 NA
Anthracene 40 NA
Aroc lor 1016 092 NA
Arocior 1221 092 NA
Aroclor 1232 092 NA
Aroclo, 1242 092 NA
Aroclor 1248 092 NA
Aroclor 1254 1 8 NA
Arocior 1260 1.8 NA
alpho-BHC 0.068 NA
beta-BHC 0066 NA
delta-BHC 0068 NA
gamma-BHC 0.066 NA
Benzene 36 NA
Benzo(a)anthracene 82 NA
Benzo(b)lluoranthene 34 NA
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene 3.4 NA
Benzo(g.h,I)peryleno 1 5 NA
Benzo(a)pyrene 82 NA
Bromodichioromethane 15 NA
Bromoform 15 NA
&omomethane (methyl
bromide) 15 NA
* ‘RAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * ‘ *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * a
-------
APPENDIX A-S (continued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5.2
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
waste
Code Descdption
(or Any Single Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards Effective Date’
F039 Multi-Source Leachate (continued) 4-Bxomophenyl phenyl 15 NA
ether
n-Butanol 26 NA
Butyl benzyl phthalate 7.8 NA
2-sec-B uty l-4,
6-dlnlfropheno l 2.5 NA
Carbon tatrachiorlde 5.6 NA
Chlordana 0.13 NA
p -Chloroanhllne 16 NA
Ch lombenzene 5 7 NA
Chiorodibromomelhane 16 NA
Chlomethane 60 NA
bls-(2-Chloroetho*y)
methane 7.2 NA
bls-(2-Chloroethyl) ether 72 lU
Chloroform 56 NA
bis-(2-Chioro lsopropy l)
ether 7.2 NA
p-Ch lom-m-cresol 14 NA
Chloromethane 33 NA
2-Ch loronaphtha lene 56 NA
2-Chlorophenol 5.7 NA
3-Ch loropropene 28 NA
Chrysene 82 NA
o-Cresoi 56 NA
Cresol (m- and p. Isomers) 32 NA
i 2-DIbromo-3 Chloro-
propane 15 NA
1 2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene
dibromlde) 15 NA
Dibromomathano 15 NA
2,4-Dichioropheno yacetIc
acid (2,4-D) 10 NA
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION°
-------
APPENDIX. ,t lnued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFEC7P/E DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
A -5.3
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
for Any Single Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg JCLP (mg/i)
or mg/I)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effecttve Date’
F039 Multi-Source Leachate frontinued) o.p-DDD 0087 NA
p,p-DDD 0087 NA
o,p’-DDE 0087 NA
p.p-DDE 0087 NA
o.p -DDT 0087 NA
p,p -DDT 0.087 NA
Dibonzo(a.h)anlhracene 82 NA
m-Dichlorobenzene 62 NA
o-Dlchlorobanzene 62 NA
p-D lch lorobenzene 6.2 NA
Dichiorodlfluoromethene 72 NA
1, 1-Dlchioroethane 72 NA
l 2-Dichlomethane 7.2 NA
1. l-Dlchlomethytene 33 NA
tians-1,2-Dlchloroethylene 33 NA
2,4- Oichloropheno l 14 NA
2,6-Dichlorophenol 14 NA
1.2-Dich loropropane 18 NA
cls-1.3-Dlchloropmpene 18 NA
trans-i,3-Dichloropropone 18 NA
Dleldrfn 0 13 NA
Dlothyl phthalate 28 NA
2,4-Dimethyl phenol 14 NA
Olmethyl phthalaze 28 NA
Dl-n-butyl phthalato 28 NA
1,4-D lnltrobenzene 2.3 NA
4,6-Dlnltmcresol 160 NA
2,4-Dlnltropheno l 160 NA
2,4-Dlnit rotoluene 140 NA
2,6-Dinltroto lueno 28 NA
DI-n-octyl phthaiate 28 NA
01-n-prop ylnitrosoamine 14 NA
1 ,4D,oxane 170 NA
• DRAFT 6/90 00 NOT Cf OR QUOTE
* * SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON
-------
APPENDIX A-S (continued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
‘ 4-5.4
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
for Any Single Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/i)
or mg/i)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards Effective Date 7
F039 Multi-Source Leachate (continued) Dlsuifoton 62 NA
Endosulfanl 0.066 NA
Endosulfan II 0.13 NA
Endosulfan sulfate 0 13 NA
Enddn 013 NA
End,ln aldehyde 0.13 NA
Ethyl acetate 33 NA
Ethyl benzene 6.0 NA
Ethyl ether 160 NA
bls-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 28 NA
Ethyl mothcrylale 160 NA
Famphur 15 NA
Fluoranthene 82 NA
Fluorane 4.0 NA
Fluorotrichloromethano 33 NA
Heptachlor 0.068 NA
Heptachlor epoxlde 0.066 NA
Hexachiorobenzene 37 NA
Hexachlorobutadiene 28 NA
Hexachiorocyciopentadiene 4 8 NA
Hexachlorodibenio-lurans 0.001 NA
Hexachlorod:benzo-p-
dloxins 0.001 NA
Hexachloroethane 28 NA
Hose ctiloropropene 28 NA
Indeno(t,2,3,-c,d) pyrene 82 NA
lodomethane 65 NA
lsobutanol 170 NA
lsodrln 0068 NA
isosafrole 26 NA
Kepone 0.13 NA
Mothaciylonltn!e 84 NA
Methapyrilene 1 5 NA
a a aDRfl6/90 DONOTCITEORQUOTE* a a
SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION a a a
-------
APPENDI ontinued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
‘4-5.5
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentretion
Waste
Code Description
for Any Single Orab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/i)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date’
F039 Multi-Source Leachato (continued) Methorychior 0 I8 NA
3-Methylcholanthrene 15 NA
4.4 -Methyiene-bls-
(2-chloroanlllne) 35 NA
Methylene chloride 33 NA
Methyl ethyl ketone 36 NA
Methyl Isobutyl ketone 33 NA
Methyl mothaciyf ate 160 NA
Methyl Parathion 46 NA
Naphthalene 3.1 NA
p-Nitroanhiine 28 NA
Nitrobenzene 14 NA
5-Nit ,o-o-toluidine 28 NA
4-Nitrophenol 29 NA
N-Nitrosodiethylamine 28 NA
N-Nltroso-di-n-butylamIne 17 NA
NltrosomethylethylamJne 23 NA
N -N ltrosomorpho line 2.3 NA
N-Nltrosopiper ldlne 35 NA
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 35 NA
ParathIon 46 NA
Pentaclilorobenzene 37 NA
Pentachlorodibenzo-furans 0001 NA
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxlns 0 001 NA
Pantachloronitrobenzene 4 8 NA
Pentach lorophenol 7.4 NA
Plienacothj 16 NA
Phenanttirene 3 1 NA
Phenol 62 NA
Phorate 46 NA
Pmpanenitr,le 360 NA
Pronarnido I 5 NA
* DR4FT 6/90 - DO NOT CifE OR QUOTE a S a
a a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-5 (continued)
TREAThIENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTTVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5.6
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
for My Single 0mb Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effect We Date’
F039 Multi-Source Leachate (continued) Pyrene 82 NA
Pyridlne 18 NA
SaImle 22 NA
SiWox (2,4.5-TP) 7.9 NA
2.4.5-T 79 NA
J,2 4,5-Totrachlombenzono 19 NA
Tetrachlomd,benzo-furans 0001 NA
Tetrochlorodibonzo-p-
dlox!ns 0.001 NA
1 I,I 2-Tetrachloroethane 42 NA
1,I,2 2-Tetrachloroethane 42 NA
ietrochloroethy lene 56 NA
Z3.4.6-Tetrachlorophenol 37 NA
Toluene 28 NA
Toxaphene 1.3 NA
I 2,4-Tdchlorobenzene 19 NA
1 1 1-TrIchloroelhane 56 NA
1 I 2.Tdchloroethane 56 NA
Tr lchloroethytone 5.6 NA
2,4.5 -Tdchlorophenol 37 NA
2,4 ,6 -Tdchloroptienol 37 NA
1.2.3-Tdchloropropano 28 NA
I, 1 2-Tdchloro-l 2 2-
trllluomethano 28 NA
Vln>4 chloddo 33 NA
Xy lene(s) 28 NA
Cyanldes (Total) 1.8 NA
Antimony NA 023
Arsenic NA 5.0 (EP)
Barium NA 52
Cadmium NA 0066
Chromium (Total) NA 52
Lead NA 0.51
DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE’ •
‘SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * * *
-------
APPENDIX onhinued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5.7
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
tot Any Single Oj’ab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I)
or mg/I)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effecthre Date’
F039 Multi-Source Loachate (continued) Mercury NA 0.025
Nickel NA 0.32
Selenium NA 5.7
Sltver NA 0.072
Wastewaters 3 Biological treatment followed by chemical August 8 1990
precipitation, wet-air oxidation followed by caaton
Acetone 029 NA adsorption followed by chemical precipitation.
Acenaphtha lene 0 059 NA
Acenaphthene 0059 NA
Acetonitdle 0 17 NA
Acetophenone 0010 NA
2-Acety laminofluorene 0059 NA
Acrylonitrlle 024 NA
Aldi-In 0021 NA
4-Aminoblphenyl 0 13 NA
Aniline 081 NA
Anthracene 0059 NA
Amclor 1016 0013 NA
Arocior 1221 0014 NA
Aroclor 1232 0013 NA
Arocior 1242 0017 NA
Arocior 1248 0013 NA
Aroc lor 1254 0014 NA
Aroc lor 1260 0014 NA
a lpha-BI-IC 0 00014 NA
beta-BHC 000014 NA
dolta-Bi-IC 0 023 NA
gamma-BUC 00017 NA
Benzene 014 NA
Benzo(a)anthraceno 0059 NA
Benzo(a)pyreno 0061 NA
Bonzo(b)lluoranthene 0055 NA
* DRAFT 6190 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a *
* * * SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
APPENDIX A-5 (continued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTiVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI.SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5.8
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
for Any Single Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards Effective Date’
F039 Multi-Source Leachafe (continued) Benzo(g.h,i lpeiyfenu 0 0055 NA
Benzo(k)l iuomnthene 0059 NA
Bromodichioromethane 035 NA
Bromomethane 0.11 NA
4-Bromophonyl phenyl 0.055 NA
ether
n-Bulyl alcohol 5.6 NA
BulyI banzyl phthalate 0.017 NA
2-sec-B uty l-4,6-c linitro-
phenol 0 066 NA
Carbon tetrachloride 0057 NA
Carbon disulfide 0014 NA
Cf ,lordane 0 0033 NA
p-Chloroanlllne 046 NA
Chlombenzene 0057 NA
Ch!orobenzilate 0 10 NA
Chlorod,bromomethane 0057 NA
Chiomethane 027 NA
bis-(2-Chloro at boxy)
methane 0036 NA
bis-(2-Chloroethyi) ether 0033 NA
2-Chlomethyl vinyl ether 0057 PtA
Chloroiorm 0046 NA
b ls .(2-Chloro,sopropyl)
ether 0055 NA
p-Chloro-m-cresol 0018 NA
Chioromethane (methyl
chloride) 0 19 NA
2 Chlornnaphthalone 0055 NA
2-Chiorophunol 0044 NA
3-Ch lompropona 0036 NA
Chrysone 0059 NA
o-Cresol Oil NA
a a * DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
a a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON a a a
-------
APPEND continued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5.9
Tieatmenf Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
for Any Single Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg YCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Dates
F039 Mu!t,-Source Leachate (continued) Crosol (r n and p- isomers) 0.77 NA
Cyciohexanone 038 NA
1,2-Dlbmmo-3•chloro 0.11 NA
propane
I 2-DIbromoethane 0028 NA
Dlbromomethane 0 II NA
2,4-Dlchlomphenoxyacet lc
acid 072 NA
o,p -ODD 0.023 NA
p.p- 000 0023 NA
o.p-DDE 0031 NA
p,p DDE 0031 NA
o.p-ODT 0 0039 NA
p,p-DDT 0 0039 NA
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene 0055 NA
m-Dlchlorobenzene 0036 NA
o-Dlch lombenzene 0088 NA
p-Dlchlombenzene 0090 NA
D!chlorodifluoromethane 023 NA
1. 1-Dichloroethane 0059 NA
1.2-D lchlomethane 021 NA
1. 1-Dlchloroelhyfene 0025 NA
tians-1,2-Dlchloroethene 0.054 NA
2.4-Dich lorophenol 0044 NA
2.6-Dich lorophenol 0044 NA
1,2-D lchloropropane 085 NA
cls-1.3-Dlchloropropene 0.036 NA
trans- 1,3-Dlchioropropene 0.038 NA
DIoldrIn 0017 NA
Diothyl phthalate 020 NA
p-D lmothylamlnoazo-
benrene 0 13 NA
2,4-C/methyl phenol 0036 NA
DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ...
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION
-------
APPENDIX A-5 (continued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5.10
Waste
Code Description
Treatment Standards
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effecttve Date’
Maximum Concentration
for Any Single Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg JCLP (mgII)
or mg/I)
F039 Multi-Source Leachate (continued) Olmethyl phthalate 0047 NA
D!-n-butyl phthalate 0057 NA
t 4-Dinltrobenzone 032 NA
4,6-Dlnitrocresot 028 NA
2,4-D lnltropheno l 0 12 NA
2,4-Dinltroluene 032 NA
2 ,6-D lnitrotoluone 055 NA
Di-n-octyl phthaiate 0017 NA
DI-n-propylnitrosoamlno 040 NA
1,2-Diphonyl hydrazlne 0087 NA
l,4-Dloxane 0 12 NA
Dlsulloton 0017 NA
Endosulfan I 0 023 NA
Endosulfani! 0029 NA
Endosulfan sulfate 0029 NA
Enddn 0 0028 NA
Enddn aldehyde 0025 NA
Ethyl acerare 034 NA
Ethyl benzene 0057 NA
Ethyf cyanIde 0.24 NA
Ethyl ether 0 12 NA
bls-(2-Ethymexyl) phthalafe 028 NA
Ethyl melhac,ylate 0 14 NA
Ethylene oxide 0 12 NA
Famphur 0017 NA
Fluoranttpene 0068 NA
Fluorene 0059 NA
Heptach lor 00012 NA
Heptachior epoxide 0016 NA
?Iaxachtorobenzene 0055 NA
Hoxachlorobutedrnno 0055 NA
Hexachlorocylopentadiene 0057 NA
Hexachlorodibonzo ftirans 0 000063 NA
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *
SEE PEVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON a * a
-------
APPENDIX. intlnuad)
TREATMENT STAND4RDS AND EFFECTWE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHA1E
A-5.11
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concantmllon
Waste
Code Descnptlon
for Any Single 0mb Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg TCLP (mg/I)
or mg/I)
Best Demonsfrated Traafrnent Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date’
F039 Multi-Source Leachate (contInued) l-Iexachlorodlbenzo-p-
dloxins 0000063 NA
Hexachlomethane 0055 NA
Hexachloropropene 0.035 NA
lndeno(I,2,3,-c,d)pyrene 00055 NA
lodomet bane 0 19 NA
Isobutyl alcohol 5.6 NA
Isodrin 0021 NA
Isosafrolo 0081 NA
Kepone 00011 NA
Methacrylonltr lle 024 NA
Mothapyrilene 0081 NA
Methoxychlor 0.25 NA
3-Methylchloanthr ene 00055 NA
4.4-Methylene-bls-
(2-ch loroanlllne) 050 NA
Methylene chloride 0089 NA
Methyl ethyl kotone 028 NA
Methyl isobutyl ketone 0.14 NA
Methyl methacryiate 0 14 NA
Methyl methensulfonate 0018 NA
Methyl ParathIon 0014 NA
Naphtha lene 0059 NA
2-Naphthy lam lne 052 NA
p-Nltroanllino 0028 NA
Nstrobenzeno 0068 NA
5-Nitro-o-toluld ,ne 032 NA
4-Nitrophenol 012 NA
N-Nlfrosod lethylamlne 040 NA
N-Nita-oso-di-n-butylamino 040 NA
N-Nitrosomelhylethylamine 040 NA
N-Nit rosomorpholine 040 NA
N-Nitrosopipersdine 0013 NA
* DRAFT 6/90- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 To VERIFY ALL INFORMATION “
-------
APPENDIX A-5 (continued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULT1.SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5.12
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
for Any Single Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/I)
or mgi I)
Best Demonstrated Tmatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards Effective Date’
roniacn ,oroas oenzo-p-
dioxins
Pentachlomn ltrobenzene
Phenacotin
Penanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
Pronamide
Pyrene
Pyrldlne
Safrolo
Slivex (2,4,5-TP)
2.4 .5-T
1 0 2,4 5-TetrachIorobenzene
Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans
Tetrochlorodibenzo -p-
dioxins
2 3. 7 8-Totrach!orod,benzo-
p-dioxin
1,1. 1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachlomethane
Tot rachioroethene
2,3.4.6-Totrachiorophonol
Tohione
Toxaphane
Tnbromomethane
(bromofonn)
1,2,4- TiichIorobonzene
0.000063 NA
0055 NA
0089 NA
0081 NA
0059 NA
0039 NA
0021 N4
0093 NA
0087 NA
0014 NA
0081 NA
072 NA
072 NA
0055 NA
0000063 NA
0000063 NA
0 000063 NA
0057 NA
0057 NA
0056 NA
0030 NA
0080 NA
00095 NA
063 NA
0055 NA
F039 MuW-Source Leachate (continued) iv-N!trosopyrrol ldine 0013 NA
ParathIon 0017 NA
Pentachlorobenzene 0.055 NA
Pentachlorodibenzo-lumns 0 000035 NA
• DR 4FT 6/90 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * *
* SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION * *
-------
APPENDIX rnt lnued)
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES Foh F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5. 13
Treatment Standards
Maximum Concentration
Waste
Code Description
For Any Single Grab Sample
Constituent Total (mg/kg 7CLP (mg/i)
or mg/i)
Best Demonstrated Treatment Technology Used
As Basis for Standards
Effective Date’
F039 Multl•Sourco Leachate (continued) 1,1,1 -Trtchloroethane 0054 NA
1. 1 2-TrIchlomeIhane 0054 NA
Trichloroethene 0054 NA
Tr lchloromonofluoro- 0020 NA
methane
2,4.5-Tr lchlorophonol 0 18 NA
2,4,6-Tr lchlorophenol 0035 NA
1,2 3-Trlchloropropane 085 NA
1, 1,2-Ti1chloro-1,2,2
ta-Il luoroethane 0057 NA
Vinyl chlorIde 027 NA
Xylene(s) 032 NA
FluorIde 35 NA
Sulfide 14 NA
Antimony L9 NA
ArsenIc 50 NA
Barium NA
BeryllIum 082 NA
Cadmium 020 NA
Chromium (Total) 037 NA
Copper 1 3 NA
Lead 028 NA
Mercury 0 15 NA
NIcke l 055 NA
Selenium 0 82 NA
Sliver 029 NA
Vanadium 0 042 NA
Zinc 10 NA
DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE * a a
a a a SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATiON * * a
-------
APPENDIX A-5
TREATMENT STANDARDS AND EFFECTIVE DATES FOR F039 MULTI-SOURCE LEACHATE
A-5.14
End Notes
1. Effective date Is the date treatment standards take effect for F039 wastes. For F039 nonwastewatera EPA has granted a two-year national capacity variance. For F039 wastewatera, EPA has
granted a three-month national capacity variance. Unti! the effective dates, these wastes must be disposed of In a unit that meets the RCRA minimum technology mquirementa.
2. Not applicable.
3 All wastewater treatment standards are based on composite samples.
* DRAFT 6/90 - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE a * *
SEE REVISED 40 CFR 268 TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION *
-------
Vu
-------
United States
En*onmental Protection
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Respor e
Directive: 9347 3-0 iFS
July 1989
Overview of RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs)
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
FL. 98-616, signed on November 8, 1984- - include specific provisions restricting the land disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes. The purpose of these HSWA provisions is to m nim 7e the potential of future risk to human health
and the environment by requiring the treatment of hazardous wastes prior to their land disposaL This guide
summarizes the major components of the land disposal restrictions (LDRs), outlines the types of restrictions
Imposed, and presents the compliance options specified In the regulation. Other Superfund LDR Guides are Listed
at the end of this guide. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
DEFINITION OF LAND DISPOSAL
The LDRs place restrictions on the land disposal
of RCRA hazardous wastes. The definition of land
disposal (or “placement,” which is synonymous with
“land disposal’) under RCRA includes, but is not
limited to:
any ‘olacement” of hazardous waste in a landfil4
surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well,
land treatment facility, salt dome fomw2ion, salt
bed fonnation, undeiground muie or cave, and
concrete bunker or vault (RCRA §3004(k))
The LDRs apply only to RCRA hazardous wastes
that are land disposed or placed. They do not apply
to wastes that are discharged to surface waters (where
National Pollutant Discharge FIimin ition System
(NPDES) requirements apply) or to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (where pretreatment requirements
apply). The LDRs also do not apply to conti mi ’uited
ground water treated and supplied directly to
households (where Maximum ContMnins nt Levels
(MCLs) generally apply).
is important to note that the LDR.s apply
prospectively to wastes that are land disposed t the
effective date of the restrictions (i.e., the LDRs do
not require that wastes land disposed prior to the date
of the restrictions be removed and treated).
STATUTORY DEADLINES
HSWA directed EPA to establish treatment
standards for each of seven groups of RCRA
hazardous wastes by specific dates. These dates,
referred to as statutory deadlines, will eventually
restrict land disposal of all RCRA hazardous wastes,
as shown in HighlIght 1.
w ct h ,•n,y
Supertund LDR Guide #1
HIghlight 1 LDR S AiVfORY DEADLINES
S azt So& t iud D-
Ci ilIining W m
L W m
I 1 d W cz
&
_ n
L Sod aad Dcbth Pr
QA/R A
S Thhd W
1 d 1 d W
Na c nb 8 ,1966
July 8, 1987
A t 8, 1988
Juac 8, 1989
May 8, 1990
W ithth 6 mIw tM
jgjrntiTh’.tki _ a
-------
The statutory deadlines are important because they
are the dates on which RCRA wastes become
“restricted,” although EPA has the authority to restrict
a waste before its statutory deadline. For example, the
Agency has restricted certain Second Third wastes in
the First Third rule and certain Third Third wastes in
the June 1989 Second Third rule.
STATUTORY WASTE CATEGORIES
The first category of wastes (refer to Highlight 1)
includes: the FO0l-F005 spent solvent-containing RCRA
wastes and the F020-F023 and F026-F028 dioxin-
containing RCRA wastes. The second category, the
California list wastes, is a distinct category of RCRA
hazardous wastes described further in Superfund LDR
Guide #2. The three categories of scheduled wastes
(i.e., First Third, Second Third, Third Third wastes)
include all listed and characteristic hazardous wastes
identified as of November 8, 1984 (excluding the
solvent and dioxin wastes mentioned above). EPA
ranked the scheduled wastes based on their toxicity
and volume and placed the highest toxicity/volume
wastes in the “First Third.” Soil and debris (see
Highlight 2) contaminated with spent solvent- or
dioxin.containing and California list wastes generated
during CERCLA response and RCRA corrective
actions were given a separate statutory deadline.
Finally, wastes newly identified or listed after 1984
must have standards set within six months of their
identification or listing as a hazardous waste.
TYPES OF LDR RESTRICTIONS
As discussed above, a RCRA hazardous waste
becomes “restricted” under the LDRs on its statutory
deadline (or earlier if EPA promulgates the restriction
ahead of schedule). On that date, one of four types of
restrictions will apply
1. Treatment standards : EPA may set one of three
types of treatment standards for restricted wastes:
• A concentration level to be achieved prior to
disposal (the most common type of treatment
standard);
• A specified technology to be used prior to
disposal; or
• A “no land disposal” designation when the
waste is no longer generated, is totally recycled,
is not currently being land disposed, or no
residuals are produced from treatment.
All three types of treatment standards are
established based on the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) identified for that waste.
2. Minimum technolouv requirements during a optional
capacitY extenswn : When EPA sets a treatment
standard, it may grant a national capacity extension
(for up to two years) if sufficient treatment capacity
is not available for that waste. During a national
capacity extension, the treatment standards set for
a waste do not have to be met. However, if wastes
that do not meet the standards are disposed of in
a landfill or surface impoundment . the receiving iL
must meet the RCRA minimum technology
requirements (i.e., double liner, leachate collection
system, and ground-water monitoring).
When EPA sets treatment standards for Third Third
wastes in May 1990, it may grant a national capacity
extension, but only for up to two years. Therefore,
by May 1992, all national capacity extensions will
have expired. The only exception may be if EPA
grants an extension when it sets treatment standards
for newly identified wastes. Superfund LDR Guide
#3 provides additional information on the minimum
technology requirements.
3. Soft hammer restrictions : If EPA fails to set a
treatment standard for a First or Second Third
Highlight 2: DEFINiTIONS OF SOIL AND
DEBRIS
is defined as materials that are
primarily of geologic origin such as sand, silt,
loam, or day that are indigenous to the natural
geological environment at or near the
CERCLA site. (In many cases, soil is mixed
with liquids, sludges, and/or debris.)
Debris is defined as materials that are
primarily non-geologic in origin such as grass,
trees, stumps, and man-made materials such as
concrete, clothing, partially buried whole or
empty drums, capacitors, and other synthetic
manufacturing items, such as liners. (It does
not include synthetic organic chemicals, but
may include materials contaminated with these
chemicals.)
-------
waste by its statutory deadline, soft hammer
restrictions apply. The soft hammer requirements
place the following restrictions on the disposal of
wastes in landfills and surface inwoundinents :
• The receiving unit must meet minimum
technology requirements; and
• Site managers (OSCs, RPMs as generators)
must determine if treatment is practically
available. If treatment is practically available, the
site manager must use the practically
available treatment to treat wastes before
disposal; if treatment is not practically available,
the wastes may be disposed of without
treatment.
Land disposal in other types of units, such as land
treatment units and waste piles, is restricted
under soft hammers, although an LDR notification
will be required for actions involving off-site
disposal in such units.
Soft hammer restrictions remain in effect until
EPA sets a treatment standard, or until May 1990,
when the hard hammer restrictions become
effective.
4. Hard hammer restrictions : If EPA fails to set a
treatment standard by the statutory deadlines for
solvent- and dioxin-containing and California list
wastes, or by May 8, 1990, for any of the scheduled
wastes, the hard hammer restrictions prohibit all
land disposal of the affected waste until a
treatment standard is promulgated. To date, the
hard hammer has only fallen for certain California
list wastes.
Superfund LDR Guide #4 provides more
information on soft and hard hammer restrictions.
LDR COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
EPA recognizes that not all wastes can be treated
to the LDR treatment standards and that alternative
treatment standards and methods of land disposal may
provide significant reduction in the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of wastes and be protective of human health
and the environment. The LDRs, therefore, provide
the following compliance options to meeting the
restrictions discussed above.
• Treatabilitv Variance : This option is available when
EPA has set a treatment standard as a
concentration level, but because a generator’s waste
differs significantly from the waste used to set the
standard, the promulgated treatment standard cannot
be met the BDAT technology is inappropriate for
that waste. (For the purposes of the LDRs,
CERCLA site managers are considered generators
of hazardous waste.) Under a Treatability Variance,
EPA approves an alternate treatment standard that
must be met before that waste can be land
disposed. Superfund LDR Guides #6A and #6B
provide more information for obtaining Treatability
Variances for remedial and removal actions.
Equivalent Treatment Method Petition : This option
is available when EPA has set a treatment standard
that is a specified technology (e.g., incineration).
Generators may use a different technology (e.g.,
chemical treatment) if they can demonstrate that
this technology will achieve a measure of
performance equivalent to that of the specified
technology.
• No Migration Petition : This option may be used to
meet any of the four types of LDR restrictions.
Under this option, generators may land dispose
wastes that do not meet the LDR restrictions if
they can demonstrate that there will be “no
migration” of hazardous constituents above health-
based levels from the disposal unit or injection zone
for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
• DelistinL This option may be used to demonstrate
that a waste is nonhaiardous and, therefore, not
subject to any of the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
waste regulations, induding the LDRs. Delisting
only applies when the CERCLA waste is a listed
RCRA hazardous waste. (Characteristic wastes
need not be delisted, but they can be treated to no
longer exhibit the characteristic.) Generators must
demonstrate that: (1) the waste does not meet any
of the criteria for which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste, and (2) other factors (including
additional constituents) do not cause the waste to
be hazardous.
The LDRs also permit a case-by-case extension of
up to two years, which allows a site-specific extension
of the effective date if a generator has a binding
contractual commitment for treatment capacity and can
show that no capacity currently exists anywhere in the
United States. This option, however, is generally not
appropriate for Superfund response actions.
SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
As discussed earlier, the LDRs apply to soil and
debris when they are contaminated with a restricted
RCRA hazardous waste. Because of the complex
-------
nature of many soil and debris matrices (as compared
with the industrial process wastes upon which the LDR
treatment standards were based), it may be difficult to
meet these standards for wastes mixed with soil and
debris. Consequently, the Agency is undertaking a
rulempking that will set LDR treatment standards
specifically for soil and debris. Until that rulemaking
is completed, however, site managers may need to
obtain a Treatability Variance for actions addressing
contaminated soil and debris.
OTHER LDR REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the four types of restrictions
desa ibed above, the LDRs also include the following
requirements:
• Storane Prohibition : The LDRs prohibit the
storage of restricted wastes (including soft hpmmer
wastes) unless storage is solely for the purpose of
accumulating sufficient quantities of wastes to
facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or disposal.
For periods of up to one year, the burden is
generally on EPA to prove that storage is not
needed to facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal; after one year, the burden of proof shifts
to the storage facility. Temporary storage used
during CERCLA actions to facilitate proper
disposal (e.g., storage while awaiting sampling
results, or while selecting and designing a remedy)
is allowable under the storage prohibition.
Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments : Placing untreated wastes in surface
impoundments (that meet the minimum technology
requirements) for treatment is permissible, provided
the treatment residues that do not meet the LDR
treatment standards or prohibition levels are
removed for subsequent management (througb any
treatment other than treatment in another surface
impoundment) within one year of placement into
the surface impoundment.
• Dilution Prohibition : Dilution of a waste as a
means to comply with the LDRs is prohibited.
However, diluxion that is part of treatment (e.g.,
mixing for immobilization) is permissible.
The LDRs also establish requirements for testing,
notification, and certification of compliance.
• Testing . Once it is determined that a waste is
restricted under the LDRs, generators, treatment
facilities, or disposal facilities must test the waste
at a frequency specified in the facilit s waste
analysis plan to demonstrate compliance with LDR
treatment standards or California list prohibition
levels prior to land disposal.
• Notification : All restricted wastes that are shipped
to an off-site treatment, storage, or disposal facility
must be accompanied by a notification that indudes
the EPA hazardous waste number and the
applicable LDR restriction that is in effect for those
wastes.
• Certification : A treatment facility must certify that
the LDR treatment standards are attained before a
restricted waste is land disposed off . .site. (There are
also certification requirements specifically for soft
hammer wastes; see Superfund LDR Guide #4.)
U
OTHER AVAILABLE SUPERFUND/LDR
GUIDES
#2 Complying with the California List
Restrictions Under LDRs
#3 Treatment Standards and Minimum
Technology Requirements Under LDRs
#4 Complying With the Hammer Restrictions
Under LDRs
#5 Determining When LDRs are Applicable
toC C Response Actions
#6A Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability
Variance for Remedial Actions
#6B Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability
Variance for Removal Actions
#7 Determining When LDRs Are Relevant
and Appropriate to CERCLA Response
Actions
Currently being prepared in OSWER
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive: 9347 3-O2FS
July 1989
Complying With the California
List Restrictions Under Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
include specific restrictions on the land disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes. California list wastes are a distinct
category of RCRA hazardous wastes that are restricted under the land disposal restrictions (LDRs). This guide
defines the California list wastes, summarizes their respective restrictions, and discusses their potential overlap with
other LDR treatment standards. More detailed guidance on California list waste restrictions and Superfund
compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
DEFINITION OF CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
To be classified as a California list waste, three
conditions must be met:
(1) The waste must be a RCRA listed or characteristic
waste ;
(2) The waste must be a liquid (i.e., it fails method
9095 Paint Filter Liquids Test [ PFLT]), except for
Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOCs) . which
may be liquid or non-liquid; and
(3) The waste must exceed statutory prohibition levels
for specified constituents.
The types of wastes that may be California list
wastes are: free cyanides, certain metals, corrosive
wastes, PCBs, and HOCs. (HOCs arc compounds
containing carbon and a halogen, such as fluorine,
chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine, in their
molecular formula). The Agency has limited the
restricted HOCs to approximately 100 HOCs listed in
Appendix Ill to 40 CFR Part 268. These restricted
HOCs include solvents, pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins.
These hazardous wastes are referred to as
California List wastes because the State of California
developed regulations to restrict the land disposal of
wastes containing these constituents, and Congress
subsequently incorporated these provisions into the
1984 HSWA amendments to RCRA. Even if LDR
treatment standards have not been promulgated for
certain RCRA wastes (e.g., Third Third wastes), these
wastes may be subject to California list restrictions.
If the Agency has promulgated a treatment standard
for a California list hazardous waste, the waste must
attain that treatment standard before land disposal. If
the Agency has not set a treatment standard, the waste
must be treated to below the prohibition level (or
rendered non-liquid if a non-HOC waste) before it
may be land disposed.
CALIFORNIA LIST LDR RESTRICI1ONS
The Agency has promulgated treatment standards
for PCB-containing wastes and HOC-containing wastes
(except for dilute HOC wastewaters). The treatment
standards for PCBs and some HOCs became effective
on July 8, 1987.
The Agency has not set treatment standards for
the remaining California list wastes. Instead, the
Agency codified the statutory prohibition levels for
corrosive wastes and dilute HOC wastewaters and
allowed the hard hammer provisions to take effect for
free cyanidc.s and California list metals. The
prohibitions on these wastes became effective on July
8,1987. The effects of these restrictions are the same:
prohibiting the land disposal of these wastes above the
prohibition levels.
Based on a finding of inadequate treatment capacity,
EPA granted a nationwide estension to the effective
date for treating California list HOC wastes until July
8, 1989. The Agency subsequently rescinded the
variance, and the restriction for HOC wastes became
effective November 8, 1988. The Agency also granted
Superfund LDR Guide #2
-------
an extension of the effective date for HOC-containing
soil and debris wastes until July 8, 1989, for soil and
debris wastes not from CERCLA/RCRA corrective
actions, and until November 8, 1990, for soil and debris
wastes f CERCLA/RCRA corrective actions.
California list wastes granted a national capacity
variance from the treatment standards may be disposed
of in a landfill or surface impoundment only if the
receiving unit complies with minimum technology
requirements (See Superfund LDR Guide #3). The
prohibition levels, treatment standards, and effective
dates for the California list wastes are presented in
Highlight 1.
OVERLAP WITH OTHER TREATMENT STANDARDS
As noted earlier, wastes must be RCRA listed or
characteristic wastes to be California list wastes.
Therefore, California list wastes may also be restricted
as solvent- or dioxin-containing wastes or as scheduled
wastes. For wastes covered by more than one LDR
standard, the LDR restrictions for the more specific
waste stream generally take precedence . once the
standard is promulgated. For example, F006 non-
wastewaters may be restricted under the California list
rule because the waste is a liquid and may contain
nickel above the statutoiy prohibition leveL The F006
treatment standard, which is expressed as a
concentration level, however, takes precedence over the
California list restriction (i.e., codified prohibition
level).
The Agency has determined that soft hammer
wastes and wastes for which national capacity variances
have been granted remain subject to California list
prohibitions (i.e., if either of these waste types is
subject to a California list treatment standard or
statutory prohibition level, that treatment standard or
statutory level must be met before the waste can be
land disposed). If a California list treatment standard
is promulgated for a soft hammer waste, the more
stringent of the restrictions apply. For example, if a
non-liquid soft hammer waste contains 1,100 mg/kg
total HOCs, the waste must meet the California list
treatment standard of incineration or burning in a
boiler or industrial furnace before land disposal. If a
liquid soft hammer waste contains 510 mg/I lead (for
which no California list treatment standard exists), the
soft hammer restrictions apply. If treatment is not
available, the waste must at least be treated below the
prohibition level (i.e., 500 mg/I) or rendered non-liquid
and can only be disposed of in a surface impoundment
or landfill if the receiving unit meets minimum
technology requirements or has an equivalent waiver.
CaIifo iia
List Prohibiti
Constituent
Free Cyeni
des 100
0 s /1 NONE -- hard he er July 8. 1987
HighlIght 1 - PROHIBITION LEVELS AND TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR CALIFORNIA LIST WASTES
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmiwn
Chromium VI
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
NONE -- hard baer
500 s /1
100 58/1
500 58/1
500 58/1
20 mg/i
134 mg/i
100 mg/ I
130 mg/l
Corrosives
July 8, 1987
500 ppm
pH C 2.0
50 ppm
NONE -- Codified
prohibition Levels
> 50 ppm and C 500 ppm
July 8, 1987
50 ppm
INCIN ATI0N as speet-
fled umder TSCA,
99.99991 DEE
aslogenated OrEanic C upuu .ids (XC)
JuLy 8, 1987
Dilute Wastewaters
(<10,000 gig/kg)
INCIN ATI0N OR T AL
DESTRUCTION in Boil.r,
99.99991 DEE
1000 mg/kg
July 8. 1987
Non-Dilute Wastewatera
and Non-Liquids
1000 mg/kg
NONE -- Codified
prohibition levels
Non-RCRA/CERCLA Soil
end Debris
July 8, 1987
1000 m5/k8
INCIl1 ATION 99.991 DEE
Nov 8, 1988
iHCIN ATION 99.991 DEE
July 8, 1989
INCIN ATION 99.991 DEE
Nov. 8, 1990
R A/C cLA Soil and
Debris
1000 mg/kg
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Of9ceof
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive. 9347.3-O3FS
July 1989
Treatment Standards and
Minimum Technology
Requirements Under Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs )
CERCLA section 121(d)(2) requires that Superfund response actions comply with other environmental laws that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). A potential ARAR for CERCLA responses is
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions (LDRs) established under the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). The LDRs prohibit the land disposal of restricted RCRA
hazardous wastes unless these wastes meet treatment standards specified in 40 CFR Part 268, meet the minimum
technology requirements during a national treatment capacity extension, or satisfy the requirements of one of the other
available compliance options (i.e., Treatability Variance, Equivalent Treatment Method Petition, No Migration Petition,
or Delisting). This guide summarizes the types and effective dates of treatment standards and outlines how to
comply with the treatment standards and the minimum technology requirements set during national capacity
extensions. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
TYPES OF TREATMENT STANDARDS
EPA has established treatment standards under
the LDRs on the basis of the best demonstrated
available technology (BDAT) rather than risk-based
or health-based standards. ‘ “ is defined as that
technology which offers the greatest reduction (based
on a statistical analysis) of toxicity, mobility, or volume
of the waste. To be “ demonstrated. ’ a treatment
technology must be demonstrated to work at a
scale level (i.e., technologies available only on a pilot.
or bench-scale are not considered demonstrated). To
be “ available. ” a treatment technology must be
commercially available.
Within this framework; the Agency has established
three types of LDR treatment standards
a Concentration leve)s — which must be attained
before the wastes or treatment residuals may be
land disposed;
• Snecifled technolcuies — which must be applied to
the waste before the residuals may be land
disposed; and
• No lau&disoosal - which prohibits land disposal
of certain restricted hazardous wastes.
Concentration Levels
The majority of the LDR treatment standards
promulgated to date arc concentration levels. For
wastes with treatment standards expressed as
concentrations, any technology that can achieve the
required levels may be used unless the technology is
otherwise prohibited (i.e., the BDAT used by EPA to
set the standards need not be used).
To establish a concentration level(s) for a specific
waste code (e.g., K062), the Agency selects a subset of
the hazardous constituents found in the waste (known
as “BDAT constituents”) and sets treatment standards
for each of these constituents. Although these wastes
may contain additional constituents, only the treatment
standards for the “BDAT constituents” must be met
before the wastes can be land disposed. The residues
from treatment of an originally listed waste (e.g., ash,
scrubber water) are also listed RCRA hazardous wastes
(because of the ‘derived from” rule), and therefore,
also are prohibited from land disposal unless they meet
treatment standards for the waste code(s) of the
orig nni listed waste(s) from which they derive.
EPA has promulgated separate standards for
wastewalers and nonwastewaters for treatment
standards expressed as concentration levels. For LDRs,
wastewaters normally are defined as wastes cont iining
less than one percent total organic carbon (TOC) and
less than one percent total suspended solids. All other
materials (including soil and debris) arc das ed as
nonwastewaters, except for FOO1-F005 wastes, for which
only the TOC is used to define wastewaters.
Concentrations of BDAT constituents in solid
residues from treatment must not exceed the
EPA
Superfund LDR Guide #3
-------
nonwastewater concentrations. Similarly, the
concentration of BDAT constituents in wastewaters
from treatment (e.g., incineration scrubber water) must
not exceed the wastewater concentrations. HighIigJit 1
provides an example of standards expressed as
concentration levels for K062 waste.
Constituent
Trcatmcn
Total Waste
(mg/kg)
t Standard
TCLP
(mg/I)
Nonwastewater
Total chromium
NA
0.004
Lead
NA
0.37
Wastcwatcr
Total chromium
0.32
NA
Nickel
0.44
NA
Lead
004
NA
Specified Technologies
If a treatment standard is promulgated as a
specified technology, that technology must be used to
treat the waste unless an Equivalent Treatment Method
Petition is approved by the Administrator. To be
granted, such a petition must demonstrate that the
alternative technology achieves an equivalent measure
of performance. For example, the Agency has set the
treatment standard for California list PCB wastes
c 0 t ining greater than 500 ppm PCBs as thermal
destruction. These wastes must be incinerated to
99.9999 percent destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) under the LDRs before the ash from treatment
may be land disposed unless a Petition allowing an
equivalent treatment method is granted.
No Land Disnosal
EPA sets a standard of no land disposal when,
after exiimining available data, the Agency has
determined that: the waste can be totally recycled
(e.g., on-site, closed loop recycling); the waste is not
currently being land disposed; the waste is no longer
generated; or no residuals are anticipated from the use
of the BDAT.
Although certain wastes may no longer be
generated or land disposed, these wastes may still be
found at Superfund sites. EPA has amended most of
these waste codes, however, to apply only to wastes
generated from the process described in the listing
description and disposed of after the effective date of
the prohibition (see 54 FR 18836, May 2, 1989).
Therefore, CERCLA wastes ordinarily would not be
subject to these standards.
COMPL ’IlNG WITH LDR TREATMENT STANDARDS
There are two types of tests for evaluating
compliance that may be required, depending on how
the treatment standards are promulgatedi the Total
Waste Analysts (TWA) measures the total concentration
levels of the hazardous constituents in the waste or
treatment residuals; and the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) measures concentration
levels in the waste extract as a result of the TCLP test.
The TWA test generally is used for organic
constituents when a removal or destruction technology
is the BDAT. The TCLP generally is used for
inorganics when an immobilization BDAT is the basis
for the standard. However, the TCLP is also used for
the solvent- and dio n-cont iin ng waste LDR treatment
standards and TWA is used for metals when BDAT is
based on metals recovery. Site managers (OSCs and
RPMs for on-site treatment and disposal actions) or
treatment facilities (for off-site disposal actions) must
test wastes after treatment and before land disposal to
determine if the LDR treatment standards are met.
TREATMENT STANDARDS IN EFFECT FOR RCRA
HAZARDOUS WASTES
Once a determination that the LDRs are ARARs
has been made (see Superfund LDR guide #5), site
managers must determine which of the specific LDR
restrictions are in effect for their waste(s) of concern.
If the Agency has promulgated a treatment standard
for a restricted RCR.A hazardous waste, either the
LDR treatment standards or the minimum technology
requirements will be in effect. If EPA has not set a
treatment standard for a restricted RCRA hazardous
waste, either the soft or hard hammer provisions will
be in effect (see Superfund LDR Guide #4). The
Agency has promulgated treatment standards for the
following wastes:
Solvent-Containing RCRA Hazardous Wastes
For solvent-containing RCRA hazardous wastes
(FO01-F005), EPA has promulgated treatment standards
expressed as concentration levels. Unlike most of the
treatment standards for wastes containing organic
constituents, the standards for the F001-F005 wastes are
expressed as TCLP concentrations (40 CFR 268.41).
HIghlight 1 - TREATMENT *
STANDARDS FOR K062 WASTE
* K062 waste is spent pickle liquor generated by
the steel finishing operations of facilities
within the iron and steel Industly.
-------
Dioxin.Cont iinino RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Dioxin cont ininE wastes (F020-F023 and F026-
F028), include chlorinated dlbenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs),
chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs), and chiorophenols.
The treatment standards expressed as concentration
levels are based on incineration of cont mIn2fed soil.
Because current analytical methods cannot measure the
concentration levels attainable by the BDAT, EPA set
the treatment standards at the practical detection limits
(i.e., 1 ppb) for most wastes. These standards are also
based on a TCLP analysis (40 CFR 268.41).
Although the LDR treatment standards for dioxin-
contpining wastes are concentration levels, the dioxin.
listing rule (50 FR 1978) requires special management
standards for certain types of units:
• Incineration in accordance with 40 CFR 264.343
and 40 CFR 265352;
• Thermal treatment to 99.9999 percent DRE in
accordance with 40 CFR 265.383; or
• Tank treatment, in accordance with 40 CFR
264100.
HIghlight 2 describes the LDR restrictions in effect
for solvent- and dioxin-containing RCRA hazardous
wastes.
California List hazardous Wastes
The California list rule established specified
technologies as the treatment standards for certain
California list wastes. Specifically, California list PCB
and halogenated organic compound (HOC) wastes
(except dilute HOC wastewaters) must be incinerated
or burned in high.efficiency boilers or industrial
furnaces. HIghlight 3 provides the LDR restrictions in
effect for California list wastes.
First Third Wastes
The First Third scheduled wastes include those
listed wastes that are intrinsically hazardous or are
higb-voluine wastes. EPA promulgated treatment
standards expressed as concentration levels and no land
disposal based on TWA and TCLP for certain First
Third wastes on August 17, 1988. First Third wastes
that do not have promulgated treatment standards are
restricted under the “soft hammer” provisions.
HighlIght 4 describes the LDR restrictions in effect for
certain First Third wastes for which the Agency has set
treatment standards.
MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS
THAT APPLY DURING A NATIONAL CAPACiTY
EXTENSION
If during the promulgation of treatment standards
the Agency determines that insufficient treatment
capacity exists, the Agency may grant a national
capacity extension for a period of up to two years.
During the extension period, if wastes are to be land
disposed in surface impoundments or lmndfihls, the units
must comply with the RCRA Subtitle C minimum
technology requirements (i.e., double liner, leachate
collection system, and ground-water monitoring) under
RCRA 3005(j)(2) or (j)(4) or the recemng units must
have a retrofitting waiver under RCRA 3004(o)(2) or
3005(j) to be considered equivalent to the minimum
technology requirements.
TYPE OF RESPEICT
ZAfl T
STAI1 AIn
LDR E ICTI( IN Yui
A RA18EDO WASTE
‘yr va DA
as or
N VD 8, 1988
HighlIght 2- EFFECTIVE DATES AND LDR RESTRICTIONS FOR SOLVENTS AND DIOXINS
FOOl to FOOS (spent
solv.nt-containing
wastes)
Nov er 8, 1986
or Rov. b.r 8. 1988’
F020 to F023,
roz to F028 (dioxin-
containing wastes)
Novemb.: 8, 1988
Soil, end debris
contaminated with
ao lv.nt/diox .t n
fr C LA/RcaA
corr.ctiv• actions
Treatment standards as concentration
LeveLs (TCLP)
November 8, 1988
Treatment standards as concentration
LeveLs (TCLP)
Soil, and d,brig
contaminated with
solvent/dioxin
from CmCLA/R A
corrective actions
Treatment standards as concentration
Leve ls (TCLP)
November 8, 1990
I’ - t.cbnolcgy r.quir.ments if
disposed of in LandiiU or surface
impoundment
* Soil and debris contam.tned with solvent-containing wastes were granted a statutory twoysar extension to
Novsa.b.r 8, 1988. £11 other solvent-containing wastes became restricted on November 8, 1986.
-------
HIghII ht 3 - EFFECTIVE DATES AND LDR RESTRICTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA LIST wASTESa/
TYPE OP IC
A aAZARD WASTE
E 5 T STAInAnn
YrnILV DA
LOP ICTI IN rrzr.r
AS OP 8 • 1988
California List PCBs July 8, 1987 Tr.atm.nt standards as specified
t .chnolo8y( Lee)
Liquid and non-Liquid SOCs Nov ber 8, 1988 Treatment. standards as spscified
tachnology( i.s)
Soil and debris contaminated July 8, 1989 Ninim technology requirements if
with BOCs frem CERCLA/R A dispos.d of in landfill or surfac.
corr.ctive actions impoundment
Soil and debris contaminated November 8, 1990 Hini technology requirements if
with HOCs from C CIJi/RCRA disposed of in Landfill or surface
corrective actions impoundment
5/ s•• Superf md LDR Guid. #4 for soft and hard haam.r restriction, in .ff.ct for remaining California list
wastes
National capacity extensions for several types of
wastes currently are in effect under the LDRs. For
example, soil and debris from CERCLA and RCRA
corrective actions that are contnminnted witii solvent,
dioxin, and California list wastes have received an
extension until November 8, 1990. soil and debris
containin ted with First Third wastes for which
BDAT is based on solids incineration have received an
0fl Until August 8, 1990. Land disposal of
W ub iect to national capaaty extensions ‘
other than surface impoundments and landfills (e.g.,
waste piles, land treatment units) is not subject to the
minimum technology requirements during such an
extension.
Hf IyII8ht 4 - EFFECTIVE DATES AND LDR RESTRICTIONS FOR CERTAIN FIRST THIRD
WASTES
TYPE OF E TRICT ) *D T tAIIflA LOP 2 ICTIOP IN r I
NOVD 1988
A RAZMD JS WASTE D XE AS
First Third wastes (not August 8, 1988 Treatment standards as concentration
otherwise accounted for) ’ 1.vels (TWA and TCLP) and (for a few
“no land disposaL”
vast, codes)
Soil and debri contaminated August 8, 1988 Tr.atment standards as conc.ntration
l.v.1.s (TWA and TCLP) and “no Land
with First Third wastes
for which BDAT is than disposal”
solids incin.ration
Soil and d.bria contaminated August 8, 1990 Kini tecbnoio8y r.quiremsnta if
of in Landfill or surface
with First Third wasteS disposed
for which BDAT is solids
incin.ratio n
3! S.. Sup.rfund LDR Guide #4 for .Oft end hard b .r rsstrictions in effect for First Third wastes.
/ Except K048-K052 and K071, which were granted a two-year •xtunsion until August 8, 1990.
-------
Unl d $ ten
Env onmentaI Protection
Agency
Directive 9347 3-O4FS
July 1989
Complying With the Hammer
Restrictions Under Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
CERCIA response actions must comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) when they are determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). Compliance with the LDRs will involve meeting the LDR treatment standards, minimum technology
requirements during a national capacity extension, the soft or hard hanimer restrictions, or satisfying the requirements
of one of the other LDR compliance options (i.e., Treatability Variance, Equivalent Treatment Method Petition, No
Migration Petition, or Delisting). This guide discusses complying with LDR soft bammer and hard hnmmer
provisions, which are restrictions on the disposal of hazardous wastes If EPA does not promulgate standards by the
statutory deadlines. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
SOFT HAMMER WASTES
If the Agency fails to set treatment standards for
First or Second Third wastes by their spe fied
statutory deadline (August 8, 1988, and June 8, 1989,
respectively), the wastes become restricted under the
soft hsrninier provisions until EPA sets a treatment
standard for them, or until May 8, 1990, when the
“hard hnmmer ” provisions will fall. The soft hnrnnier
provisions specify certain restrictions that may have to
be met before the wastes can be land disposed. The
hard hammer provisions prohibit all land disposal of
the wastes. HIghlight 1 lists F- and K-wastes that are
soft h immer wastes (as of June 8, 1989).
Soft linnitner Restrictions
The LDR soft hi ’mmer provisions prohibit the
disposal of wastes in surface impoundment or landfill
units unless:
(1) The receiving unit meets the RCRA minimum
technology requirements (i.e., the unit must have
two or more liners, a leachate collection system.
and a ground-water monitoring system) or have an
equivalent RCRA retrofitting waiver. These
waivers are desaibed in RCRA §3005(j)(2), which
requires that a unit be at least one-quarter of a
mile from an underground drinking source, and
0
Off$ceo ’
Solid Wasle and
Emergency Response
Superfund LDR Guide #4
Wa t•
Phy iea1. Porn
HIghlight 1 - F and K SOFT HAMMER WASTES (as of June 8, 1989)*
P006 wastswstsrs
P019 waatswstaxa and uonwa.t.wat.r.
K004 waatsilatsrs and nonwutwaterl
K008 waatwatsrl and nonwait.watsri
K0fl
K 013
K014
KO 17
K021
K022
K025
K029
K031
K035
K036
K041
K042
waatswat.ra
wa8tIwat .rs
waatswatlr$
wantiwatira
waat.wat.rS
waets wat ir i
waitiwatira
wutiwat.ra
wastiw$tSXS
wa.t.watiri
waitiwatirs
wa.ti watsr$
Waats
Cnd .
046
K060
K061
K069
K073
K083
K08
K085
K086
K095
K096
K097
X098
Kb’
K102
KiOS
K106
Physical. Torn
wastawaters
i,ast i watirs
waitawaters
wautiwatirs
wastswat.ra
watiwetora
waat.wator s
waat.vatars
waats waters
waatiwatira
wastswatsrs
waitiwatira
wut.water s
and nonwastswatara
and noni,sstswatsra
and nonwastswatsrs
and uouwaat.watsrs
and nonwaatswatsra
and nonwaat.watsra
and aenwaat.watira
and nonwest.wat.ra
and nonwastswatsrs
and nonwaut.watira
and nonwaet.watsrs
and nonwastawatirs
nonvaitiwatire
nanwistiwatirs
waatswat.rI and nonwast.watsr$
wast.wat.ra and nanwast.wstSrB
wast.watsra and ncnwsit.wat.ra
* For a conpl .te Listing of aeft h .r wut. ristrictions, includin5 iii P and U waatss that ax. r.atrict.d,
conduit with EPA H.adquart.rs.
-------
RCRA §3005(j)(4), which requires that the unit be
designed and operated such that there will be no
migration of hazardous constituents into ground or
surface water.
Waivers granted to units uri1i ’ing aggressive
biological treatment (RCRA §3005(j)(3)) or
undergoing corrective action (RCRA §3005(j)(13))
are not automatically considered equivalent to units
in compliance with the minimum technology
requirements. However, they may satisfy the
§3004(o)(2) equivalency standard on a unit-by-unit
basis.
(2) Site managers (OSCs, RPMs) certify that they have
made a good faith effort to locate and to contract
with treatment and recovery facilities for treatment
that is “practically available.” If such treatment is
“practically available,” the manager must use the
b a practically available treatment (see Highlight
2) to treat the wastes before they are land
disposed. If there is no “practically available”
treatment, the soft hammer wastes may be disposed
of without treatment in units meeting the
requirements listed in (1).
Soft hammer wastes disposed of in units other than
surface impoundments or landfills do have to meet
the soft hammer restrictions before land disposal.
However, these wastes must comply with the LDR
notification requirements and other LDR restrictions,
such as storage prohibition. (The storage prohibition
restricts the storage of soft hammer wastes unless it is
solely for the purpose of accumulating sufficient
quantities to facilitate proper treatment, recovery, or
disposal)
Soft Hammer Requirements for
Certifications, and Demonstrations
Notifications,
When soft hammer wastes are land disposed or
treated off-site , site managers must comply with the
LDR notification, certification, and demonstration
requirements. When treatment and land disposal occur
on-site , site managers must only meet the
demonstration requirements. (The notification and
certification requirements are administrative
requirements and do not have to be met for on-site
actions.) The specific notification requirements,
including to whom and when they must be sent and
the required language from 40 CFR Part 268 are
shown in HIghlight 3 for each of these categories.
California List and Soft Hammer Overlap
Certain soft hammer wastes also may be California
list wastes, in which case they may be subject either to
the California list or soft hammer requirements. If a
waste is restricted by soft hammer and California list
restrictions, site managers should meet the more
stringent standard for the waste.
• If treatment standards have been promulgated for
a California list waste that is also a soft hammer,
the California list treatment standard must be met
for the waste before it is land disposed of into y
type of unit. In this case, the soft hammer
restrictions and notification, certification, and
demonstration requirements do not apply.
• if treatment standards have been promulgated
for a California list waste that is also a soft
hammer, and the waste is to be land disposed in
a surface impoundment or landfill , one of two
situations may arise:
(1) if treatment is “practically available,” a site
manager must use the “best” treatment to meet
the soft hammer requirements.
(2) if treatment is not “practically available,” the
waste still must, at a minimum, be treated to
below the California list prohibition levels
before being land disposed to satisfy the
California list restrictions.
HIghlight 2 - GUIDE TO “PRACflCALLY
AVAILABLE” AND “BEST’ TREATMENT
. Practical].y Available - Site managers may
consider cost in determining what treatments
are “practically available” according to the
following cost ratio:
Coat o t , eatment. shirment. and disposal
Cost of eb.t ent and d.tepoaal
- A ratio of 2 0 or greater (i.e., the cost
of treatment at least doubles the coat of
disposing of the waste without treatment)
generally is not “practical”;
- A ratio between 1.5 and 2.0 generally is
practical unless, on a case-by-case basis,
the site manager oan demonstrate why this
treatment should not be considered
practical; and
- A ratio of 1.5 or less generally is
practical.
This coat ratio is only a guideline for making
decisions about practically available
treatments; it is pot a rule.
•Be t Treatment - Of the treatment technologies
that are “practically available,” site managers
are required to use the technoio8y that yields
the greatest environmental benefit. In
8eneral, EPA favors recycling/recovery as the
best method for treating a waste. The next
best general category of treatment is
destruction (thermal or chan .ical), especially
for organic wastes. Where neither recovery nor
destruction is available or appropriate,
i obilization of the wastes may be considered
“best,” especially for inorganic wastes.
-------
Highlight 3 - SOFT HAMMER NOTIFICATION, CERTIFICATION, AND DEMONSTRATION
REQ uIREMENTS
R UTh T SUN! TO R JIR IATI
LAND DISP AL O S IN D T LA YILL UNITS
Treatment or
disposal
facility
receiving
waste
Notification that. thu waste is a soft harmer
waste. Specific information includes
- EPA hazardous waste number;
— Any applicable prohibitions (e g. • soft
hanmer provision);
- Manifest number associated with shi ent of
waste; and
- Waete analysis data, where available
CERTIFICATION -
If treatment is
na. practically
available
(off-site only)
CERTIFICATION -
If treatment A
practically
available
(off-site only)
EPA Regional
Administrator
and
Disposal
facility
receiving
waste
EPA Regional
Administrator
and
Treatment
facility
receiving
waste
At time of
first waste
shi ent and
copy with
each waste
ahi ent
At time of
first wa te
shi ent and
copy with
each waste
ehi snent
Certification should appear as follows.
‘EPA certifies under penalty of law that the
requirements of 40 CTR 268.8(a)(l) have been met.
and that disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment is the only practical alternative to
treatment currently available. EPA believes that
the information submitted is true, accurate, and
complete. EPA is aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information,
including the poseibility of fine end
imprisonment.”
Certification should appear as follows
“EPA certifies under penalty of law that the
requirements of 40 CFR 268 8(a)(1) have been
met and that the agency has contracted to treat
its waste (or will otherwise provide treatment)
by the practically available technology which
yields the greatest environmental benefit as
indicated in its demonstration. EPA believes that
the information submitted is true, accurate, end
complete. EPA is aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.”
D NSTRATION -
If treatment
is available
(off—site and
on-site)
D NSTRATION -
If treatment
available
(off-site and
on—site)
EPA Regional
Administrator
EPA Regional
Administrator
At time of
first waste
shipoent
At time of
first waste
shipsent
In both cases, site managers must meet the
appropriate soft hammer notification, certification,
and demonstration requirements.
If the waste will be land disposed in a unit other
than a surface impoundment or landfill (e.g., waste
pile), the waste must, at a minimum, be treated below
the California list prohibition level before being land
disposed. The soft h immer restrictions do not apply,
and a site manager does not have to meet the soft
hRmmer notification, certification, and demonstration
requirements.
More information on California list wastes and
their overlap with soft hammer wastes is found in LDR
Guide #2. A step-by-step process to comply with the
soft h immer restrictions is shown in HIghlight 4.
NOTIFICATION
(off-site only)
With each
waste
shipsent
List of facilities and facility officials
contacted, addresses, telephone numbers, and
contact datea. Also, a written discussion of
when treatment or recovery is not, practical
for the waste.
List of facilities and facility officials
contacted, addresses, telephone numbers, and
contact dates. Provide information on the
cheaen treatment technology selected because
it provides the greatest environmental benefit.
-------
The hard hammer provisions prohibit land disposal
of restricted wastes if EPA fails to promulgate
treatment standards by the statutory deadlines for
solvent- and dioxin.contiining and California list wastes
and by May 8, 1990, for fl of the scheduled wastes.
The deadlines for these wastes are shown in Highlight
S. At present, the hard hpmmer provisions have only
fallen for California list cyanides and metals. EPA has
also codified statutory prohibition levels for California
list corrosive wastes and dilute HOC wastewaters.
Codification of the prohibition levels has the same
effect as letting the hard hiinimer falL land disposal
of these wastes is prohibited when wastes are found in
concentrations above the prohibition levels.
There are only two exceptions to the prohibition
on land disposal of the hard hpmmer wastes: delisting
and a No-Migration Petition. Delisting is a general
option for demonstrating that a listed waste is no
longer hazardous that is available under RCRA §260.20
and §260.22. The process to obtain No-Migration
Petitions is specified in RCRA §268.6. To obtain a
Petition, disposal facilities 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. This is a rulcm king petition and
is expected to require e ensive documentation.
Hard Hammer Statutory
Waste Deadline
Solvent & November 8, 1986
dioxin wastes
California July 8, 198’7
list wastes
CERC IA/RCRA
corrective action
soil and debris
cont min ted with
solvent and dioxin
and California
list wastes
Scheduled wastes May 8, 1990
(1st Third, 2nd
Third, and 3rd
Third wastes)
November 8, 1988
HARD HAMMER WASTES
HighlIght 5: HARD HAMMER DEADLINES
-------
&EPA Superfund LDR Guide #5
Determining When Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
Are ADplLcable to CERCLA
Response Actions
CERCI.A Section 1.21(d)(2) speäfies chat on saLe Superfund remedial actions shall attain other Federal uandards ,
requaremeats. uen.a, lin,itaaons, or more stringent State requiremenc.s that are dcterm ncd to be le .Uy applicable
or relevant and appropriate (ARAR) to the spe ed d umstances at the site.• In addition, the Nanonal Contingency
Plan (NC?) requies chat on -size removal actions attain ARARS to the enent practicable. Of-sate removal and
remedial actions must comply with legally applicable requirements. This guide onLUne3 cbs pr a uaed to detir
whether the Resource Cooaervadoa and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions (LDR3) established under
the Hazardoui and SoUd Wijta Amendments (HSWA) an ‘applicable’ to a CIRCLA response action. More detailed
guidance on Superfund compliance th the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Wa ic and Emergency
Response (OSWER).
For the LDRs to be applicable to a CERCLA
response, the action must cons&uwe placement of a
restricted RCRA hazardous wag Therefore, site
managers (OSCs RPMs) must answer three separate
questions to determine if the LDRs are applicable:
(1) Does the response action coostanste
pLacement?
(2) La the CERCLA substance being placed
also a RCRA hazardous wage? and if so
(3) Is the RCRA waste resaicted under the
LDRs?
Site managers also must determine if the CERCTA
substances are California list wutes w th It O $
di.sunct category of RCRA hazardo wages resa ed
tinder the LDRs (see Superfund LDR G p2).
(1) DOES 1 IZ
PLACEZ ff.N1
RWONSL co rn nt
The LDRs place ipi c re iodo (e.g., trea ent
of waste to conccnzra oa lee is) os RCRA hazardous
wastes prior to their placement in land disposal uniti.
Therefore, a key determination is whether the respoue
action will constitute pLacement o( wages into a land
disposal unit. As dc ncd by RCRA lead disposal
units include ltndfflk , surface impo mdmenzs , w e
piles, injection weUs , land vea eat f 1 liti 01 , saM dome
tormauo , uader cuad mirs or cases, and r oaete
bimkers or vauMs. If a CERCLA respo s includes
daposal of yof these types o( g land
4 i’posai units, p cement will oc r. Ho ses ,
uncontrolled hazardous waste Wes oftea base
widespread and dispersed co” -’ son , ma ng the
concept of a RCRA u t less useful for sodons
invoMag on-size disposal of wastes. Therefore, to
assist in de ” ’g when ‘placement’ does and does a
occur for CERCLA a ons involving oo-nte disposal
of wages, EPA uses the concept of ‘areas of
cont ’ nnition ’ (AOCs), which may be viewed as
equivalent to RCRA units, for the purposes of LDR
applicability determinations.
An AOC delineated by the veal enenc (or
boundary) of contiguous co ’ammnaaon. Such
must be co uoos , but may contain
varying types and concen auons of hazardous
substances. Depending on site ch acten tic , one or
more AOCa may be d linratrd. *lIg ”g ’t 1 pro des
some examples of AOCs.
HIghlight 1: EXAMPLES OF AREAS OF
CO TAMINAT1ON (AOCs)
• A wagg source (e.g.. waste pu. ad5fl,
w e pale) and the swrounding
co f ”ted sod.
• A wage source, and the sediments in a
eam co” 1 ”-’ed by the source, where
the ti tn seion is contmuous from the
som ce to the iediments .
• Several Lagoons separated only by di
where the dikes ate and the
______ share a common liner.
AOC - ____
— _ (L .A ___
LJrw
Eiiw * P!
So Wa
Er9erIc’ nccrs..
334 )- 5
• Iy 189
-------
For on-sue disposal, p ea1en occw when wastes
are moved from one AOC (or un ) into another AOC
(or unit) Placement does o wb
left in place, or moved within a sang e AOC. Highlight
2 provide,i scenaros of when pLacement does and does
not occuz, as defined tn the proposed NCP The
Agency is current reevaluating the deflnuion of
placement prior to the promulgation of the fi.raaL NCP,
and therefore, these scenarios are subject to ehange.
In summ .u,’, If os-.i or oC stte doss
not cur. the LDRa are n app 1ezbIe to Lbs
Supsrfund action.
(2) IS THE CERCLA SU TANCE A RCRA
HAZARDOUS WASIT.?
Because a CERCLA respo c must const twe
placement of a restricted RCRA ha rdous w for
the LDRz to be applicable, site managen must evaluate
whether the cowi fninu at the CERCLA We are
RCRA hazardous wastes. H g 4 ’llgi’t 3 briefly desaibes
the two cvpe.s of RCRA haZardou.s wa. tes -U.sted an
ch.a.rac en.sc c wastes.
Highlight 3: RCRA HAZARDOL3 WA.SltS
A ACRA solid waste’ s hazardous if it i.s
or exhibits a ha.zadou.s characteristic.
Listed RCPA Hazardous Wutcs
Any waste listed in Subpart D of 44D
CFR 261, iec1udin
• F waste codes (Part 261.31)
• K waste codes (Part 26L32)
• P waste codes (Part 261.33(e))
• U waste codes (Part 261.33( 1))
Characteristic RCPA Hazardous Wastes
Any waste exhabiung one of the following
characteriscia as defined in 40 CFR 261.
• Ige itabiliry
• Corrosrnry
• Reactivity
• Eatraction Procedure (EP)
Tocary
• A solid ws it soy matinal ibis it ditmrded or
o( (i.e.. abeadoncd. eu,d in cen&a ‘s . or
co dssd tehsrsslly a.l&ka). The v a may be
scUd. ms -.oUd, taqind. or. eco amd aoiit matinaL
rmin lbs Osfinanos (e .g .. Somane som1
thad ) sppsai in 40 - . 26 1.4(a ) . Ea*epoo (e.g.
bosliold ø) tam (Quid in 40 . - 261.4(b).
Site managers are n required to presume that a
CERCLA hazardous substance is a RCRA hazardous
waste qn1ii there is a imativ’c evidence to support
such a finding. Site maugen thcrefore, should w
reasooable efforu to determine whether a substan
is a RCR.A listed or characteristic waste. (Current
data colkction efforts during CERCLA removal and
HIghlight 2: PLACEMENT
Placement occur when wastes are
• Consolidated from different
AOCs into a single AOC;
• Moved outside of an AOC (for
crear.menc or storage, for
example) and returned to the
same or a different AOC; or
• Excavated from an AOC. placed
in a separate unit, such as an
inanerator or tank that is within
the AOC, and redeposited into
the same AOC.
Placement does not occur when wastes
are:
• Treated in situ;
• Capped in place;
• Consolidated within the AOC; or
• Processed wu.hin the AOC (b
in a separate unit, Such a
tank) to improve its strncttral
stability (e.g., for cappeg or to
support heavy mrhni.Ty) .
-------
recdjaj site nvesCigaDoa.s should be su. czenc for this
purpose.) For hazardous wastes, if manifests or
labels are oot available. this evaluation likely will
require fairly speafic information about the waste (e.g.,
souce, prior use. process type) that i.s rea.sonably
ascamable’ within the scope of a Superfund
investigation. Such information ay be obtained from
fa lixy bu.siness records or from an cxamin icjon of the
processes used at the fadity. For characteristic wastes,
sne managers may rely on the results of the tests
desasbed in 40 CFR 261.21 261.24 for each
characteristic or on knowledge of the properties of the
substance. Site managers should work with Re onal
RCRA staff Re onaI Counsel, State RCRA staff, and
Superfund enforcement personnel, as appropriate, in
making these determinations.
ta addirioa to understanding the t categories of
RCRA hazardous wastes, site managers will also need
to understand the derwed .&om rule, the minue rule,
and the contained-in interpretation to identify correctly
whether a CERCLA substance is a RCRA hazardous
waste. These three principles, as well as an
introdu on to the RCRA delisting process, are
desaibed below.
Dertved4oai Rule (430 CFR 261J(c)(2))
The derived.from rule states that any solid waste
derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a
RCR hazardous waste is itself a listed
hazardous waste (regardless of the concentration of
hazardous consticuenu). For ezampk , ash and
sa iibber waxer from the incineration of a listed w
are hazardous wastes on the b of the derived-from
rule. Solid wages derived from a
hazardous waste are hazardous w es only if they
exhibit a characteristic.
SlLxt,jre Rain (40 Cfl 2 U(a)(3))
Lrader the mistw i r , when any and
a hazardous waste arc miwit the entire miazwe
Forezampk,ifa
generator mixes a drum of listed 06 electropliiii g
waste with a non-haz dous wwewate, (wastewatera
are solid wastes . see H1 llghs 3) the eawn mi ure
of the FO and *1.stewace, is a listed hazardous waste.
Min,ires of soLid.wast and characten.s c hazardou 5
wastes are hazardous only if the mixture exhabtu a
charactengic.
Contained-In interpretation (0 5W Memora dum dated
4ovember 13, 19 6)
The contained-in interpretation states that a.ny
m ure of a n m .solid waste and a RCRA j
hazardous waste must be managed as a hazardous
waste as long as the material contains (i.e., is above
heaith-based levels) the listed hazardous w . For
e mp4e, if soil or sound water (i.e., both non-solid
wastes) contain an FOOl spent solvent, that soil or
sound waler must be managed as a RCRA hazardous
waste, as tong as it conr11n! the FOOl sp solvent.
Dullatiig (40 CFR 260.10 and .22)
To be e mpced from the RCRA hazardous waste
a lã E hazardous wage, a m ure of a listed
and solid waste, or a derived-from waste must be
delisted (according to 40 CPR 260.3) and ).
Char*aerigjc hazardous wastes never need to be
detisted, bet can be ti eated to no longer exhibit the
characteristic. A contained-in waste also does act have
to be delisted it only has to no longer coazaan the
h. rdous waste.
If site managers determine that the hazardous
subitanit e(s) at the we is a RCRA hazardous waste(s),
they should also determine whether that RCRA waste
is a Csldornia List waste. Califorma List wages are a
i 4 iqiri eategory of RCRA wastes restricted under the
LDRs (see Superfund LDR Guide #2).
(3) LS T IE RCRA WASTE RESTRICTED
U?4DER TI LDRs?
If a site manager determines that a CERCLA waste
is a RCRA hazardous waste, this waste also must be
for the LDR.s to be an applicable
reqáemeet. A RCRA hazardous waste becomes a
waste on itS HSWA staretorv deadline or
sooner if the Agency promidptes a standard before
the .rIhee 3ecause the LDRJ are being phased in
o a period of time (see RIØlI t 4), site managers
may need to determine what type of restriction is in
-------
W L 7 Ohw.
effea at the time p(ace ent is to ocew. Fci e mple,
if the RCRA hazai dous wastes at a c arc renz1y
under a n.auonaI caps ty eensioe wben the CLA
deaa on document is signed, sde
evaluate whether the re poasc acoos wifl be pkzed
before the e*ension eqires. ft these uces are
d sposcd olin surface i powdme c i 1 1h ci
to the e irathon of the iisi,s r vi.g mi
would have to e t tecbao1c require enu,
but the wastes wouid he e to be treated to cet
the LDR cea eaz t rd
APPLICA8ILITY Df1TRMINATIONS
If the sue manager deter in that the LDRs ate
applicable to the CERCI.A respo c based Os the
previous thee qisestions, the size maug must (1)
comply th the LDR restnctaon in effect, (2) co pty
with the LDRs by choosing one of the LOR
mpliance options (e.g., Tgeaiabtlicy Vartance, No
Migauon Petition), or (3) invoke an A.RAR waiver
(available only (or on-sate actions). If the LDRs are
determined gj to be applicable. then. for on-size
actions only, the sue manager thould detetm.ane if the
LDR.s are relevant and appropnace. The procnss for
deter’nrniig whether the LDRs are applicable to a
CERCLA action is summarized in RighUght 5.
4,Ja1Igh 5. DETEI.MIN124G WRI.N LDRS
ARE APPUCAILE REQ 1RLM7
m 1 . Hght 4: LDR STATt.rroly D€ADUNLS
Sps t So *u and Dio .
C nii nin Wa
.‘ bsr $ 19
Caldornia Liii W
Ptzu Thud W
6. 1 7
Aia 6.
Spiut SoP.sne. D,o-
Cornainu g, and Caldotma
L Sod and Deoi Fi
CEAQA/RCPA Con
N b$2 & 19
5 i Thud W
Thud Thud Wuau
Iiias 1. t 9
‘4q 1y Id.n 1ind

Süy 6.
Wth 6 moc
-------
Uniia Slat
Erivirnrm* tal Pr 1i ti 1
AQsncy
Sohø Waste arid
Em -
Our ive 9347 3-O6FS
July 1989
CJ mediaI Actions
Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for
CERCLA response actions must comply with the RCR.A Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) when they are determined to tw
be applicable or relevant and appropriate requiremenc.s (ARARs). (The Agency has decided, however, that the LDRs are cot
relevant and appropriate for soil and debris wastes at this time.) For the LDR.s to be applicable, the CERCLA response action
must constitute placement of a restricted RCRA hazardous waste (see LDR Guide #5). Compliance with the LDRs will involve Øi
either meeting the LDR treatment standards, other LDR restrictions (e.g., soft hiimmers), or satisf 4ng the requirements of one
of the other alternate LDR compliance options (e.g., Treatabilicy Variance, Equivalent Treatment Method Petition). This guide
outlines the process for obthlning and complying with a Treatability Variance for soil and debris that are coathmtnated with
RCRA hazardous wastes for which the Agency has set treatment standards. More detailed guidance on Superfund compliance
with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
BASIS FOR A TREATABILI1Y VARIANCE
When promulgating the LDR treatment standards, the
Agency recogaizcd that treatment of wastes to the LDR
treatment standards would not always be possible or
appropriate. In addition, the Agency recogaized the
importance of ensuring that the LDRs do not unnecessarily
restrict the development and use of alternative and
innovative treatment technologies for remediating hazardous
waste sites. Therefore, a Treatability Variance process (40
CFR §268.44) is available to comply with the LDRs when
a Superfund waste differs significantly from the waste used
to set the LDR treatment standard such that:
• The LDR standard cannot be met; or
• The best demonstrated available technolo ’ (BDAT)
used to set the standard is inappropriate for the waste.
Superfund site managers (OSCs, P.PMs) may need to
seek a Treatability Variance to comply with the LDRs when
m n gng restricted soil and debris wastes (see Rtghllght 1)
because the LDR treatment standards are based on treating
less complex matrices of industrial process wastes (except
for the dio n standards, which are based on treating
contanunaced soil). A Treatability Variance does not
remove the requirement to treat restricted soil and debris
wastes. Rather, under a Treatabilixy Variance, alternate
treatment levels are established based on data from actual
treatment of soil, or best management practices for debris.
Although the specific justification required to obtain a
Treatability Variance may differ from siie.to-site, site
managers generally will make this justification on the basis
of: (1) Available information on the performance capabilines
of the tcchnolo ’(ies) being considered; (2) Site-speQfic
conditions that may affect the implementatioc or
effectiveness of those technologies; and (3) The remediation
goals of the CERCLA response action.
AL many sites, data from treatability studies conducted
during the RI/PS will suffice as justification for obtaining
a Treatabiliry Variance. For example, if data from
treacability studies indicate that the full-scale operation of
a specific treatment technolo cannot consistenth meet the
LDR treatment standards for soil and debris (including
the most contaminated waste areas of the site), site
managers may use those data as justification to obtain a
Treatabilicy Variance for those contarnin ted soils and debris
that cannot be treated to the standard.
When site-specific treatability study data are not
available, surrogate data from the application of technolo es
to wastes of inii r types may be used to assess the
effectiveness of treating soil and debris and help site
managers determine whether a Treaxabilicy Variance is
warranted. Potential surrogate data sources include: (1)
Treazabilicy data bases, such as the one developed by EPA’s
Risk Reduction Png neering Laboratoey (2) Results from
Superfund LDR Guide #6A
HlgMIg1 t I: SOIL AND DEBRIS
. Soil is defined as materials that are
primarily of geologic origin such as sand, silt,
loam, or clay, that are indigenous to the natural
geologic environment at Of near the CERCLA
site. (In many cases , soil is mind with liquids,
sludges, and/or debris.)
Debris . Debris is defined as materials that are
primarily non-geologic in origin, such as grass,
trees, stumps, and man-made materials such as
conacte, clot kin& partially bwied whole or empty
drums, capaciiors and other synthetic manthc-
tured materials, such as liners. (It does not include
synthetic organic chemicals, but may include
materials contn ,nn ted with these chemicals).
-------
treatability studies and &orn remedial actions conducted at
other sites; and (3) E sting Literature that desaibes the
effectiveness/limitations of specific treatment teehnolo es.
Unless the surrogate data show that a technology operated
at full scale can ç nsistent1v meet the LDR treatment
standards for soil and debris that at wilJ be called upon
to treat, site managers should seek a Treatability Variance.
In some cases (especially when treatability studies are
not conducted as part of the RI/FS), data that indicate
whether a treatment technology or process can attain the
LDR treatment standards may not be available. This
situation may arise when an innovative technology is being
considered, or when a demonstrated technology is being
applied to wastes for which performance data do not ens.
Under such circumstances, site managers may select a
particular technology as the preferred alternative, if there
are technically sound reasons to believe that it will perform
effectively. The specific selection aiteria (e.g., long- and
short•term effectiveness, implementability) upon which the
rationale would be based should be induded when profiuing
the alternative in the Detailed Analysis chapter of the FS
report When there are no actual performance data
available that indicate the LDR treatment standards can be
met consistently for all soil and debris, site managers should
seek a Treatabilit) Variance Site specific conditions need
to be considered and documented at sites where a
Treatability Variance as sought.
BOW TO OBTAIN A TREATABELITY VARIANCE FOR
SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Once it is determined that a CERCLA W3SZC iS a
or debris, and that a Treacability Variance will be necessary
(i.e., the LDRs are applicable for the response aaion
addressing soil or debris wastes and there is a reasonable
doubt that the standards can be met consistently for all the
soil and debris wastes requiring treatment), site managers
should initiate the process of obtainng a Variance For
remedial actions, the need for a Treacability Variance should
be evident during the Rl/FS as information on waste types
is collected, potential waste management strategies are
evaluated, and the determination of whether the LDRs are
applicable is made.
Obtaining a Treatability Variance
Obtaining a Treatabiliry Variance for remedial actions
will involve: (1) documenting the rationale and justification
for the Treatability Variance in the FS Report , (2)
announcing the intent to seek a Treacabiliry Variance in the
Pronosed Plan ; and (3) gi’anung of the Treatability Variance
by the Rc onal Administrator or the Assistant
Administrator/OSWER when the ROD is signed.
aiahLt ht 2 - 4A7I TO A Z .CDm TAZ XC TA7I £ SOfl. A D IS
TRZAIABLLIff V L6J AA azivs R i F a-SItE A ovv-sitz acrx s
•Descripttor of the Proposed Action C. g “Applying for an LDR Trsstahii.ity Variance md.r 40 CTR 1268 “1.
IA statene of need arid justification for the proposed ection Ce g ‘data do not. indicate that. fuU scale treatne’t
can corisistently attain the LOR treatment standards for all, waits areas, including the most contaminated areas. at. : e
sit.
S . d.sc:ipt_on of the soil, or debris wilts (I I • iniQCT_ atiOn on th. physical end chemical. che,ract.ristics of the waste,
ncLuding waste analysts data) end description of the source of the contamination,
•If the soil. arid debrts waste has been treated Cs $ . treatability study), or surrogate data are available. a description
of the treat.en: systen Ce ; , process design, operating conditions) end explanation of why the LDR treatment standard
cannot, be achieved using the treatment system or why the 30A1 technology is inappropriate for the west.,
Sif the soil. arid debris wiste has not been treated . an explanation of why the BDAT treatment technology is inappropriats
or hy treatment of the waste wilJ. not b. abl,e to achieve the L R treatoent standards:
•A description of the methodologies and equipoent used to obtain representative samples, a description of the sample
handling end preparation techniques, and a description of the QAJQC measures for waste analyst. end treatment.
•A description of any alternative treatment methods examined by th. petitioner a description of the treatment method that
the petitooner believes is appropriate to treat waate end en identification of the interim treatmsnt levels developed
by the lead agency for the waste constituents or best management practices: end
•For each altsrristtve for which a Trestability Variance is required, the specific treatment Level ranse to be achieved
to comply wLth the LORa th ough a Treatability Variance (see ilij.I 1t htA to determine these treatment levels)
OFF-SITE
For off-sit. Treatability Variances, the documentation requirements above should be extracted from the RuTS report
and combined with the following information in a separate document.
SPetitioner a name and address and identification of sri authorized contact person Ui different);
eStatement of petitioners interest in obtaining a Tr.atsbtlity Variance, and
This document nay be prepared after the ROD is signed (and Treat.abillty Variance granted) but will need to be compiled
prior to the first shipoent of wastes (or treatment residuals) to the receiving treatment or disposal facility
-------
FS Report
The PS Report should contain the necessary information
(see HIghlight 2) to justify a Treatability Variance using,
where appropriate, data and findings from the R I Report.
In the Detailed AnaMi of A1ternatiy chapter of the FS
Report, a general discussion of why a Treatability Variance
is necessary should be included in the description of each
alternative for which a variance is required. This
description also should specify the treatment level range(s)
that the treatment technolo ’ would attain for each waste
constituent restricted under the LDRs and the primary
contam inants of concern identified during the Superfund
baseline risk assessment. (The ore sp , c .and detailed
information, such as relevant waste analysis data_from
sainp g, should be placed n I ThereporL)
In addition, under th ComparativeMäh is of Alternatives
section, when_d cu ing th C pliance th 1 R Rs
Criteri ‘site ers should indicac which alternatives
wtllreuire a Treacab ty Variance t lV th the
LDRs.
Prooosed Plan
The intent to seek a Treatability Variance for a
particular alternative should be clearly stated in the
Description of Alternatives section of the Proposed Plan.
Because the Proposed Plan solicits public comment on all
of the alternatives and not just the preferred opuon,
intent to obtain a Treata” Vajiance should be identified
ry ternative for which a Variance is required .

the requirements for puhli ioti nd comment (off iiè
(cIzons only) on asTequired in
RCRA §268.44. Sample language for the Proposed PLan is
provided in HIghlight 3.
Record of Dcci ipn
(A Treatability Variance is ranted and becomes effective
when the Record of Decision (ROD) is si ed b the
Re onal &>Adminictrator or Assistant Admini ctrator/
OSWER. /Th jentaUon.pr.ovidedj&sh RODfor a
Treacability Variance should be a concise synopsis 2Lt J
the Descrip
oOilternauves se ion , ai f f discussion of major
applicable requirements associated with each remedial
option, site managers should include a statement (as was
done in the p t) that e J hya ._Treatabthr
Variance is j ified _ anLshouldJisi....the treatment i x l

Hl lljhT4.
)
In the Comnarative Ana1 in section, under “Compliance
vjith .R- ,s, ” site managers should indicate which fjhe
alternatives wilLcowply with the LDRs through a
Tt aj ce. Under the Statutory Determination
section (Compliance with ARAR5), site managers should
identify the LDRs as an ARAB. and indicate that a
Treatability Variance is being used to comply.
7”i igbllght 4:
RECOR F
SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR A
DECISION ___—
Descnotion of Alternatives section:
HighlIght 3 SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR THE
PROPOSED PLAN
Description of Alternatives section
This alternative will comply with the LDPJ through
a Treatabthty Vanance under 40 CFR 268.44. This
Vanance will result in the use of (specify technologv/
to attain the Agency’s uitenm “treatment
levels/ranges” for the contaminated soil at the site
(see Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Chapter of the
FS Report for the specific treatment levels for each
Constituent).
Evaluation of Alternatives section, under “Compliance
The LD s are AR,4Rs for (Enter number] of (Enter
total number of alternatives) remedial alternatives
being considered. [ Enter number) of the (Enter
total number of alternatives) alternatives would
comply with the LDRs through a Treatabiliry
Variance.
Community’s Role in the Selection Process section
This Proposed Plan also see/cr comment on the use
of a Treatability Variance to comply with LDRs for
each of the alternatives for which one is required.
Becw.tse eusting and a-vailable data do not
demonstrate that the full-scale operation of this
treatment technolo can aaaui the LDR treatment
standards consistently for all soil and debris wastes
to be add.ressed by this action, this alternative MI!
comply with the LDRs through a Treazability
Variance for the wastes that cannot be treated to
meet the standard. The o’eatm en: level range
established through a Treazability Variance that
(Enter tecJinolo ] MI! attain for each constiwen:
as detemurted by the indicated analyses are:
Barium
Mere uty
Vanadium
Cresols
0.1 - 40 ppm (TCLP)
0.&XJ2 - 0.008 ppm (TCLP)
0.2- 2.2 ppm (TCLP)
95.99 9% rethiction (TWA)
9049.9% rethiction (TWA)
-------
HOW TO COMPLY wrr A TREATABUJTY VARIANCE
FOR SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
j1 Wastes
Once site managers have identified the RCPA waste
codes present at the site, the ae step is to identify the
BDAT constituents of those RCRA waste codes found at
the site, and to divide these constituents into one of the
structural/functional coups shown in column 1 of Highlight
5. After dividing the BDAT constituents into their
respective ural/functional oups, the ne step is to
compare the concentration of each constituent with the
threshold concentration (see column 3 of Highlight 5) and
to select the appropriate concentration level or percent
reduction range. If the concentration of the restricted
constituent is less than the threshold concentration, the
waste should be treated to within the concentration ranr
If the waste concentration is above the threshold, the wa.
should be treated to reduce the concentration of the wastc
to within the specified percent reduction range. Once the
appropriate treatment range is selected, the third step is to
identify and select a spe fic techno1o that can achieve the
necessary concentration or percent reduction. Column 5 of
HIghlight 5 lists technologies that (based on stng
performance data) can attain the alternative Treatability
Vasiance levels.
During the implementation of the selected treatment
technolo ’, periodic analysis using the appropriate testing
procedure (i.e., total waste analysts for organi and TCLP
for inorganics) will be required to ensure the alternate
treatment leveLs for the BDAT cons&uents requiring control
are being attained and thus can be land disposed without
further treatment.
HIghlight 5. ALTERNATE TREATABILITY VARIANCE LEVELS AND
TECHNOLOGIES FOR STRUCTIJRALIFUNC11ONAL GROUPS
Structural
Func orial
Conc.n iton
wge
- )
Thrssl oid
Concentritlon
(j
Prcsnt
Rducdon
W9.
TidinotogisI at achieved
mOUITIT4fldd effluent
flCSfltr1 Ofl rice”
Ha loQsnetad
Non-PoLu
Arocnavca
05-10
100
Tr n t. Tur, . Sv ,Q.

Diow’s
000001 - 006
05
90-999
O ,bi. cai. $01 WaihW . flwrriiI Ds tc cr
PCBa
01-10
100
90-909
8kthIL . - Ti r iit D .4iL on. $01 W ç
I
Th.. .. .J Osu on
llsqbicidss
0 0 - 0
02
90 -909
oçsna a
P $
0.5-40
400
90- 90
TI1I1. L Tsrv
BIi* 1
PI a IOQSr a
AIi ñatci
05-2
40
96- 00.9
Tisan..nL L Tsiy . Ss rç. $01 w ç.
Th n O r
Haioc.nat.d
Cyctics
05-20
200
90-999
1 nT laDss n’x r
Nv i ø
Arcma 5cs
2.5 - 100
10.000
90-99.99
6kj j -’ T...an.r*. 901 W i1i

aiocycucs
0.5-20
90-99.9
Tm iura. L Tw . S ç. $01 Wi. wi .
_n O
Pot uc1sw
*
05-20
400
96- 90.9
! TII T L TIn . $01 Wavwç,
O
Oe sr Pci .,
o
0.6-10
•
100
.
00-96.9
-
L Ts,VV. 301W .
. w n c.
Aslmcry
0.1 - 0.2
2
9696
A.rwc
027-1
10
90-99.9
B jm
01-40
400
90—99
CIvcr ItUrII
05-6
120
96-99.9
‘ -i. - $oIWIII 1Q
N i
0.5-1
20
96-90.9
b 1. LS01W_1i19
Ssisnium
0006
— 006
90-99
L - .-’- - - .
Vv iun
02-fl
200
90-99
Cldmnjrn
0.2 -2
4 0
95-909
i ’- i. $01 W Ii
La
01-3
300
99-96.9
i ’ ’-U.A 901 W IW IQ
M cLffy
000 -000 6
006
90-99
h- ’- 1 -- .
• TCLF g(w ,w be e r Dig wi ifl ivt i’ ur
OzP no o C sw be s d if ratXüuy mid c o w i v’ .flJ lY
‘- ‘C ’
-------
Because of the vuriable and uncertain chncteri
assocaled with r vated wijj , which on’y
sampling data are available. treatment s ntems generally
should be designed to .thicve the more ingent end of the
jeatmeni tinge (e.g., 0.5 f thromium, see cohimn 2 of
Highlight 5) to ensure that the treatment residuals from the
most co ?nin2ted portons at the waste fall below the no
exceedance levels (e.g.. 6.0 ppm for chromium). Should
data indicate that the eatment levels set through the
Treacabiliry Variance are not being attained (i.e., treatment
residuals are eater than the no exccedance level), site
managers should consult with Headquarters.
Under some eiroam.stances, the need to obtain a
Treazability Variance may not be evident until after a ROD
is signed. This situation may arise when: (1) initi*I
assumptions made during the RI/PS that the LDR
treatment standards would be met are proven to be
incorrect during the remedial design/action (RD/PA) phase;
or (2) previously undiscovered evidence is obtained during
RD/PA that the CERCLA waste cort i n a RCRA
TCSthCICd waste and the LDRs are then determined to be
applicable but cannot be met. In such situations, a site
manager would need to prepare an explanation of ig ’f canc
differences (ESD) from the ROD and make it avajiable to
the public to explain the need for a Treatability Variance.
In addition, unlike other E.SDs that do not require public
comment under CERCLA section 117(c), if the ESD
involves ranting a Treatabaliry Variance, an opportunity for
public comment would be required to fulfill the public
notice and comment requirements for a Treacabiiity
Varja nce under 40 CTh §26844.
treated, site managers should use beat m gement
t i4 Depending on the spetific charactenstics of the
debris, these practices may include de nt min*flo (e.g.,
triple r ingJ or deatruthon.
LDRs [ N SUPERFIJND ACTIONS
Because of the important role the LDR.s may play in
Superfund cleanups. sate managers need to incorporate early
in the RI/PS the neccesary investigative and analytical
procedures to determine if the LDR.s are applicable for
remedial alternatives that involve the placemenr of wastes.
When the LDRs are applicable, site managers should
determine if the treatment processes associated with the
alternatives can attain either the LDR treatment standards
or the alternate levels that would be established under a
Treatability Variance.
Site man* gers must first evaluate whether restricted
RCRA waste codes are present at the site, identify the
BDAT constituents requiring control, and compare the
BDAT constituents with the Superfund primary conswaienr.s
of concern from the baseline risk assessment. This process
identifies all of the constituents for which remediauon may
be required. Once the viable alternatives are ideniiñed in
the PS, site mIn gers should evaluate those involving the
treatment and placement of restricted RCRA hazardous
wastes to ensure their respective tcchnolo process(cs) will
attain the appropriate treatment levels (i.e., either LDR
treatment standard or Trearahiliry Variance alternate
treatment levels for restricted RCRA hazardous wastes)
and, in accordance with Superfund goals, reductions of 90
percent or pester for Superfund primary r min lnts of
concern. The results of these evaluations are documented
in the Proposed Plan and ROD. An illustration of the
incepation of LDRs and Superfund is shown in Highlight
6. An ezamplc of the process for complying with a
Treatability Variance for conr*rnin ’ced soil and debris LS
presented in HIghlight 7.
iebris Wastes
Site managers should use the same process for obc2ii i?Ig
a Trearability Variance desatbcd above for types of debris
that are able to be t.reaced to the alternate treatment levels
(e.g., paper, plastic). However, for most types of debris
(e.g., con ete, steel pipes), which generally cannot be
6
-------
Wgtiilight 1; IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT LEVELS FOR A RFATABILIIY VARIANCE
As part of the R I. it has been determined that ioils in one location at a site coninas l )06 w e* slid eresols (which site records indicate were
an I 04 waste). AlseniC also was found to soils at a separate location. The baiclinc rnk sascasment identified cadm bzomium, lead, and
areccic as primaiy contaminants of concern. The conccnrranon range of all of the co mcuts found it the site included
Total Concentration T P
C itucot rt ( /fl
Cadmium 2.270- 16.200 120- 146 Nickel 1 (X). 140 1 - 63
3.160 - 4,390 30. 56 Silver I - 3 —
Cyanides 80 - 150 1 - 16 Ciesols 50- 600 .25 - 4
Lead 500. 625 2 - 12.5 Areenic 800. 1,900 3- 9
Four remedial alternatives are being considered. (1) L temperature thermal stzrpping of soil contaminated with cresots foflowed by
stabilization of the ash. (2) Stabilization of the soil in a mobile unit; (3) In-situ stabthzanoe and (4) Capping of wastes. Each of these
alternatives must be evaluated to determine if they will result in sigeificant reduction of the tozciry, mobility, or volume of the waste. whether
placemcnt occurs, and. if placemcnt occucs. whether the unatmcot will attain LDR eatmcnt standards or alternative treatment leveLs
established through a Treatability Variance for the BDAT coasrituents requiring control.
Si i ru v m ici PL ITTUE iXS
• Because P106 and P104 wastes have been identified at the sate, the Superfund sate manager must meet the treatment staadard or
alternate treatment levels established through a Treatability Variance (or the BDAT constinients These constituents are Cadmium.
C1z snm , Lad, NickeL &Mr. and Cyanide for P006 and Caem (or P004
AND DIViDE THE CONS ’1T11JE (IS NfO 11 STRUCI1.IRAL/FUNCI1ONAL GROUPS (see Highlight 4):
• Al! of the F006 constItuents are in the borpnies structural/functionai poup
• Cresots arc in the Other Polar Orpan Compounds stnictural/tuncuonal geoup.
• lii accordance with progiam goals. the preferred remedy also ihould result in the effective reduction (i e. at least 90 percent) of all
pnmar constituents of concern (i.e.. Cadaiiem, C xemaum. Lead, A nic).
2. CxmeARE il CON TRATION THRESHOLD POUND U4 InGHuGlrr S 1 THE CON ffRA11O FOUND AT THE
TE AM) Q400SE EThER 1 CON( ?(rRA11ON L€Vffl.. RANGE OR F lT R )UCflON RANGE FOR EAQI
a r icr cop smijE ’r.
Co nient
Site
C taaboo
Cn.w itration
C motrabtm PerrentReduction (compliance analysis)
Cadmium
120.
146 ppm
>
40 ppm
X
X
95.999 Percent Reduction (TCLP)
0.5 - 6 ppm (TCLP)
Chromium
Lead
30.
2.
56 ppm
123 ppm
<
c
120 ppm
300 ppm
X
X
01 - 3 ppm (TCLF)
03. 1 ppm (TCLP)
‘ ickel
Cresols
1-
50-
63 ppm
600 ppm
>
20 ppm
100 ppm
X
90-999 Percent Reduction (TCLP)
ST 3: 1D ( WY TREATh1 (F TEO1NOWGIES THAT P F THE ThEA1 (I RANGES
• 1lig$thgs t 5 lists the technologies that achieved the alternate treatment levels for each ,tructural/functional soup
• Because cresots are present in relatively l concentrations ( unicd for the puzpeaes of this eninpie). $ TCLP may be used to
determine if immobilization resulti in a sufficteni reduction of mobility of this restricted RCRA hazardous wute. (Measures to address
any votatization of erpnica during immobilization pm 1 ’ will be neccasary.)
• Immobilization also will result in the effective reduction in Icachabthty (i.e.. at least 90 percent) of arsenic. a Superfund primary
contaminant of concern.
Alternative of T
Eilcthvc Rr l
omsity, Mobthry, Vdc?
t LDR T-.” ’t
‘F’- --- ‘? fnc AT “-— -“
?4 Tgu ty Veasan
Lrve 7
1 Low temperature stripping/
Stabilization
Yes
Yea No (not for eresols)’
No (not for ciesols)
Yes
Yes
2. Stabilization in mobile unit
3 In-situ uabthzation
Yes
Yes (Mobility)
No (LDRa not ARAR5) —
ARAR5) —
—
—
4. Capping in Place
No
(LDRZ not
S
Treatabthry studies conducted during RIIFS indicated the standard could act be met n tt1S! otly for all soils coatsmti ted with cresots.
U After balancing the tradeoffs among alternatives with respect to the nine evaluation criteria, the Agency determined that siabikeatron
of wastes in a mobile unit is the preferred alternative. The neas step si to seek and obtain $ Treatibility Variance for the preferred
alternative in the Proposed Plan and ROD.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Em gency Response
Directive 9347 3-07F3
Deceniber 1989
Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for
Removal Actions
On-site CERCLA response actions must comply with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) when they are
determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (AR.ARs). On-site CERCLA removal actions must comply
with the LDRs to the extent practicable when they are determined to be ARARs. The two factors that determine whether
the LDRs can be practicably complied with during a removal response are: (1) the urgency of the situation and (2) the scope
of the removal action to be taken. For the LDRs to be applicable, the CERCLA removal action must constitute placement
of a restricted RCRA hazardous waste (see Superfund LDR Guide #5). For the LDRs to be relevant and appropriate, they
must address problems or situations sufficiently siniihir to the circumstances of the release, or remedial action Contemplated,
and be well-suited to the site. (See Superfund LDR Guide #7.) Compliance with the LDRs will involve either meeting the
LDR treatment standards, meeting other LDR restrictions (e.g., soft hammers), or satisfying the requirements of one of the
other alternate LDR compliance options (e.g., Treatability Variance, Equivalent Treatment Method Petition). This guide outlines
the process for obtl%Inlng and complying with a Treatablllty Variance during removal actions for soil and debris contaminated
with RCRA hazardous wastes for which the Agency has set treatment standards. More detailed guidance on Superfund
compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
BASIS FOR A TREATABILITY VARIANCE
When promulgating the LDR treatment standards, the
Agency recognized that treatment of wastes to the treatment
standards established using the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) would not always be possible or
appropriate (RCRA §268.44). In addition, the Agency
recognized the importance of ensuring that the LDRs do
not unnecessarily restrict the development and use of
alternative and innovative treatment technologies for
remediating hazardous waste sites. Therefore, a Treatability
Variance process is available to comply with the LDRs when
a Superfund waste differs significantly from the waste used
to set the LDR treatment standard such that:
• The LDR standard cannot be met; or
• The BDAT used to set the standard is inappropriate
for the waste.
During on-site removal a ions, Supcrfund on-scene
coordinators (OSCs) must comply with the LDRs if the
LDRs are ARARS and compliance with the LDRs is
practicable. For removals involving off-site deposition, OSCs
must simply determine if the LDRs are applicable. When
managing restricted soil and debris wastes (see Rlghllght 1),
OSCa may need to seek a Treatability Variance to comply
with the LDRS because except for the dioxin standards
which are based on treating contaminated soil, the LDR
treatment standards are based on treating less complex
matrices of industrial process wastes. A Treatability
Variance does not remove the requirement to treat
restricted soil and debris wastes. Rather, under a Variance,
an OSC selects alternate treatment levels the Agency has
established, which are based on data from actual treatment
of soil or best management practices for debris.
Although the specific justification required to obtain a
Treatability Variance may differ from site to site, OSCs
generally will make this justification on the basis of (1)
available information on the performance capabilities of the
treatment technology(ies) being considered; (2) site-specific
conditions that may affect the i.rnplemencation or
effectiveness of those technologies; and (3) the goals or
scope of the CERCLA removal action.
EPA
Superfund LDR Guide #6B
Highlight 1: SOIL AND DEBRIS
Soil is defined as materials that are primarily of
geologic origin such as sand, silt, loam, or clay, that
are indigenous to the natural geologic environment at
or near the CERCLA site. (In many cases, soil is
mixed with liquids, sludges, and/or debris.)
Debris . Debris is defined as materials that are
primarily non-geologic in origin, such as grass, trees,
stumps, and man-made materials such as cona ete,
clothing, partially-buried whole or empty drums,
capacitors, and other synthetic manufactured materials,
such as liners. (It does not include synthetic organic
chemicals, but may indude materials contaminated
with these chemicals.)
-------
At many removal sites, data from treatabilitv studies or
from off-site facilities that test waste samples may provide
justification for obtaining a Treatability Variance. For
example, if data from treatability studies indicate that the
full-scale operation of a specific treatment technology cannot
consistently meet the LDR treatment standards for soil
or debris (including the most contaminated waste areas of
the site), OSCs may use such data as justification to obtain
a Treatability Variance for the contpminated soil and debris
that cannot be treated to the standard.
When site-specific treatability study data are not available,
surrogate data from the application of technologies to wastes
of similar types may be used to assess the effectiveness of
treating soil and debris, and to help OSCs determine
whether a Treatability Variance is warranted. Potential
surrogate data sources include: (1) Treatability data bases,
such as the one developed by EPA’s Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory; (2) Results from treatability studies
and from response actions conducted at other sites; and (3)
Existing literature that describes the effectiveness/limitations
of specific treatment technologies. Unless the surrogate
data show that a technology operated at full scale can
consistently meet the LDR treatment standards for Li soil
or debris, OSCs should seek a Treatability Variance.
In some cases (especially when treatability studies are
not conducted), data that indicate whether a treatment
technology or process can attain the LDR treatment
standards may not be available. This situation may arise
when an innovative technology is being considered, or when
a ‘demonstrated’ technology is being applied to wastes for
which performance data do not exist. Under such
circumstances, OSCs may select a particular technolo ’v as
the preferred alternative, if there are technically
reasons to believe that it will perform effectively.
there are no actual performance data available that indicate
that the LDR treatment standards can be met consistently
for all soil or debris, OSCs should seek a Treatability
Variance.
HOW TO OBTAIN A TREATABILITY VARIANCE FOR
SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Once it is determined that a CERCLA waste is a soil or
debris, and that a Treatability Variance will be necessary
(i.e the LDRs are applicable and practicable for the
removal action addressing soil and debris wastes, and there
is a reasonable doubt that the LDR treatment standards can
be met consistently for all the wastes), OSCs should initiate
the process of obtaining a Treatability Variance.
In general, for on-site removal actions, the Treatabiliry
Variance will be in the form of a memorandum attached
to the Action Memorandum, which documents the removal
action to be taken. This attachment should include the
necessary information to justify the need for a Treatability
Variance (see HighlIght 2). Treatability Variances for on-
site removal actions are approved by Regional Administators
or their designees.
RuIbLi&It 2 - INF ( 4ATION TO BE ThCLUDND , ?P ATAJ ILm V8RZA E ARDtR1 AND BE/CA TO OBTAIN
A SOIL AND DEBRIS TPF AYARILIT! VARIANCE DURING R VAI. ACTIONS
Information to be included in a Treatability Variance Memorandum and BE/CA for a soil and debris Treatability Variance
during on-site and off-site removal actions is listed below. For off—site Treatability Variances, the complete list of
documentation requirements should be combined and submitted as a separate document
Os-SITE AND OFF-SITE
UA statement of need and justification for the removal action (a 8.. ‘data do not indicate that full ’scale treatment can
consistently attain the LDR treatment standards for all waste areas, including the most contaminated areas, at the site ‘),
CA description of the soil or debris waste Ci e. • information on the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste,
including waste analysis data) and description of the source of the contamination,
CIf the soil and debris waste has been treated Ce g. . treatability study), or surrogate data are available, a description
of the treatment system (a , process design, operating conditions) and explanation of why the LDR treatment standard
cannot be achieved using the treatment system or why the BDAT technology is inappropriate for the waste,
•U the soil and dehyis waste has not been treated , an explanation of why the BDAT treatment technology is inappropriate
or why there is reasonable doubt that treatment of the waste will be able to achieve the LOR treatment standards,
CA description of any alternative treatment methods examined by the petitioner, a description of the treatment method that
the petitioner believes is appropriate to treat waste, and an identification of the interim “treatment levels” developed
by the lead agency for the waste constituents or best management practices,
CA description of the methodologies and equi aent used to obtain representative samples, a description of the sample
handling and preparation techniques, and a description of the QA/QC measures for waste analysis and treatment, and
eFor the selected removal action (emergency and time-critical) or for each alternative for which a Treatability Variance
is required (non-time—critical removals), the specific treatment level range to be achieved to comply with the LDR5 through
a Treatability Variance (see Riabligbt 6 to determine these treatment levels and RialsliaJit 8 for an example of the variance
process)
OFF-SITE ONLY
•Petitioner’s name and address and identification of an authorized contact person (if different), and
•Statement of petitioner’s interest in obtaining a Treatability Variance (e.g., “This petition is being submitted to obtain
a Treatability Variance to comply with the EcRA land disposal restrictions at the (Enter name) site, at which a Superfund
removal action is occurring “)
-------
For off-site removal actions, an OSC must submit to
Headquarters a formal Treatability Variance petition
complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.44 for site-
specific variances. Because most removal actions involve
off-site actions, OSCs will generally have to prepare formal
Treatability Variance petitions. The process also should
include local notice and an opportunity for the public to
comment, consistent with the proposed NCP administrative
record requirements.
Processes for obtaining a Treatability Variance depend
upon the type of removal action. These actions are
classified according to the expediency required in a given
siruation (1) emergency, (2) time-critical, and (3) non-
time-critical. The process for obtaining a Treatability
Variance for each of these removal actions is described
below. Each of these actions are defined in Highlight 3.
Emergency and Time-Cntjcal Actions
There is no formal procedure for identifying and
analyzing alternatives for emergency and time-critical
removal actions. Because of the need for a quick response
to a release, the removal action selection process may occur
at different stages of these removals, depending on the
threats present.
Generally, a request for a Treacability Variance is a
memorandum attached to the Action Memorandum. During
emergency and some time-critical responses, however, there
may not be sufficient information available about the need
for a TreacabLlity Variance when the Action Memorandum
is signed. In those cases, the request for a Treatability
Variance should be a memorandum (or formal petition, for
off-site actions) that amends the Action Memorandum.
Sample language for this Action Memorandum is provided
in Highlight 4. In all cases, the Treatability Variance
memorandum should be from the OSC to Regional
Administrators or their designee who has the authority to
approve Action Memoranda. Public comment on the
Treatability Variance should be solicited, whenever possible,
given the urgency of the situation, in accordance with the
administrative record and public participation procedures
described in the proposed NCP.
Non-Time-Critical Actions
For these actions, sufficient lead-tune is generally
available to conduct a more detailed analysis of alternatives
before the Action Memorandum is signed. The process by
which alternatives are analyzed is described through the
steps of the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
process. Sample language for the EE/CA is provided in
Highlight 5. The EE/CA process includes gathermg
information that will aid in deterinming whether an LDR
requirement is applicable and selecting a recommended
action. The EE/CA process is similar to the Rl/FS
process and generally includes six steps.
HIghlight 4 - SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR THE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
Because cdsting and available data do not
demonstrate that the full-scale operation of
this treatment technology can attain the LDR
treatment standards consistently for all soil or
debris wastes to be addressed by this action,
this selected removal alternative will comply
with the LDRs through a Treatabilizy Variance
for the wastes that cannot be treated to meet
the standarcL The treatment level range
established through a Treatability Variance and
achieved through [ specify technology] will
attain the Agency’s interim ‘treatment
levels/range? for each constituent restricted
at the site.
HIghlight 3 - DEFINITIONS 1 OF EMERGENCY,
TIME-CRITICAL, AND NON-TIME CRITICAL
REMOVAL ACTIONS
Emergency - Emergency removal actions are those
responses to releases or threats of releases requiring
initiation of clean-up activity within hours of the lead
agency’s determination that a removal action is
appropriate.
Thne-Cntjca l - Time-critical removals are those
releases requiring initiation of on-site clean-up activity
within six months of the lead agency’s determination
that a removal action is appropriate.
Non-Time-Critical - Non-time-critical removals are
those releases or threats of releases that do not
require initiation of on-site clean-up activity within six
months of the lead agency’s determination that a
removal action is appropriate.
1 Defincd in preamble to proposed NCP.
HIghlight 5 - SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR THE
EE/CA
Description of Alternatives :
This removal alternative will comply with the
LDRs through a Treatabiliry Variance under
40 CFR 268.44. This Variance will result in
the use of [ specify technology] to attain the
Agency’s interim “treatment levels/ranges” for
the contaminated soil at the site.
Evaluation of Alternatives .
The LDRs are applicable and can be
practicably met for [ Enter number] of [ Enter
total number of alternatives] removal
alternatives being considered. [ Enter ‘iumber]
of the [ Enter total number of alternanves/
alternatives would comply with the LDRs
through a Treatability Variance.
-------
• Site characterization;
• Identification of removal action objectives;
• Identification of removal action alternatives;
• Analysis of removal action alternatives;
• Comparative analysis of renival action alternatives;
and -
• Recommendation of removal action alternative.
For non-time-critical removals, the information to justify
a Treatability Variance should be induded in a
memorandum attached to the EE/CA. Public comments
on the Treatability Variance should be solicited for a period
of at least 30 days when the EE/CA is made available, in
accordance with the administrative record requirements in
the proposed NC?.
HOW TO COMPLY WITH A TREATABILITY VARIANCE
FOR SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Soil Wastes
Once the OSCs have identified the RCRA waste
present at the site, the next step is to identify the BLAT
constituents requiring control and to divide these
constituents into one of the structural/functional groups
shown in column 1 of HIghlight 6. After dividing the
BDAT constituents into their respective structural/functional
groups, the next step is to compare the concentration of
each constituent with the threshold concentration (see
column 3 of HighlIght 6) and to select the appropriate
concentration level or percent reduction range. If the
Hlghllght 6 ALTERNATE TREATABILITY VARIANCE LEVELS AND
TECHNOLOGIES FOR STRUCrURAL/FUNCHO IAIJ GROUPS
Structural
Functional
--“—-
Concentration
Range
Threshold
Concentration
(ppm)
Percent
Reduction
Range .
Technologies that achieved
recommended effluent
concentration guldance**
•

‘ Halogenated
Non-Polar 05 - 10 100 90 - 999 BIological Treatnent Low Temp Sthpping.
Arpmpycs Soil Washing. Thermal Destruction
Dioxins
0 00001 -005
05
90-999
Deorination. Sod Washing, Thermal Destruction
‘D

‘ 1 - i
.
100
‘ -

Biological Treatinent DecPilonnation. Soil Washing.
Thermal Des ucbon
HerbicIdes
0 002 -002
02
90-999
Thermal Destructon
Haiogenated
Phenols
0.5-40
400
90-99
BIological Treatment, Low Temp. Sthpping.
Sod Washing. Thermal Destruction
Haioger iated
Aliphatics
05 - 2
40
95 -999
BIological Treatment. Low Temp Sti pping. Soil Washing.
Thermal Destruction
Halogerated
Cyclics
05-20
200
90-999
Thermal Destruction
Nitrated
Aromatics
25 - 100
10.000
99-9999
Biological Treatment. Sod Washing
Thermal Destruction
Heterocycucs
05-20
200
90-999
Biological Treatment Low Temp Stripping. Sod Washing,
Thermal Destruction
Polynuclear
Aromatlcs
05-20
400
95-99.9
BIological Treatment Low Temp Stripping. Sod Washing.
Thermal Destruction
OtherPolar
- s .
05-10
100
,
90-999
•
Blg icalTreatment L owTemp.S t r ippu ig.SodWashing,
Thermal Destruction
Antimony
0.1-02
2
90-99
ImmobIlizat ion
Arsenic
0.27 -1
10
90-999
lmmoblhzauon. Soil Washing
Bailum
0.1-40
400
90-99
Immobilization
Chromium
05 - 8
120
95- 999
lmmobitzabon. Soil Washing
Nickel
05- 1
20
95-999
Immobilization, Soil Washing
Selenium
0005
008
90 - 99
Immobilization
Vanadium
02 - 22
200
90 - 99
Irrimcb ilizatiOn
Cadmium
02-2
40
95-999
Immobilization, Sad Washing
Lead
0 1 - 3
300
99-999
Immobilization. Soil Washing
Mercun,
00002 -0 008
006
90-99
Immobilization
• TCLP aLso may be used when evaiuawtg waste with relasvely Low Levels of or ua that have been a atth th,w an jmmoOdszatzon
‘ Other tethnoIo es may be used if bwtuabe1fr ’ td oth utfr.mtuw.t u.A - w.i that they can athi.ve the irec asy concenoutton or
percens-reducuo.s iwt
-------
concentration of the restricted constituent is less than the
threshold concentration, the waste should be treated to
within the concentration range. If the waste concentration
is above the threshold, the waste should be treated to
reduce the concentration of the waste to within the specified
percent reduction range. Once t e appropriate treatment
range is selected, the third step is to identify and select a
specific technology that can achieve the necessary
concentration or percent reduction. Column 5 of Highlight
6 lists technologies that (based on existing performance
data) can attain the alternative Treatability Variance levels.
For on-site actions, during the implementation of the
selected treatment technology, periodic analysis using the
appropriate testing procedure (i.e., total waste analysis for
organics and TCLP for inorganics) will be required to
ensure that the alternate treatment levels for the BDAT
constituents requiring control are being attained, and thus,
can be land-disposed without further treatment.
Because of the variable and uncertain characteristics
associated with unexcavated wastes, from which only
sampling data are available, treatment systems generally
should be designed to achieve the more stringent end of the
treatment range (e.g., 03 for chromium, see column 2 of
HIghlight 6) to ensure that the treatment residuals from the
most contaminated portions of the waste fall below the no
exceedance’ levels (e.g., 6.0 ppm for chromium). Should
data indicate that the treatment levels set through the
Treatability Variance are not being attained (i.e., treatment
residuals are greater than the ‘no exceedance level), OSCs
should consult with Headquarters. Highllght 8 provides a
specific case example to illustrate how to obtain a
Treatabiliry Variance.
Debris Wastes
OSCs should use the same process desaibed above for
obtpining a Treatability Variance for types of debris that are
able to be treated to the alternate treatment levels (e.g.,
paper, plastic). However, for most types of debris (e.g,
concrete, steel pipes), which generally cannot be treated,
OSCs should use best management practices. Depending on
the specific characteristics of the debria, these practices may
include decontamination (e.g., triple rinsing) or destruction.
SUMMARY
Because of the important role the LDRs may play Lfl
Superfund removals, early in the removal process, OSCs
need to incorporate the necessary investigative and analytical
procedures to determine if the LDRs are ARARs for on-
site removal alternatives that involve the ‘placement’ of
wastes, and if compliance with the LDRs is practicable.
When the LDRs are AR.ARs and compliance is practicable
(or for off-site actions, when LDRs are applicable), OSCs
should determine if treatment processes can attain either the
LDR treatment standards or the alternate levels that would
be established under a Treatability Variance.
Once removal alternatives are identified, OSCs should
determine if alternatives uavolve placement of restricted
RCRA wastes, and if so, identify the BDAT constituents
requiring controL Next, OSCs should evaluate those
alternatives that involve treatment and placement of
restricted RCRA hazardous wastes to ensure the technoloRy
process(es) will attain the appropriate treatment levels (i.e.,
either the LDR treatment standard or Treatability Variance
alternate treatment levels for restricted RCRA hazardous
wastes), and, in accordance with Superfund goals, reductions
of 90 percent or greater for Superfund primary contaminants
of concern). If a Treatability Variance is necessary, a
request for a Variance must be made in the Action
Memorandum (or in an amendment to the Action
Memorandum) and EE/CA Report, and public comment
solicited. The results of these evaluations are also
documented in the Action Memorandum and EE/CA
Report. The integration of the LDRs into the removal
actions is illustrated in HighlIght 7.
Highlight 7- LDRs IN THE REMOVAL PROCESS
• .utp removL
alterna v,s for
th.slt.
De ,mIn. If DR.
ore ARARs for
f
Imp sm.ni
— and
a *n LDR
Us n * ndards
OR
I
Dsterm n. naftirs
and extent of slt•
cortamIna on
D.te.niln . If tech.
no o m
s M LDR ..s.
ms,fl ndords or
Tr.. t eb lUty
Vortano. aSterna vs
S n.M vefo
r b ln Tr..tabllfty
Vartanos and Iinp4.mont
rsma.Jy te
Vs ant
-------
HIGHLIGHT 8: CASE EXAMPLE:
IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT LEVELS FOR A TREATABILITY VARIANCE
.
As part of the removal investigation, it has been determined that soils in one location at a site contain F006 wastes and crcsols (which sue
records indicate were an P004 waste). Aiscnic also was found in soils at a separate location. Cadmium. chromium, lead, and arsenic were
identified as contaminants found in the highest concentrations. The concentration range of all of the constituents found at the site included
Csi tuent
To id Cooccastaijon
(mg
TU!
(m
Cooctituent
Total C nr r ntzata
(
TQ2
Cadmium
2,270. 16.200
120 146
Nickel
100 - 140
1 - 63
Chrorniuni
3,160 - 4,390
30 - 56
Silver
1- 3
—
Cyamdes
80 - 150
1 - 16
Cresols
50 - 600
.25 - 4
Lead
500 - 625
2. 12.5
Arsenic
800. 1,900
3 - 9
Three removal alternatives are being considered: (1) Low temperature thermal stripping of soil contaminated with cresols followed by
stabilization of the ash (2) Stabilization of the soil in a mobile unit; and (3) In-situ stabilization. Each of these alternatives must be evaluated
to determine if they will result in significant reduction of the to clty, mobility, or volume of the waste; whether placemeiit’ occurs: and, if
placement’ occurs, whether the treatment will attain LDR treatment standards or alternative treatment levels established through a Treatability
Vanance for the BDAT constituents requiring control.
SFEP L 1D I1FY ThE R FRIC1 CONSITI1JENTS
• Because F006 and P004 wastes have been identified at the site, the Superfund sire manager must meet the treatment standards or alternate
treatment levels established through a Treatabitity Variance for the BDAT constituents. These constituents are: Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Nickel. Silver, and Cyanide for F006 and Ctamls for P004
AND DIVIDE ThE CON TflJEN’I INTO ThEIR STRUCrURAL/Fu ’NCnONAL GROUPS (ace H ghuight 6):
• All of the P006 constituents are in the Inorganke structural/functional group.
• Cresols are in the Other Polar Organic Cw structural/functional group
• In accordance with program goals, the preferred remedy also should result in the effective reduction (i e, at least 90 percent) of all primary
constituents of concern (i c., Cadmium, Qixoniiinn, Lead, and Arsenic).
SrEP 2. COMPARE ThE (X)N TRAflON ThRESHOLD FOUND IN HIGHLIGHT 6 TO ThE CONCEWFRA ’llONS FOUND AT ThE
Sfl AND OIOOSE EITHER urn CONCEIIrRATION LEVEL RANGE OR PER ( REDUCI1ON RANGE FOR EAQ{
RE IC ED CO 1TItJ L
Site
C’ *itueni Concentration
Threshold
C traiioa
Appropriate
Cn,u nuataoo
Range
Pereent
Reduction
Range to be achieved
(compliance analysis)
Cadmium 120- 146
Chromium 30. 56
Lead 2 - 1
Nickel I - 6
ppm
ppm
23 ppm
.5 ppm
>
<
<
<
40 ppm
120 ppm
300 ppm
20 ppm
X
X
X
X
95-999
Percent Reduction (TCLP)
03 . 6 ppm (TCLP)
01 - 3 ppm (TCLP)
0.5 . 1 ppm (TCLP)
Cresols (Total) 50 - 600
Cresols (TCLP) 25 -
ppm
4 ppm
>
100 ppm
X
90.999 P
ercent Reduction (TCLP)
l ercent reductions [ or organtcs based on stabilization have not been developed yet Percent reductions based on total waste assurnec br
example purposes only.
STEP 3: H) fl1FY TREATh1 1F TEQiNOLOGIES ThAT MEET ThE TREAThE 1F RANGE&
• 1-llghtight 6 lists the technologies that achieved the alternate treatment levels for each structural/functional group
• Because cresols arc present in relatively low concentrauon.s (assumed for the purposes of this example), a TCLP may be used to determine
if immobilization results in a sufficient reduction of mobility of this restricted RCRA hazardous waste. (Measures to address any volatization
of organics during immobilization processes will be necessary)
• Immobilization also will result in the effective reduction in leachability (i e., at least 90 percent) of arsenic, a Superfund primary contaminant
of concern.
Alternative of
Effective
Toxitity, M
Reduction
obllity, Volume?
?laocment?
Meet LDR Treatment
Standards (or BDAT Coastituents
Meet Trcatability Variance
Alternate Levels?
1.
Low temperature strippingJ
Stabilization
Yes
Yes
No (not for cresols)’
Yes
2
Stabilization in mobile unit
Yes
Yes
No (not for cresols)
Yes
3.
In-situ stabilization
Yes (Mobility)
No (LDRs
not ARARs) —
—
* Treatability studies indicated the standard could not be met consistently for all soils contaminated with cresols
• The Agency determined that stabilization of wastes in a mobile unit is the preferred alternative The next step is to seek and obtain a
Treatability Variance for the preferred alternative in the Action Memorandum or BE/CA Report
-------
Jr t Siatee
Es vw vv*itai PT acXn

Offic*o
Sofid WaZta
ar
Qirec1, v, 9347 3 - F5
Ocsmoer 989
aEPA Superfund LDR Guide #7
Determining When Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs) Are Relevant
and Appropriate to CERCLA
Response Actions
CERCLA Section l.21(d)(2) specifies that on-site Superfund remedial actions shall attain ‘other Federal standard.s.
requirements, iceria, tiir itations , or more stringent State requirements that are determined to be legally appLicable
or relevant and appropriate (A.RAR) to the specified circumstances at the sate. In addition, the Nanoaal Contingeocv
Plan (NCP) requires that on-size removal actions attain ARAR3 to the e enz practicable. Off-site remo’.al and
remedial actions must comply with legally applicable requirements. This guide oudloes the process used to determine
whether the Resource Coaservadon and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal reitsicticas (LDRi) established under
the Hazardous and SoUd Waste h.mendments (RSWA) are ‘relevant and approprIate’ to an oaslte CERCL&I response
action.. (See Superfund LDR Guide #5 for dezer” ng when LDRn are applicable to CERCIA response actions.)
The guide also pro dcs examples of when the LDR.s are like to be relevint and appropriate and when they are not
With respect to couf2IIIIn2ted soil and debris, EPA is under? kmg a rulemaking to establish specific LDRs; until this
rulemaking is completed, EPA gcncrally will not consider the LDRs to be relevant and appropriate for soil and debns
conr mi i ted with hazardous substances that are not RCPA resmeted wastes. More detailed guidance on Superfund
compliance with the LDRs is being prepared by the Office of Solid Wa tc and Emergency Response (OSWER).
LDR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
DETERM1NA11OF4S
For on-site C CLA responses that constitute
pLacement. and for which the LDRs ha been
determined not to be applicable (Le., the w ea being
pLaced are not prohibited or restricted RCRA wastes),
Site “ “ gcrs should evaluate whether the LDR.s are
relevant and appropriate. As diin ed in the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual (EPA,
August 8, 1988), relevant and appropriate 4e oee
require best profeinional jvdgu at skc-speci&
factors to determine whether a reqáement addresses
problems or saZn.a 4 r suffl”- iy to the
OZCUmstAnCeS at the releaii, , or remedial action
contemplated, and in well -sand to the sate, and
therefore, is both rc iaat and appropriate.
Section 300.400(g)(2) at the proposed N (53 FR
at 51436 (December 21, 1988)1 o nes a number of
factors pertaining to CERCIA altuaboee and pOtPftiiIt
ALkRa which should be cz pared to determine
whether a reqwrement is both relevant and
appropriate. The fo pextir ’ factors to compete
when eva n g the po’rntial releva and
appropnatencu at the LDRs ar (1) the ar’ or
activities regulated by the reqáement (e.g., placement
on the land) and the remedial ar? ro contemplated, (2)
the purpose of the requirement and the perpose of the
CERCLA a oe; (3) the substances reguJated by the
requirement and the substances found at the CERCLA
size; and (4) the medium regulated or affected by the
reqáemcnt and the medium cont*i ,un ted or affected
ax the CERCLA sate. These factors are evaluated to
determine whether the circumstances of the release
sad remedial aedon contemplated are such that use o(
the LOR rnquL .ents Is well-suited to CERCL
reaponse * Tes .
The evaluation of the drciim tanc of krekcasc
is co ed as pert of the remedial inveszigatio
during which information is collected on contaminant
sources, poi.iifitl routes of macthou, and potential
hrn , i1 and envsroumental receptors of concern. The
results of the effort (which is ultimately documented
in the site charnctematioc and baseline risk assessment
chapters of the RI/PS report) ate used to establish
remedial n ob ectivea for the areas or media
_______ at the site that pose a threat to human
beahh and the envvommenL The size-specific
CERCLA i onec ob cctivcs at the remedial action
co r ft plrMd should be compared with the purpose or
ob ecti s at the LDRa as a first step in determi g
the pa’. 1 relevance and appropriateness of the
LDRs (proposed NC? factors (a) and (e)1.
The objective of the LDR.s is to achieve
_____ in the too Ly and/or mobility of a
-------
hazardous waste 1 based on application of the best
demon.strated available technolo , (BDAT)P prior to its
land disposal. While this objective will often be
compar.ible with remedial alternathes desigeed to
destroy highly concentrated, to c, and mobile materials
such as liquids 1 other remedial alternatives involving
treatment of the principal threats of a site may have
different objectives to which the LDR .s are not well-
suited.
Once a decision is made that achieving BDAT
reductions in the to aty and/or mobility of a waste
source is compatible with CERCLA response objectives
for the site, site managers should utilize information on
waste constituents and matrices collected as part of the
site characterization to evaluate whether a CERCLA
waste is ‘sufficiently simila? to a listed RCRA waste
code or family of waste codes (e.g., K048-KD5Z
petroleum refining wastes) such that the LDR standard
for that waste code is appropriate for the CERCLA
waste.
In determining whether a CERCI.A waste is
suffiaently cimiljir , site managers should consider
whether the BDAT used to act the LDR standard
would be effective for the CERCLA waste.
(Technolocea other than those used to set the BDAT
standards may be considered, although they must be
regarded as capable of meeting the promulgated
concentration requirements.) Although a constituent-
by-constituent analysLi Is not necessary for relevant
and appropriate determinations, a general comparison
of the waste constituents and mauices is useful for
identifying waste codes to which a CERCLA waste may
be similar, and therefore, helpful in the identification
of technoloçes that may be appropriate for
consideration.
if a CERCLA waste that consists of a complex
mixture of several different wastes occurs in a different
medium (e.g., soil) or matrix (BDAT standards may be
established for specified matrices, such as wastewaten,
nonwastewaters, or both) from what is specifi’4 for a
particular restricted waste code or
uicompatible waste cocattuents, nan of BDAT may not
be appropriate for that waste, and therefore, the LDRs
would not be relevant and appropriate [ proposed NCP
factor (b)I. it has been the experience of the
Supcrfund proçam that Treatabiliry Variances are
frequently necessary for soil and debris contaminated
with a restricted RCRA waste (see Superfund LDR
Guide #6A), because the promulgated LDR standards
are based on treating less complex matrices of
industrial process wastes. As a toçcal corollary to this
finding, the Agency believes that LDRs generally would
not be ‘relevant and appropriate’ requ’reents for sod
and debris contaminated with g .i .CRA restricted
wastes. However, the Agency plans to undertake a
rulemaking that will presaibe applicable standards for
the treatment of soil and debris contaminated ,ch
RCR.Arestrtcted wastes. In the future, these standards
may be relevant and appropnate to the treatment of
soil and debris conr2minated with non-restricted wastes.
Examples illustrating the relevant and appropriate
determination process followi
• A number of drums contpining hazardous wa.stes
are discovered during a site investigation.
Although no written documentation or specific
knowledge of the source is available to identify
with certainty the ori ns of the waStes, the
laboratory analyses indicate that they contain very
high concentrations of a predominantly liquid
waste indicative of industrial waste streams
Therefore, maaimum destruction of the drur.
contents is established as the remedial action
objective. Due to the general simdarity of the
bulk liquids to the spent solvents listed in the
FOO1-F005 waste codes, the CERCLA site
manager determines that use of incineration (one
of the BDAT identified in the solvent and dionn
rule for that family of waste codes) would be
technically suitable. Therefore, the LDRs would
be reLevant and appropriate for an alternative
involving the treatment and placement of the
drummed waste.
• A CERCLA waste miure from an unknown
source is found to consist of wastes similar to
RU1 wastes (Le., they contain
constituents found in dio n.conta1Ding wastes)
and mercury. Because use of incineration -- the
BDAT for dio n-co’ ’ ’ ”5 wastes •- would not
be compatible with a waste also containing
mercury, application of the LDR treatment
standards to this waste mixture would not be
appropriate. Therefore, the LDRs would not be
relevant and appropriate to a CERCL.A response
involving the placement of this waste muaure
(Alternate methods of treating the waste might
still be ne nss2i7 to satisfy both the CERCLA
statutory requirement to utilize treatment to tl ’
maximum extent practicable and the progr
expectations that are outlined in the propos .
14CP.)
NOTE: If the LDRs are determined to be
relevant and appropriate requirements for a
CERCI..A action (i.e., there is a close match
between the CERCI .A and LDR objectives, and
a close match between the constituents/m3 of
the CERCLA waste and the coastitueflt3/maIZ
of the relevant RCRA waste code), but the
treatment process involved in the remedy does
not achieve BDAT levels in the field as
anticipated, a Trearability Variance estab11 1hiii5
alternate treatment levels should be sought.
-------
VIII
-------
NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF COMMERCIAL
FACILITIES OPERATING IN 1988
-------
NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF
COMMERCIAL
FACILrrIES OPERATING IN 198*
Treatment FsclIlty _nsm.
Location EPA LD. N..
Combustion: A h.rn.Tron, k’ c. Cl.v&and, Ohó 0H0980569438
incinerators BOT. Inc. Clarence, New York NV0000632372
Caidwell Systems, Inc. Leno North CasoUna NC0086871 282
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. Emelle, Alabama Al.0000622484
Ch.mica$ Waste Management Inc. Saugst flilnois 1LD098642424
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. Port Arthur, T.ias TA0000838896
En*oufe Service of Texas D(C980748107
Environmental Systems Co, El Dorado, Arkansas ARD069748192
Groce I.aboraton.s Greet, South Carolina SC0058754789
GSX Thannal Oxidation Corp. Roebuck. S. Carolina SC0003360393
IT Corp. Martinez, California CAD0 00094771
IWO, Inc. Calvart City, Kentucky KY0087438817
IWO, Inc. Clay, Kentucky KYD088438874
Omega Ch.mical Corp. Whittier, California CAD042245001
Radiwn Petroleum Co. Kansas City, Missouri M0007’302T609
Rollins Environmental Services Baton Roug.. Louisiana LADO1 0395127
Rollins Environmental Services Bridgeport, New J.rsey N .iD053288239
Rollins Environmental S.rvicas Deer Park, Texas TXD055141 378
Ross lncrnaraticn Services, Inc. Grafton, Oh 0H 004841 5665
SCA Chemical Services, Inc. Chicago, IiiInøis 1L000 0672121
Stauffet Chemical Co. Manin.z, California CA0053049490
Staulfer Chemical Co. Baton Rouge, LouiSiana LA000SI 61234
Stauffer Ch.mical Co. Houston, Texas TX0009099079
Thermal Kern, Inc. (formerly Stablex) RockhiU South Carolina SCO01 2333
Combustion: Ash Grove—Cadence Louisville, Nebraska NE0007260672
KIIns Ash Grov.—For.man Cement Foreman. Arkansas AR0981512270
Ash Gtov.—Chanute Chanute, Kansas KSDO31 203318
Biu Clrde Atlantic Cement Co. Ravenna, New York NY0002069557
Carolina Salita NCDO O3I 52642
Coplay Cement Co Loganspolt. Indiana 1005081542
Ftorida Soilts Gree Covs Spring, FL Fi.D004059085
General Portland (Systec) Labc, California CAT O80 03 I 628
General Portland Cement Fredonia. Kansas KSD980633259
General PortlandutaFarge Co. Paulding, Oh 0HD005048947
GSX SeMcss of South Carolina Pinawood South Carolina SC0070375985
Ideal Cement Co Satatogi, Mcansas ARD065316937
International Metals R.clsn ation, Co. PAD O87 SS1O1 S
Kentucky Sclits Brooks, Kentucky KYD059588220
Keystone Portland Cement Bath, Pennsylvania PA0002389559
LaFarg. Corp. Demopolls, Alabama A1D98101 9046
LaFargelGeneral Portland (Systec) 0 140005048947
l.shigh Portland Cement Co. Camenton, New York N’YD055735807
Marine Shale Processors, Inc. Morgan City, Louisiana LAD981057706
Mid Florida Mining Co. Lowell, Florida FLD99 1215355
Narragansett Improvement Co. Providence. Rhode lard P10006807911
Norlite Carp. NYD080469935
Oglasby Cment Plant 1LD98 0613475
Chic Urn.. inc. No ID assigned
Sanjusn C.m.r*Co. San Juan, Puerto Rico PRD980528115
Saute Corp. Arvonia, Virginia VAD4 02755082
Southwestern Portland Cement Fairbom, Ohio 0H 0981196779
Virguüa Saute Cascade, Virginia No ID assigned
v i
-------
Trsatm.nt Facility name Location EPA 1.0. No.
Metals Recovery East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. Lyons Station, PA PA00023301 85
GNB, Incorporated Frisco TX TXD006451090
GNB. incorporated Los Angeles, CA CA0097854541
Gulf Coast Lead Co. Tampa, Fl. FLD004092839
International Metals Redamation Co. Eliwood City. PA PA008756101 5
N.wjersay Znc. Co. Palmarton. PA PA0002395887
Sanders Lead Co.. Inc. Tray, Al. ALD046481 032
Schuy8 Metals Corp M0003071 28fl
Standard Industriu San Antonio, TX TXD990709685
Stabilization Mama CenterLandfil Fort Wayne. 1P4 1ND078911148
Mch.m .Tron Cleveland, OH 0H0980569438
Mierican Waste Processing LTD Maywood, IL 100716894
BHS Inc. Wright City, MO M0006a521228
Casmaila Resources Santa Maria, CA CA0020748125
Cocos International Inc. Commerce City. CO C0D991300484
Cocos International. Inc. Livingston. LA LA00 0 061 8298
Cocos international, Inc. Cinc ir inat l ,OH 0HD000816629
Cocos International Inc. Williamsburg, OH 0H0087433744
Cocos International, Inc. Bristol, CT CT0000604488
Cocos internatIonal, lnc.ISFI of IL Rosalie, 1 1 1.0980700723
Cocos ITN Gulf west Houston, TX TX0980864078
Chem-met Sorvices Inc. Wyandotte, M l M 10096963194
Chemical Conversion of Georgia Valdosta, GA GA0093380814
Chemical Pollution Control Bay Shore, NY NYD082785429
Chemical Processors Inc. Seattle, WA WA 0020257945
Chemical Waste Management Newark, I 4J N .J0089216790
Chemical Waste Management ALD 000622464
Chemical Waste Management Sulfur, LA LA0000771201
Chemical Waste Management. Inc. Kettieman City, CA CAT000646117
Cherntrori Corp. Avon, OH 0H0066060609
CID Landfill Colum.t City, IL ILDO I 0284248
Crosby & Overton Inc., Flint 2 Kent, WA WA0991 281767
Delaware Container Co., Inc. Coatsvill ., PA PA0064375470
Diversified Sys Inc. Storage Fac. Athens, TN Th0034547141
Drug & Laboratory Disposal Inc. Plainweli, Ml MI0092947928
East Coast Environ. Sarvice Corp. New Haven, CT CT0089631956
Ecolot.c , Inc. Dayton. 014 0H0980700942
Eltez Chem l & Supply Co. Houston, TX TXDO74I 96338
Eiwlrite Corp. York, PA PADO 1 01 54045
Environmental Enterprises, Inc. Cincinnati, OH 0H 0083377010
Environmental Waste Resources Waterbury, CT CTD072138969
Erieway Patidlon Control Inc. Independence. OH 0H00S5522429
Grace Laboratories Greer. SC SC0058754783
GSX of South Carolina Pinewood, SC SC 0070375995
GSX Services, Inc. Rsidsville, NC NC0000648451
Htid CPiem Corp Bedford, 014 0140001 926740
IT Corp Benicia Benicla, CA CA00000600I 2
Keystone Ch.mical Co. Cotmer, PA PA 0000647735
KyanaOd, Inc. Louisville, KY KY0 000821942
P foCaiy Columbia Corp. Washougal. WA WA0092300250
Mlctugan Disposal Inc. Dearborn, Ml M 1D000724831
Northeast Environmental Services Devon, NY NY 0057770 109
Northland Chemical Co. Warwidc, RI R 1 0040098352
Omega Chemical Corp. Whittier, CA CA 00422450 01
Osco Treatment Systems, Inc. Columbia, TN TN0980515779
Pacific Treatment Corp. San Osego. CA CAD095894558
Peoria Disposal Co. Peoria, IL 1L0000805812
vu
-------
Tr.atm.nt Faculty name Location EPA 1.0. Ple._
Stabilization Patroleum Waste Inc. Bakersfield, CA CA 0980675276
(cont’d) P rote Poncs, PR PRD0910186fl
Queen City Bs,rs Co. Cincinnati, OH 0H0004477634
Rolfins Environmental S.rvicss Baton Rouge, LA LAD010395121
Rolfins Envirani Serv. of TX Inc. Deer Par1 TX TX OC S5 I 41 378
SAW Waste, Inc. Kearny. NJ NJ0991291105
Solvent Services Inc. San Jose, CA CA0059494310
Southern Chemical R.daiming, Inc. Cap. Girardear. MO M0D980632954
Texas Ecologists Inc. TXD069452340
Trl.State Steal Drum Co.. inc. G’aysvIIIs, GA GAD033842543
U.S. Ecology Inc. NVT330 0 I0000
USPCI Wayncka, OK 0K0065438375
USPCI Grassy Mt. Facility Stsnsbwy Park, UT UTD991301748
Wastes Research Inc. East St. Lou3. Ii. 11.0980700744
Solvent Recovery All Worth Enterprises Blmingharn, A l. ALD094476793
Alternate Ener9y Resources Augusta. GA GA0033502481
American Resource Recovery Corp. Mernphss,TN Th09912794$0
Mvec Chemicals Inc. Ocugluvdie, GA GA0990740714
Avganic industries Cottage Grove. WI W 10000808824
Baron-Blakesle. Inc. Cicero, IL 1 1 .0051 973068
Bayday Chemical Santa Clara, CA CAT080012263
Berkl.y Products Co., Inc. Akron. PA PA 0003003894
Buds Oil Service Inc. Phoenix, AZ A 04931 8009
C.ntwy Oil Inc. AJsIp. IL 11.0099215303
Cl em Paic Corp. Cranston. RI RI 0084802842
Chemdene Corp. Maivem, PA PA0014353445
Chemical Waste Managemsnt Email.. AL A1 . 00 00622484
Cherntron Corp. Avon. OH 0140066060609
Chial Chemical & Supply Inc. HUII.1I, OK 0KD089761 290
Clayton Chemical Co. Sauget. L 11.0066918327
Clean Harbori of Braintree Inc. Kingston, MA MAC0393fl250
Davis Chemical Los Angeles, CA CADO7 O2 I 5355
Delaware Container Co., Inc. Coatsville, PA PA D O64375470
Detrex Chemical kid. Inc. Los Angeles, CA CAD020161642
Diaz Refiriary Co. Diaz, AR AR 0092915735
Earth Industrial Waste Manag’t Inc. Millington, TN TND0006I 4321
Ecolotac, Inc. Dayton, OH 0140980700942
Eltax Chemical a Supply Co. Houston, TX TX 00741 96338
Enterprise Recovery System Inc. MS0000693178
Environmental Procu*ing Services NJD000608588
Eiwirotek Tonawanda. NV NYD038641 601
General Chemical Corp. Framingham, MA MAD019371 079
G ra1ter Chemical Resouros lOlgore, TX TX0000742304
Holch.m DEA Service Chemical Orange, CA CAT000612333
Hukil Chem Corp Bedford, OH 0140001928740
Hydrocarbon Racydera Inc. Tulsa. OK 0K000 0632737
Industria l Solvents & Chemical Co. York Haven, PA PAD0987321 18
K.yston• Chemical Co. Calmer, PA PA000064773 5
KDM Co. San Antonio, T X TX 0052649027
I(lor Klein Inc. Cincinnati, OH 0140980821862
Uberty Solvent & Chemical co. Twinsburg. OH 0140052324548
M & J Solvents Co. Inc. Atlanta, GA GA0045821 170
M & M Chem l & Equip. Co.. Inc. Attafta. AL A1.D070 5 13767
Marisol Inc. Middlesex, NJ P 4 . 10002454544
McOasy Columbia Corp. WashougaL WA WA0 092300250
Milwaukee Solvents a Chem. Corp. Menomoriel Falls, WI W 1D0233S01 92
McXeeson Envirosyst.ms Co. PR0090399718
v ia
-------
Treatment Facility name Location EPA ID. No.
Solvent R.covory Northeast Environmental Services West Babylon, NY NYD051770109
(cont’d) Northland Chemical Co. Warw k, RI P 10040098352
Oil a Solvent Proc .u Co. C00080591 184
Oil & Solvent P?ocess Co. Azusa. CA CAD008302903
Organic Chemicals Inc. Grandvifle, MI MID99C8580
Pacific Treatment Corp. San Diego, CA CAD0 5894558
Plastic Matanals Inc. Aihambra, CA CAD089446710
Pride Solvents and Chem. Co., Inc. West Babylon, NY NVD057722288
Rho .Chem Corp. Inglewood, CA CA0008364432
R1nd em Co. Phoenix, AZ A 980892731
Rarnic Chem Corp. East Palo Mo, CA CA0009452657
SaI.ty-Kl aen Post Wayne, iN 110980613913
Safety-Klein Corp. Chicago R.C. EJQin , IL 110005450697
Sa l sty-Klein Corp. Clayton P.C. NJ0069039628
Safety-Klein Envirosystems KYDC53 481O8
SM Allen Inc. Toledo, OH 0H0980586804
Sol .Proi l.ilyblad Moxee City, WA WAD027543032
Solvent Recovery Corp. Kansas Cay, MO M0D000610766
Solvent Recovery Service of NJ Linden, NJ NJ0002I 82897
Solvent Recovery Service of NE Southinglon, CT CTDOO97I 7504
Solvent Resource Recovery Inc. West Carrollton, OH 0H0093945293
Solv.nt Service Inc. San Jose, CA CADO5 9494310
Southeastern Chemical and Solvent Sumter, SC SCD036275626
Southern Chemical Reclaiming Inc. Cap. Girardeau,MO M0 09806329 54
Sp.ctron Inc. Elkton, MD M0 0000218008
Tn-Stat. Steel Drum Ca., trio. Graysvill., GA GA 0033842543
U.S. Steel Chemicals Co., Inc. Roseville, Ml Ml0006523385
Unitek Environmental Services Inc. Honolulu, HI 1411000603514
Voda Petroleum Co. Long View, TX TX0081287918
Washington Chemical Inc. Spokane, WA WA0037991 528
Waste Research & Reclam.Co.. Inc. Eau Claire, WI W 10990829475
Wastex Research Inc. East St. Louis, IL IL.0980700744
Wast.wst.r Treat- B-TlEnergy FaCility Louisville. KY KY 0000057190
mint of Organic. Casmalia Resources Santa Maria. CA CA0020745 125
Cocos intornational Inc. Cincinnati, OH 0140000816629
Cocos International. Inc. Niagara Falls, NY NY 0080336241
Ecolotec, Inc. Dayton, OH 0140980700942
Empak Inc. Deer Park Houston, TX TX0097673149
Environmental Processing Services Dayton. OH 0HD000608588
Eii.way Poilution Control, Inc. Independence, OH 0140055520429
Iniercontinentai T.nmnals Co. Deer Park, TX
IT Corp. V . H Martüiez, CA CA0000094771
Omega Chemical Corp. Whittier, CA CA 0042245001
Osco Treatment Systems, Inc. Columbia, N Th 098 051 5779
Roflins Environ.Se,vices of TX, Inc. Oem Park, TX T o55I41 378
Solvents Recovery Service of NJ Linden, NJ NJ0002I 82897
Waste Research & R.dam. Co., Inc. Eau Claire, WI W 10990829475
Wastewater Treat. Alternate Energy Resources Augusta. GA GA0033582461
ment of Inorganlco American Waste Processing Ltd. Maywood, IL 110000716894
Casmalia Resources Santa Maria, CA CA0020745 125
Cocos International Bristol. CT CT000 0604488
Cocos international Inc. Niagara Falls, NY NYD080336241
Chem Waste Management Newark, NJ NJ008921 6790
Chem-Cteas Inc. Chester, PA PA0000731026
ChemClaar Inc. Chicago, IL 110000608471
ix
-------
Treatment Pseftity n .m. Location EPA ID. No.
Ch.mCIsar Inc. Ctsveland, OH 0HD000724153
Chem .Ctw Inc. Chester. PA PA000073 1026
Chemical Managem Fern dii. NY NY0000691 949
C1D-Landfll Calumst City, II. 1 1.0010284248
Crosby & Owerton, Inc. PH.2 Kent, WA WA0991 261767
Cystic Kern 1110098011992
Dynecol Corporatid Detroit, MI 1110074259565
Ecolotec, Inc. Dayton, OH 0HD980700942
Envirit. Corp. Thomaston, CT CTD09361 6813
Envirite Corp. Yo,I , PA PA O OI OI 54045
Environm.ntal Ent.v 1s.e Inc. CIncüina , OH 0H0083377010
Frontier Chem.Wut . Process , Inc. Niagara FalIs,NY - NY 0043815703
Giocs Laboratories Grer, SC SCD058754789
H.ritag. Env. Services (tIES) Indlanapohe, IN 1N0093219012
if Corp. VIne H Mailinez, CA CA0000094771
Mill Service Inc. Yukon Pit Pittsburgh, PA PA00 04835148
Northwest Envirossrvlc., Inc. Seattle, WA WA0058367152
Osco Treatment Systems, Inc. Columbia, TN ThD980515779
Pecific Treatment Corp. San Diego, CA CAD095894558
Proteco Ponce, PR PPD0910186fl
Southern California Chem. Co., Inc. Santa Fe Springs. CA CA0008488025
So.ctras.ry Inc. Kearny, NJ NJDG49851892
Trl.Stat. Steel Drum Cc.. Inc. Graysvi ll ., GA GA0033842543
Tricil Environmental Services Muskegon Heights, Ml M 10072585755
Tricil Environmental S.Mces Dayton, OH 0H 0081290611
Tricil Environmental Services Arnioch, TN 1N0000772277
USPCI Grassy ML Facility Stanabury Park, UT UTD991301748
Waste Conversion, Inc. Hatfield, PA PAD085690592
Wastewater Treat. Frontier Ch.m.Wute Process, Inc. Niagara Falie, NY NYD043815703
ment of Organlce Solvent Recovery Corp. Kansas City, MO M 00000810768
and Metals USPC I Waynoka. OK 0KD065438376
*
-------
Ix
-------
j IJN1TtQS1ATESENV)RONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
NOV I 3 986
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground Water
FROM: Marcia E. Williams. Director AIIA( ._ L J 1 L __
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Patrick Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division, Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of September 18,
1986, regarding the regulatory status of ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate. To answer this
question, one first has to determine the status of ground
water. Under the regulations, ground water contained in the
aquifer is not considered a solid waste, since it is not
“discarded” in the sense of being abandoned, recycled,
or inherently waste—like as those terms are defined in the
regulations. See 40 CFR 261.2(a)-(d). Therefore, contami-
nated ground water cannot be considered a hazardous waste
via the mixture rule ( i.e. , to have a hazardous waste
mixture, a hazardous waste must be mixed with a solid waste ;
see 40 CFR 26l.3(a)(2)(jv)). Nevertheless, ground water
contaminated with hazardous waste leachate is still subject
to regulation since it contains a hazardous waste. Therefore,
the treatnient, storage, or disposal of ground water contaminated
with hazardous waste leachate must be handled as if the
ground water itself were hazardous since hazar u waste 1/
leachate is subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
However, if the ground water is treated such that it no
longer contains a hazardous waste, the ground water would no
longer be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
1/ This memo more precisely explains the position on ground
— water contamination presented in John Skinner’s memo dated
December 26, 1984.
-------
2
Taking this interpretation and applying it to the example
in your inemor-andum, the ground water containing a listed
hazardous waste, once collected, is subject to regulation
under the hazardous waste regulations. However, If as a
result of treatment, the ground water no longer contains the
hazardous waste leachate, the ground water would no longer be
subject to the hazardous waste rules.
Your letter also raises the question of treatment of
ground water within the context of corrective action. If the
corrective action is taken at an Interim status facility in
compliance with a S3008(h) order, treatment can take place.
We are considering the possibility of amending the regulations
to clarify the relationship between corrective action and
the reconstruction ban (S270.72(e)). More broadly 1 the
Agency is currently examining the issue of whether permits
should be required for any corrective actions. We are also
developing rules for corrective action under RCRA §300 1 4(u).
Until this analysis is completed, If the corrective action
takes place at a permitted facility, it can be handled as a
permit modification.
Please feel free to call Matt Straus, of my staff, if
you have any further questions; his telephone number is L175—
8551 (FTS).
cc: Hazardous Waste Division Directors,
Regions 1—111 and V—X
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Mark Greenwood, OGC
Steve Silverman, OGC
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
$
lL
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
JAN 24989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Status of Contaminated Groundwater and Limitations
on Disposal and Reuse
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director L1 < , -; 1 17 -V%-.—---
Office of Solid Waste -
TO: Jeff Zelikson, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
In your memo of December 16, 1988 and the attached
materials, you stated your understanding of the current policy
on the classification of contaminated groundwater and described
issues which have arisen in California regarding reuse of
contaminated groundwater from a Superfund site.
You have accurately stated the effects of the “contained
in” policy which governs situations such as the one you have
described. Briefly, a contaminated groundwater which has been
treated such that it no longer contains hazardous constituents,
need not be considered to be a hazardous waste, and beneficial
reuse of the water is permissible. We have not yet issued
definitive guidance on levels below which the groundwater is no
longer considered to contain hazardous wastes. Until such
definitive guidance is issued, the Regions may determine these
levels on a case—specific basis.
It is our expectation that ultimately the guidance on
levels of hazardous wastes which may remain will mirror the
levels in the De Minimis rule which is now under development
by OSW. I know that Region IX has been participating in the
Work Group discussions and reviews of this proposal and I urge
you to continue this involvement.
In its present form, the De Minimis approach contemplates
levels based on health—based standards (where available),
assuming direct exposure. With respect to the constituents
of concern at the Fairchild Superfund site —— trichloroethafle
-------
—2—
and dichloroethy].ene —— the levels remaining in the treated
groundwater are well below the MCLs and would therefore be
consistent with the Dc Minimis approach.
If you have additional questions, please contact David Fagan
at FTS 382—4740. Questions on the De Minimis rule should be
addressed to Robert Scarberry at FTS 382—4770.
cc: Tina Kaneen
Henry Longest
-------
t TI _________ _____
- - —-— - u e i k5 yg 1
‘?IL REGION IX
215 Fremont Street - --
San Francisco. C i. 94105 CONFIDENTIAL
16 DEC 1988
MEMOBANDUN
SUBJECT: RCPA Classification of Contaminated Groundwater as a
Hazardous Waste and the Associated Limitations on
Disposal and Reuse at Superfund Sites
FROM: Jeff Zelikson, Direc ..<’ 7\
Toxics and Waste Mana tfVDivisiOfl
Region IX
TO: Sylvia Lowrence , Director
Office of Solid Waste
manic you for meeting with me and officials from the State
of California during your visit here December 9, 1988. Consis-
tent with our discussion then, the purpose of this memorandum iE
to bring to your attention the problems associated with reuse of
extracted groundwater during the reinediation of a Superfund site.
As outlined in the November 13, 1986 memorand’..im, RCRA
Reaulatorv Status of Contaminated Ground Water , from Marcia Wil-
]iams to Patrick Tobin in Region IV, (memorandum attached’)
groundwater which contains a hazardous waste must be handled as
if it were a hazardous waste, subject to Subtitle C of RCRA.
This definition seriously limits the disposal or reuse options of
extracted groundwater which falls below health based criteria.
It is our understanding that Headquarters has been working
to eventually restructure the definition’of hazardous waste to be
concentration based. However, we have some immediate and praCti
Cal problems to solve which are associated with the drought in
California and the urgent need to reuse extracted groundwater
when it meets criteria set to protect health and environment.
In that regard, we want to advise you on how we are handling
a specific and urgent situation at the Fairchild, an Jose Super-
fund site. As is common in all arid regions, California depends
heavily on groundwater for water supply. Due to ‘ery real con-
cerns associated with managing this limited resource, the
California State Water Resources Control Board has mandat’ I that
the extracted groundwater at Fairchild be employed in a reuse
program. The groundwater proposed for reuse falls well below
risk criteria designed to protect health and the environment.
-------
The main contaminant at the site, trichioroethane or TCA, is less
than 50 ppb; the MCL for TCP is 200 ppb. The attached memorandum
fr 44e1en & Xirt1ey to me, a,1 1 correspondence with the State and
Fairchild, provide more detailed information about t ie te d
these issues.
While we hope that the definition of hazardous waste for
aqueous mixtures can be converted to a concentration basis
reasonably soon, we must address the Fairchild, San Jose problem
ng . Upon submission of adequate data on groundwater quality and
monitoring frequency which documents that all. contaminants are
significantly below appropriate drinking water standards and
other environmental protection standards, we intend to allow
Fairchild to participate in the reuse program. We would conclude
that the treatment has been sufficient to remove the hazardous
waste from the water and (consistent with the November 13, 1986
Marcia Williams memo) that the groundwater is. no longer subject
to the hazardous waste rules. We support this reuse program as a
part of the Superfund cleanup and consider it a critical feature
in the overall conservation of a precious resource. If you have
questions, please contact me (FTS 454—7460) or have staff contact
iny Zimpfer (FTS 454—7414) or Phil Bobel (FTS 454—748O) Thank
you for your attention to this matter.
Attachments
cc: Henry Longest
Bruce Diamond
Matt Strauss
Bob Dellinger
Lloyd Guerci
Barbara McGuiuness
-------
pI?4?l!.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
• 4 . ,# REGION IX -
215 F.remont Street
San Francisco, C i. 94105
CO ‘FIDENTIAL
MEMORAN1 L!M
BUBJECT: Reuse of Extracted Ground Water During Remadiation of
a Buperfund Bite
FROM: Helen Mckinley, Project Manager
South Bay Section
Superfund Program
THROUGH: Amy Zimpfer, Section Chief
South Bay Section
Superfund Program
Phil Bobel, Branch Chief L
Remedial Programs Branch
Superfund Program
Jerry Clifford
Assistant Dir to for Superfund
Toxics and W Ste anagement Division
TO: Jeff Zelikson, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Region IX
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the problems
associated with reuse of extracted groundwater during Superfund
remediations, and to provide additional b ckground for decision
making at a specific site, Fairchild, San Jose.
Background
The following discussions of reuse of groundwater extracted
during remediation efforts apply to many of our South San Fran-
cisco Bay (Silicon Valley) Sites in Region IX and may apply to
other Bites in our more arid western Regions. However, to
demonstrate the issues, we will use the Fairchild, San Jose site
as an example.
Fairchild Semiconductor corporation, a California State lead
NPL site has completed RI/PS work and is involved in the State
and Federal processes leading to the selection of a final remedy.
-------
Fairchild began extracting groundwater as an interim remedial
measure at its San Jose site in early 1982 after the discovery
that a waste solvent tank at the facility had failed. The
release contained ‘ Ik gu1 t wastes.
Currently, groundwater extracted in the Fairchild cleanup
is discharged under an NPDES permit to the storm sewers leading
to Canoas creek. NPDES discharges are exempt from RCRA regula-
tion. For a good many of the ext’action wells, concentrations of
chemicals are sufficiently low to permit discharge in compliance
with proposed NPDES effluent limitations (30 ppb TCA and 1.5 ppb
DCE) without treatment. In fact, the residual chemical con-
centrations in these wells are well below the health based drink-
ing water standards (MCLB are 200 ppb for TCA and 7 ppb for DCE).
Another two-year dry period has raised water conservation
awareness in California. As in most of the arid vest,
groundwater supplies are depended upon heavily. Fifty percent of
water supplied to users in the Silicon Valley area is drawn from
local aquifers. The Santa Teresa groundwater basin, where the
Fairchild remediation is taking place, has dropped as much as 18
feet below normal water table levels. The IBM NPL site also ex-
tracts groundwater from this basin in its cleanup program.
The State Water Resources Control Board (created in 1969,
along with the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, by the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act which established a
statewide program for control of all the waters of the state) has
responded to the conservation concerns associated with
groundwater remediation in a March 1988 hearing on the “waste and
unreasonable use of water”. This hearing prompted amendments to
the current state orders governing interim cleanup actions at IB?1
and Fairchild. Specifically, it dictated the pumping rates and
number of extraction wells at Fairchild and IBM, and it required
both companies to incorporate reuse into their final cleanup
plans or show why it could not be done. In IBM ’s case the
Regional Water Quality Control (RWQCB) has ordered 100% reuse in
the final cleanup requirements. It is expected that the final
orders from the RWQCB will include a similar directive for the
Fairchild site.
Additionally, the RWQCB has established priorities for dis-
chargers under their NPDES program (see attachment) first
priority is reuse, second priority is discharge to POTW, least
preferable is the discharge to storm drain or surface water. It
is clear that reuse and water conservation measures are high
priorities.
Th• Problsm
Currently, it appears that EPA is responsible for the most
significant barrier to reuse. The problem lies in the RCRA
definition of the extracted groundwater as a hazardous waste.
The only existing guidance on this subject is contained in the
November 13, 1986 memorandum from Marcia Williams, Office of
Solid Waste, to Region IV (see attachment). This memorandum
-------
states that groundwater containing hazardous waste in detectable
aw” - a t be treated as though it were a hazardous waste, sub-
ject to all treatment, storage and disposal requirements under
Subtitle C of RCRA. -
In the Fairchild example, the company is negotiating with
-the California Department of Transportation (‘Caltrafle”) to
supply extracted groundwater for dust control and compaction at
Caltrans’ road construction sites. The definition of the Fair-
child extracted groundwater as a hazardous waste, despite the
fact that chemical concentrations are below health based stan-
dards, makes this, and other reuse options such as irrigation, a
problem. If the groundwater is a hazardous waste, reuse by land
application appears to be precluded because under RcRA, hazardous
wastes may be disposed of only at permitted ha;ardous waste
facilities. Even if the RCRA prohibition on disposal outside of
licensed disposal sites did not apply, other R RA requirement ,
such as manifesting, recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
would make supplying extracted groundwater to Caltrans or other
third parties an impractical alternative to discharge. In es-
sence, this prohibition effectively prevents reuse of the pumped
groundwater and encourages the unreasonable waste of a precious
resource in areas of the country where water supplies are limited
or uncertain. Attached is the recent correspondence outlining
the State and Fairchild positions regarding this policy, and our
Region IX response.
Propo..d Solution
RCRA delisting of the pumped groundwater has been suggested
as an alternative to this predicament. However, as you are
aware, the process is lengthy and cumbersome. More importantly,
it appears that delisting was not intended f or the situation we
have described here. We believe that extracted groundwater with
chemical concentrations that fall below criteria designed to
protect the health and environment should be easily incorporated
into conservation and reuse programs.
The recent meeting with Sylvia Lowrence and conversations
with Barbara McGuinness of Headquarters Office of Solid Waste in-
dicate that a more flexible reading of the Marcia Williams Novem-
ber 13, 1986 memorandum is possible. Ms. McGuinness informed us
that Region IV has used the memo to make judgment calls regarding
the application of RCRA to extracted groundwater. In at least
one case, Region IV has determined that an treated groundwater
was no longer a hazardous waste because hazardous constituents
were effectively removed sufficient to protect health and the en-
vironment. We perceive this to be a practical approach for the
purposes of reuse and the flexibility to apply the same “judgment
call” to Region IX Superfund sites, specifically the Fairchild
site, where chemical concentrations in groundwater are below
health—based criteria, and where a reuse program is critical to
the overall conservation of the resource.
-------
More specifically, the only contaminant detected in the of f-
site groundwater which is under consideration for reuse, is TCA
which j &C SI? 50 (Or — — itleX . t L £g 1 r
TCA which is 200 ppb). It is our belief that these numbers do
n t pose health or environmental concerns for reuse in irrigation
or road construction programs. However, in order to specifically
analyze the appropriateness of the intended reuse of the
groundwater extracted at Fairchild we have requested that the
company provide the following data:
a. Concentration ranges of all known contaminants in the
aquifer which will be pumped (influent quality);
. Concentration ranges of.all known contaminants in the
water intended for reuse (effluent quality);
c. The monitoring and reporting frequency which will be
used for each pollutant.
Provided that the water will meet all applicable requirements, we
hope to develop a practical solution which will not delay reuse.
We are requesting Headquarters response to our proposed
solution by December 30, 1988. specifically, we would like Head-
quarters to clarify that the November 1986 memorandum allows the
flexibility to determine that an extracted groundwater “no longer
contains a hazardous waste” if the hazardous constituents have
been removed sufficient to protect human health and the environ-
ment, and therefore “would no longer be subject to regulation un-
der Subtitle C of RcRA.”
Attachments:
1. RWQCB Policy
2. 1986 Marcia Williams memo
3. Correspondence regarding the Fairchild Site (six letters)
-------
tO Sr 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, 0 C 20460
C pao ’
PR 6 99C
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: CERCLA Response Activities and the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program’s Applicability at Plattsburgh Air
Force Base
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Direct A_ ‘ _.......
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Stephen D. Luftig, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II
In a memorandum of February 12, 1990, Region II raised
several questions about the applicability of the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs) program to a remedial action at a DDT spill
site. In su.mmary, Plattsburgh Air Force Base had stockpiled
high-grade DDT pesticide on a storage pad, beginning in 1970. By
1972, all of the drums had corroded and either spilled or leaked
onto the ground, adjacent to the pad. As a result, the Soil is
currently contaminated with DDT, a halogenated organic compound
(HOC), in excess of 1000 mg/kg in some areas. The facility has
been listed on the National Priorities List.
In completing the study of the site, several cleanup options
are being evaluated. However during this consideration,
questions arose as to whether the options would satisfy the LDR5.
Specifically, you ask for clarification on capacity variances,
treatability varia ,nces, and whether the treated waste can be
redeposited on-site.
Ca acitv Variances
In the Third Third proposal, a national capacity variance is
not proposed for U061 (DDT); the Agency believes that sufficient
incineration capacity exists for treatment of halogenated organic
wastes. However, the proposal further states that where soil and
debris are contaminated with First, Second or Third Third wastes
with a BDAT treatment standard based on incineration, a two-year
national capacity variance will be granted.
During a national capacity variance, if the waste is not
treated in compliance with the BDAT treatment standard and is
disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment, the landfill or
Pri,its4 RscycI d Pap2r
-------
surface impoundment must meet the minimum technological
requirements (MTRs) of 40 CFR 264 Subpart N. In addition, during
a national Capacity variance the waste must meet any applicable
standard (e.g., California list prohibition) that normally would
be superseded by a more waste-specific standard such as that for
U0 61.
Soil containing HOCs in excess of 1000 ppm is subject to the
LDR5 via the California list prohibitions. (See Part 268,
Appendix III.) At CERCLA/RCPA corrective action sites, this soil
has a national capacity variance that expires on November 8,
1990. As a result, soils containing HOC5 above the prohibition
level may currently be disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundments that meet the MTRs. After November 8, 1990, the
soil must be incinerated in accordance with 40 CFR 268.42(a)(2),
or meet any alternative standard established through a
treatability variance.
Treatabj],i .ty Variances
Superfund’s guidance document, “Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions,” outlines the process
to be followed for establishing alternative treatment levels for
RCRA hazardous waste. In this particular case, if a treat-
ability variance is granted for the California list HOCs and not
U061, the treated waste can be placed in a landfill or a surface
impoundment only if it meets the minimum technological
requirements. This is due to the fact that California list
prohibitions are a minimum requirement, and U061 is a First Third
“soft hammer” waste that will remain a restricted waste after May
8, 1990 (assuming that a national capacity variance is granted to
soils containing a waste with a BDAT treatment standard based on
incineration). See 53 FR 31188.
If a treatability variance is granted for U061, once the
alternative treatment level is satisfied, disposal may occur in
any Subtitle C unit. This results from the fact that the
alternative treatment standard established for U06l will
supersede the treatment standard for the California list HOCs.
For more detailed information on obtaining a treatability
variance, you can contact Marc Turgeon of my staff at 382-7917.
On—site Units
Your final question was whether waste that has been treated
in compliance with the applicable Part 268 standard can be
redeposited on—site in the unit from which it was removed. The
answer, while not entirely clear, is in most cases “yes.” In the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
final rule (signed February 2, 1990), page 267 states: “EPA
believes that it is appropriate generally to consider CERCLA
areas of contamination as a single RCRA land-based unit or
2
-------
‘landfill’.” Furthermore, in most cases these areas of
contamination (AOCs) are not subject to the design and operating
requirements for Subtitle C landfills (40 CFR 264.301) because
they are existing portions of the landfill. P ny lateral
expansion of the existing unit, however, would trigger the
minimu.m technological requirements of 40 CFR 264.301(c).
Given these facts, the design requirements are not
a licable when soil that has been treated in compliance with the
applicable part 268 treatment standard is redeposited on—site in
the existing AOC. However, as noted in Superfund Directive
9234.2—04Fs, “RCRA ARARS: Focus on Closure Requirements”:
RCRA requirements that are not applicable may, nonetheless,
be relevant and appropriate, based on site-specific
circumstances. . . . For example, minimum technology [ sic]
requirements may be considered relevant and appropriate for
one area receiving waste because of the high potential for
migration of contaminants in hazardous levels to ground
water, but not for another area that contains relatively
immobile waste.
A related question pertinent to on-site disposal is whether
redeposition of the waste into the AOC would cause the AOC to be
considered a replacement unit and thereby trigger the MTRs. In
short, the MTRS would not apply because the AOC is not receiving
“new” waste, and thus, is not being reused. (See attached
memorandum from Marcia Williams, Director, Office of Solid Waste,
to James Scarbrough, April 12, 1986, response #3.)
Finally, although the design and operating requirements
contained in Subpart N may not be applicable, there may be other
requirements that will be applicable. For example, RCRA closure
requirements must be met.
I hope this memorandum clarifies these issues. Some of the
issues that you raised regarding capacity extensions are not
fully resolved as the Third Third final rule is Still under
development. If you have any further comments or questions
please contact Debbie Wood at FTS 382-4770.
ATTACHMENT
cc: Conrad Simon, Region II
Bob Carr, Region II
Henry Guzman, Region II
Jeffrey Gratz, Region II
3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVI CNMEN1AL ROTECTICN AGENCY
- .vASrit’.G TON D C 2O. 3
12 i9 ,
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Closure of a DOE Surface Intpcundment Unit
that has Lost Interim Status
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch, Region IV
Thank you for your memorandum of December 30, 1985, in which
you requested clarification of several issues relating to the
closure of a DOE surface impoundment unj,t in South Carolina that
has lost interim status. This memo addresses your questions in
the same order In which you stated them. Your first issue is
further divided into two related issues.
1. Can hazardous waste be removed frc n a surface
impoundment unit, and then be placed back in
that unit at closure if it has lost Interim
status?
Yes——if the wastes are removed during
closure for the purpose of treating them to
enhance the effectiveness of the closure. The
closure period occurs after the active life of
the unit and calls for activities not normally
carried out during operation of the unit (e.g.,
application of the final cover). Removal of
waste, treatment, and replacement for the
purposes of enhancing the closure process
may be essential to assuring long—term integrity
the closure (e.g., stabilization may be
required to prevent differential settlement of
tb. final cover). Other activities which may be
nscessary to effect proper closure of the unit
may also be allowed. (We note that a contrary
policy would merely act as a disincentive to
taking appropriate steps to enhance closure.)
-------
—2—
The sLtion .itlirted anove is consistent
with closure regu’ation language at 265.113(a):
“within c) days after receiving the final v lu e of
,azardous ste. .. the owner or operator nnist treat ,
re’nove fran the site, or dispose of on—site all
hazardais wastes...” (ermThasis added). EPA took a
sirnil.ar positiort regarding the closure of surface
irnpoundneritg after January 25, 1993 when it stated
that removal and replacement of waste in the same unit
after January 25, ],93”3 .loes not constitute “receipt”
of waste for the purposes of determining whether a un’it
is a regulated unit. (See attached letter from
‘Dr. John Skinner to Dr. Reva Rubenstein, Director,
Institute of Che ’ nical Waste Managen nt, January 1].,
1983, response 4.)
4owever, if the surface irnpound nt wastes
are treated with wastes fran other units, the
combined treated wastes may not •be placed back
into the surface irnpound ent. Moreover, treat—
inent outsi.Le the unit i1 ay, in some cases, r uire
a oermit. For example, treatr ent ‘nay involve
constructing a unit with a capital investment of
greater than fifty rcent of the capital cost of
an entirely n facility (see 270.72).
2. would removal, treatt nt, and reolacerment of the
waste in a surface i npoundrtent unit as a part of
closure constitute “reuse” of the unit and, thus,
recuire the retrofitting of that unit with a
double liner?
As you know, replacement units at interim
status facilities (as well as other epecified
units) are subjected to the H A Minimum
Technology Re uiremients undar Section 3015(b).
Based on the legislative history of Section 3015.
EPA’s Guidance on Iinpler’ientation of the Miairnum
T.uological equir nents of HSWA of 1984,
cting Liners and Leachate Collection Systems
( 530—SW—85—0].2), defines “replacenent as
occ n ”ring when: (a) the unit is taken out of
service (i.e., the unit has stopped receiving
waste or the “normal” rate of waste receipt is
significantly decreased); ( ) all or substantially
all of the waste is removed; and Cc) the unit is
r eu sed.
-------
—3—
EPA believes that the references in the
legislative history to a unit that is taken
ou of service and reused indicate that
Congress intended the replacement requirements
to apply when the unit was in the process of
actively managing hazardous waste, i.e., during
the active life. (See S. Rep. No. 294, 98th
Congress, 2nd Session 24 (1983).) Since the
impoundment in question is removing, treating,
and replacing the waste as part of closure and
is not managing any new waste, it is not
continuing to operate and reuse does not
occur. Hence, the double liner retrofitting
requirement does not apply when waste is
removed from an existing unit, treated and
replaced in the same unit as part of an
approved closure plan.
3. As part of closure, can hazardous.wagte be removed
from the Lost Lake area and placed in the settling
basin? Assuming this can be considered to be one
waste management area, is it acceptable to remove
waste from one part of the waste management area and
place it in another?
In reviewing the drawings contained in the
Closure Plan for the ti—Area Settling Basin and
Vicinity at the Savannah River Plant (July 1985),
it is apparec%t that the waste in the settling
basis is the same as that found in the Lost Lake
area. In fact, these two areas are hydraulically
connected by an open ditch SUCh that these areas
could be construed to be a single waste meriage—
ment unit for the purposes of closure. As Such,
waste movement during closure from one part of a
single unit to another part of that unit is
permiaeibl.,and may be desirable from an
environmental standpoint. In this case it would
app that removal of waste from the Lost Lake
ar consolidate these wastes in the settling
ba •nhances environmental protection far more
than leaving the waste where it is and applying
the final cover to the entire area.
It should be noted, however, that a significant
change in the configuration of the impoundment
structure during the closure process, i.e., moving
existing dikes to increase the areal extent of the
impoundment, does constitute a lateral expansion and
-------
—4—
will, require retrofitting wit i a doub e Uner.
‘lounding of waste or soiLs wit 1 -tLct the existing th’ce
area for the rur Q 5 of pror tir g runoff and
oreventirig ponding is allowable, since it nay be
necessary Eor the proper construction of the fi’tal
cover.
4. rerne iiI action program to r nove chlorinated
organics froin the ground ‘ ter in M—area is in
operation. )OE would li ca to r nove s].u ge and
soils from the •Utch, seep ar?a, and T. ost La
-------
i i 83
Dr. Revs Rubenstein
Director
tnstitut. of Chemical Waste
Management
P atiorta1 Solid Wastes
Management Association
1120 Connecticut Avenu•, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Dr. Rubinsteihi
This letter is in respons. to your ldtt.g of December 6,
1982, requesting interpretation of closure and post-closur.
r.quirem.nts regarding land disposal facilities. I have
responded to your questions in the ord.r presented in your
letter and attachment.
1. R.contourinq the final cover material and/or ad usting
inpiac. waste in the sam. unit as required to maintain the
function of the final cover as a result of subsidence and
settlement, does not constitute receipt of hazardous waste
after January 25, 1983. Thes. actions must be described
in each facility’s closure and post—closur, plans which
must be approved by the Regional Administrator. Modifica—
tions can be made to these plans as necessary with Agency
approval.
2. The controlled irrigation of the vegetativ, cover is allowed
in erdet to establish vegetation during the closure period
or to maL tsia it during prolonged dry spells in the post-
closure Led. But the regulations require th. final cover
to pros —term minimisation of migration of liquids
through closed landfill (1244.310(a)(l)). and to function
with in maintenance (8264.3l0(a)(2)). TMis. the
guidance documents rec sm.nd that the plant species chosen
be indigenous, requir, minimal or no additional moisture,
and be selected based on anticipated moisture, light,
temperature, elevation, and eonp.tttiv. cohabitants, etc.
•iims aii f
0* ”
coNculasse
11
—
IJlo/ 3
1

!;/LtIL 1 L _.
-

I/u/IS
.—
L::
,/; ,,Iir .j
:::::.::::.
::::.::
. .
-
::
( ( OPP1 M I lLS CC
SPA P 13254 (12.70)
-------
clolUti and post—closure plans attould contatn $ dasertp-.’
of vtty and vh.n the Irrigation nay he d.t.riutnd to
be neceilSiry (e.g., reCQm5srtd.d by local açronosiat to
..tabli1fl V. ata oq during a dry period), the mount and
fr.q enCy of vator application, and vater balance •nslyeL
•hovia the effect of the irrigation water on total annual
1tqutd input thr iqh the final cower.
A tie avitlabi. two reports that provide technical
isforsation on this sgbj.ct. entitled ‘evaluating Cover
Systcoa for $oltd and *aeardoua Waat• 1*467, S•pti bsr
1 5S2. which discusses irrigation of plant cover and other
plant requLr.sents and (2) uydrologio iLmulatton on
loud wait. Disposal Sites’ w—U$, S.ptr.b.r 1512, which
a a ecoputerised water balance dei, to iw.luat. th.
probable hydrologic p.rforaaóc. of .xtating or proposed
landfill designs. seth of the report. ar availabi. Eros
the Co,.irvi..at Printing Office tSWu 147 La Stoc* o. 035’.
000—00220 —2 *4.7S, 5w. 54 1 is Itoct 10. 035. 0- 022S-S
* 56.00). I1PA La currently r..tainq the aod.1. for ‘Hydrologic
$L u1ation on solid Vast. Disposal sit..’ to enable its
us in .etiaaeing •.pa . thrcsigPi the liner an veil as
through the co r. The revised sods 1 should be available
.arly• t, 15*3.
Your stat nt that 4S C?* Parts 244 sad 245 prohibit the
addition of bulk liquids to the wants sanagasoat watt is
- quit. accurate, bulk Uquids irs all id if the ails
1. lined and has a l.acPiat. collection and resoval systes.
Liquids La the l..chat. oollnetion .yst suit be nuov.d
during oparat ton, olosur., and post -closure 0 Is general,
the addition of liquids into th salt during closure would
be psrsttt.d only it by doing so the facility sad waste
viii be sitabtlLsed sooner. As you ki.. , the objective
during and if tsr closure Is to coors lt u1ds and _ k.sD thee
out . If Itiquids are added during closure, the closure period
1d need to beiztsedid usd1 the addition stopped.
To further clarify the ab a ,. .splasatio.s I cost ouØiaots.
tour pouts. Plast. soy liquid applId to the final v.r
a laedtUl to sustain v.g.tatios et be a tiasOdous
waste ( ,.ouasot be lonchats l..s it is a. ioag.r a
be), coanot harm the vegetation, and cannot
ethers it the integrity of the fisal cover (e.g..
cause I need iatiltratIoe because of damag. caused by
p1). $.c..d. liquid, say sot be injected int, the valt•
at tsr closure (e.g., leachate rictreslatica by injection).
since this is contrary to the pest-closur, objective of
k..ptaq liquids out. Third. as stated above, liquid.
could be allowed during closure, including )aacbate
-------
r.CLXCulatiOn, if, (a) there tea liner and sachet.
collection system, (b) leachate is yeaeved fr th•
l.achat e collection system, Cc) he addition of liquids
e&’ves to enhance closure (e.Q , ecc.l.rates subsidence
arid stabi lization),rather than aerely serves as a convenient
way to dispos. of the liquid., and Cd) the liquid addition
is explained and justified in the closure plan. SUc
closure would not be c p1etsd until recirculation cease..
Also, r.circulstion of a hazardous vests (leachats) aft.r
January 26, 1983 would make the unit a regulated unit
subj.ctto -th. r.qutr .nts of Part 264. 1 shouid.point
out that rectraulation of a hazardous waste (leachate) can
occur durinq operation and would normally be considered an
operational rath.r than closureactivity. Closur, activities
are those which -l ead to stabilization of th. unit in a
tia.ly manner after receipt of wastes has ceased. Fourth,
the characteristics and purpose of any liquids-to be added
to th• landfill or to the cover during or after closure
must be specified in th. closure or post—closure plans and
approved by the PA (o’authcrtsed stat.), including any
extension of the closure period.- Such purpos. and extension
must be consistent with the environmental objectives .pecif ted
iii Part 264 or 265.
3. Landfills that are currently engaged in co—disposal- of
hazardous and non-hazardous vsst•s could continue to accep .
non—hazardous wastes after January 25, l S3,’t* rd.r to
conpl.te a partially filled, hazardous waste unit and close
und.r either 40 Cfl Part 265 or-Part 264 roq irsaents. This
aasi.s that the owner or operator c p1et.s the cell in. a
timely aannr, which generally means within the 180 day
closure period. If the closure cannot be conpl.ted within
the 180 days -the owner or operator must apply to have the
closure period •ztsnd.d beyond 6 months, for a specified
tins period, as provided in 40 CPP 265.113(b) or 264.113(b),
to allow the wast, to be filled until the designed elevation
i. reached. This type of closure could be approved if it
provides for e more environmentally sound closure , and not
tely for the econ ic ’ convenience of the øvnr or operator.
tach extension -will be considered on a case—by—case basis.
Th• regulatory cam rn. is closing the landfill in as expedient
a t i - Is practical’ (i.e., achieving final contour and
me as to prevent additional rainfall infiltration
- - - i l exposure. Pertinent factors include
— _ rials and redesigning the final contours.
ii inistrator or approved State permitting
auehorüy could approv, a closure plan or modification
to the closure plan allowing the unit or cell to be conpieted
with non-hasardous waste after January 25, l S3, and possibly
extending the closure period (mor. than 4 months) after
- January 25, l S3 upon such a shoving. Conditions for
aeconplishinq this would be La any approved closure plan
-------
or closure p.r it tthtC period; final contours, type
of v sSt•).
4. ?or th. situation where a surface t pourtd ent clcs .s as a
ja dfil1 before Jari iary 25, 1983, 1 presuiite you .an no
re hamaSdous wastes received after January 25, 1983, but
closure (e.g., d.v.t.rtrtg, etc.) has not yet been don..
m. waste will b removed fr th. surf ace impoundment.
solidified and replaced in the same impoundment, to ensure
that it will bear the weight of the cover. SPA does net
consider this replacement of vast. at t.r January 25, 1983,
to be ‘receipt of hazardous waste which would constitute-
a ‘regulated unit’. This decision assua.s that the
solidifying material is not a hazardous waste.
5. Par your: last question you described the cam. where
multiple hazardous waste trenches will c.ase to róceive
hasardoul waste on or before January 25, 1983, and where
the closure plan provides for a delayed closure of a half-
filled trench for the deposit of solidified hazardous
waste from closed and capped tr nchei. In general, such
placement of solidified hazardous waste frois th. closed
tr.nches into th. reserved half-filled trench, even at
the ems facility, will be considered ‘receipt’ of hazardout
waste such as to constitute a ‘regulated’ unit becaus. the
waste is received and disposed at the facility unit aftSr
January 26, 1983. 1 refer you to the July 26. 1982 Federal
2.t.il!.r preambl, discussion at 47 F l 32289 which describes
hi i c spt of a waste management unit. Where landfills -
consist of a series of trenches which are separately lined,
each trench is a separate waste management unit. The transfer
of hazardous waste fr on. unit to another after January 26,
19l thersfare makes the receiving trench or unit a regulat.d ’
unit.
L.a a side note, I should mention that the cloSure
performance standard for interim status and far permitting
facilities Is thes (40 CFl 264,111 and 40çfl 265.111).
The final cover or cap for landfills closed uiidsr Part 264 or
265 standards sI culd be similar. Significant differences in
the design Ø cap should result from site specific factors
rather typ. at permit a facility ha.. Thus, many of
the above ta apply to both Part 264 and 265 closur;
r.quirsi
I hop. tlh.:abcv. explanations help clarity the regulations
for you. should you have any further qv.stions with regard to
-------
Cw thu g,çulation effects NSWMA mbers please contact me or
‘ red LindseY of ‘Y staff (382 4756),
Sincerely yo .ar ,
John a. Skinn.r
Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste
cci Recions I X (With incoming)
Mike Cock
Eileen Clausssn
John Lehman
Bruce waddle
Lisa Friedman
Mark Greenwood
Fred Lindsay
Gene Lucre
X.n Shustsr
-------
—
3 4 F. 2
_.., I —— Ill I —— .. •I. S • • I I •W S —— I II • S
REGION II
DATE:
SUBJ CT:
Land Ban Concerns at a CERCLA Pesticide (DDT) spill Site
ROM:
Jeffrey Gratz, Project Manager
Federal Facilities Section
TO:
Tom Ovenden
Land Disposal Restriction Branch (05-333)
Plattsburgh Air Force Base (PAFB), located in Clinton County, New
York, recently decided to perform a removal action at a DDT spill
area. Because of an earlier ban on DDT application, PAFB
stockpiled its remaining high-grads DDT in a Defense
Reutilization and Mainenance Office (DRMO) storage yard beginning
in 1970. By 1972 all the drums had either spilled or had
corroded to the point where all DDT had leaked onto the ground,
adjacent to the storage pad. The facility is on the National
Priorities List (NPL).
Recently, the Base completed its study of the area and determined
that most of the contamination resides in a drainage swala and
that over tim. the contamination has spread to an area of
approximately 600’x 20’ (see figure). DDT concentration in the
soil is as high as 1.5%. For the removal action, PAFB has
proposed to dig up the soil and treat it using a solvent
extraction process (a bench scale study utilizing this process
was recently completed). Based on a health and ecological
assessment (currently being review by Region II), PAP’B has
proposed a clean up level of 10 ppm for DDT. After this level is
achieved in the treatment unit, PAFB proposes to redeposit the
soil in the drainage swale.
There are several land ban concerns which I have discussed with
you and would appreciate clarification. They are as follows:
1) Applicability of Capacity Variance: The proposed land ban
restrictions for third—third scheduled wastes are somewhat
unclear:
a. pg. III. 8-28 states that “sufficient capacity exists
for treatment of halogenated organic wastes; therefore,
EPA is not proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for these wastes.” (“these wastes” include
DDT (U061) for which the BDAT is a treatment level
based on incineration.)
b pg. III. 3-94 states that “EPA is proposing today to
grant arm extension of the effective date of certain
let, 2nd, and 3rd 3rd contaminated soil and debris for
which the treatment standards proposed are based on
combustion . --
In our discussions, it was determined that a capacity
R lON H FORM 1320-10/81)
-------
‘U. FEB B. 1S9 4:19PM p394 P. 3
variance is applicable to this site and would be effective
until May 8, 1992. Please confirm this interpretation.
2) !quivalent Treatment Method Petition or a Treatability
Variance: Since the referenced soil contains DDT (an
halogenated organic compound (HOC)) above 1000 mg/kg in some
areas, California List restrictions will also be applicable.
As of November 8, 1990, a RCRA/CERCLA soil and debris
containing HOCs over 1000 mg/kg must be incinerated at
99.99% DRE. Please confirm this interpretation.
After November 8, 1990, would the facility need an
Equivalent Treatment Method Petition to show that the
solvent extraction method is equivalent to the treatment
standard for this California waste?
Or, would the facility have to apply for a Treatability
Variance for RCRA/CERCLA soil and debris to show that the
DDT (in the halogenated non-polar aromatic structural
functional group) will undergo the recommended percent
reduction (90—99.9% — from Superfund LDR Guide #6A) using
the solvent extraction method? Is a Treatability Variance
applicable when the treatment standard of incineration
99.99% DRE is specific to RCRA/CERCLA soil and debris
(Highlight 1, Superfund LDR Guide #2)?
Based on discussions with you, the Treatability Variance is
applicable. Please confirm this interpretation.
3) Must the treated soil go to a receiving unit that meets RCRA
minimum technology requirements or can it be redeposited
onsite (to the same area from which it was takan)? Because
the hazardous waste (the DDT contaminated soil) is being
removed from the ground and treated in a treatment unit,
placement will occur and LDR is applicable. There are two
periods of concern:
a. Between May 8, 1990 and November 8, 1990, a national
capacity variance will be in place for the described
waste (this is assuming that these proposed regulations
go final and that the above interpretations are
correct).
b. After November 8, 1990, the waste will be subject to
California List restrictions and a Treatability
Variance (or Equivalent Treatment Method Petition?)
would be required.
During either of these time periods, can the treated soil be
redeposited onsito? If the treated soil can be redeposited
onsite, does the “unit” (in this case, the excavated area)
need to meet minimum technology requirements? Based on
discussions with you, the treated soil can be redeposited
onsite and the “unit” does not have to meet minimum
-------
technology requirements. Please explain the basis of your
interpretation (CERCLA, the Federal Regulations, EPA policy,
or guidance).
Because the facility is currently writing a Environmental
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), and ha. allocated funds to be
used on this project during this fiscal year, a quicJc response to
these issues is needed. If you have any questions please call me
at FTS 264—6667.
attachment
cc: R. Wing PSB-rFS
V. Pitruzzello PSB
N. Morgan HQ
C. Stein HWF
-------
x
-------
BDAT LIST COMPOUNDS WITHIN EACH STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Group/Compound CAS Number
I. Halogenated Organics
1. Ha],ogeriated Non-Polar Aromatic Compounds
Ch lorobenzene 108-90-7
Chlorobenzilate 570-15-6
K 2-Chloronapthalene 91-58-7
? 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
‘ j 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
Hexach lorobenzene 118-74-1
Hexachiorophene 70-3-04
Pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3
1, 2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1
Benzal Chloride 98-87-3
DDD 72-54-8
DDE 72-55-9
DDT 50-29-3
Hexachiorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4
2a. Djoxins/Furans and their Precursors
Hexachiorodiberizo - p - dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzo furans
Pentachlorodibenzo -p - dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzofurans - -
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins - -
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans - -
2,3,7 ,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1746-01-6
2 ,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 94-75-7
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 93-72-1
2,4,5-T 93-76-5
*** DRAFI - August 15, 1989 ***
-------
BDAT LIST COMPOUNDS WITHIN EACH STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Group/Compound GAS Number
2b. PCBs
Aroclor 1016 12674-11-2
Aroclor 1221 11104-28-2
Aroclor 1232 11141-16-5
Aroclor 1242 53469-21-9
Aroclor 1248 12672-29-6
Aroclor 1254 11097-69-1
Aroclor 1260 11096-82-5
2c. Herbicides
2,4,5-T 93-76-5
2,4-D 94-75-7
3. Halogenated Fhenols. Cresols. Other Polar Aromatics
4-Chioroaniline 106-47-8
2-Chiorophenol 95-57-8
3,3’ -Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1
2 ,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2
2 ,6-Dichlorophenol 87-65-0
4,4’ -Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 101-14-4
Pentachiorophenol 87-86-5
2 ,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 58-90-2
2,4, 5-Trichiorophenol 95-95-4
2,4, 6-Trichiorophenol 88-06-2
p-Chloro-m-cresol (4-Chloro-3-
methyiphenol) 59-50-7
Methoxychior 72-43-5
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101-55-3
Pentach loronitrobenzene 82-68-8
4. Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds
Bromodichioromethane 75-27-4
Bromomethane 74-83-9
Carbon tetrachioride 56-23-5
2-Chloro-1, 3-butadiene 126-99-8
Chiorodibromomethane 124-48-1
Ch loroethane 75-00-3
Chloroform 67-66-3
Chioromethane 74-87-3
3-Chioropropene 107-05-1
*** DRAFF - August 15, 1989 ***
-------
BDAT LIST COMPOUNDS WITHIN EACH STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Group/Compound CAS Number
4. Ba] ogenated Aiiphatic Compounds (continued)
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 96-12-8
1, 2-Dibromoethane 106-93-4
Dibromomethane 74-95-3
trans-1,4-Dich loro-2-butene 110-57-6
Dichiorodifluoromethane 75-71-8
1,1-Dichioroethane 75-34-3
1,2-Dichioroethane 107-06-2
1,1-Dichioroethene 75-35-4
trans-i, 2-Dichioroethene 156-60-5
1,2-Dichioropropane 78-87-5
trans-i, 3-Dichioropropene 10061-02-6
cis-1, 3-Dichioropropene 10061-01-5
Methylene chloride 75-09-2
1,1 ,i,2-Tetrachloroethane 630-20-6
111,2 ,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5
Tetrachioroethene 127-18-4
Tribromomethane 75-25-2
i,l,i-Trichioroethane 71-55-6
1,1,2-Trichioroethane 79-00-5
Trichioroethene 79-01-6
1,1,2-Trichioro-1,2,2-trif luoroethane 76-13-1
Trichioromonofluoromethane 75-69-4
1,2, 3-Trichioropropane 96-18-4
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4
Hexachiorobutadiene 87-68-3
Hexachioroethane 62-72-1
Hexachioropropene 1888-71-7
Pentachioroethane 76-01-7
Tris(2,3-dibromopropy l)phosphate 126-72-7
lodomethane 74-88-4
5. Hajogenated Cyclic Althhatics/Ethers/EsterslKetones
Aramite 140-57-8
Aidrin 309-00-2
alpha-BHC 319-84-6
beta-BHC 319-85-7
*** DRAF1 - August 15, 1989 ***
-------
BDAT LIST COMPOUNDS WITHIN EACH STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Group/Compound CAS Number
5. }jalo enated Cyclic Alithatics/Ethers/Esters/Ketones (continued)
delta-BHC 319-86-8
gamma-BHC 58-89-9
Chlordane 57-74-9
Dieldrin 60-57-1
Endosulfan I 939-98-8
Endosulfan II 33213-06-5
Endrin 72-20-8
Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4
Heptachior 76-44-8
Heptachior epoxide 1024-57-3
Isodrin 465-73-6
Kepone 143-50-0
Toxaphene 8001-35-2
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 110-75-8
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)ether 39638-32-9
3-Chloropropionitri le 542-76-7
II. Non-Halogenated Organics
6. Nitrated Aromatic and A1,iihatic Conmounds
2 -sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrOpheflOl 88-85-7
l,4-Dinitrobenzene 100-25-4
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol (2-Methyl-4,6-
dinitrophenol) 534-52-1
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5
2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2
2 ,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2
5-Nitro-o-toluidine 95-65-8
Methyl parathion 298-00-0
Parathion 56-38-2
4-Nitroaniline 100-06-6
Nitroben.zene 98-95-3
4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7
2-Nitropropane 79-46-9
*** DRAF1 - August 15, 1989 ***
-------
BDAT LIST COMPOUNDS WIThIN EACH STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Group/Compound CAS Number
7. Simple son-Polar Aromatics and Heterocyclics
Toluene 108-88-3
1,2-Xylene 97-47-6
L,3-Xy lene 108-38-3
1,4-Xylene 106-44-5
Isoafrole 120-58-1
Safrole 94-59-7
Pyridine 110-86-1
2-Picoline 109-06-8
Benzene 71-43-2
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4
8. Polvnuclear Aromatics
Acenaphthy lene 208-96-8
Acenaphthene 83-32-9
Anthracene 120-12-7
Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9
Benzo(ghi)perylene 191-24-2
Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8
Chrysene 218-01-9
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene 192-65-4
Dibenzo(a, i)pyrene 106-46-7
Fluoranthene 206-44-0
Fluorene 86-73-7
Indenol(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 120-58-1
Methapyrilene 91-80-5
3 -Methyicholanthrene 56-49-5
Naphthalene 91-20-13
Phenanthrene 85-01-8
Pyrene 129-00-0
*** DRAFT - August 15, 1989 ***
-------
BDAT LIST COMPOUNDS WIThIN EACH STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Group/Compound CAS Number
9. Other Polar Organic Compounds
2 -Ace tylaminofluorene 53-96-3
4-Aminobiphenyl 92-67-1
Aniline 62-53-3
3,3’ -Dimethoxybenzidine 119-90-4
p-Dimethylaminoazobeflzefle 60-11-7
33’ -Dimethylbenzidine 119-93-7
Di-n-propylnitrosamine 621-64-7
Dipheny lamine 112-39-4
Dipheny lnitrosamine 86-30-6
1, 2-Diphenyihydrazirie 122-66-7
l-Naphthy lamine 134-32-7
2-Naphthy lamine 91-59-8
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamifle 924-116-3
N-Nitrosodiethylamine 55-18-5
N-Nitrosodiinethy lamine 62-75-9
N-Nitrosomethylethy lamifle 10595-95-6
N-Nitrosomorpho line 58-89-2
N-Nitrosopiperidine 100-75-4
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930-55-2
Phenacetin 62-44-2
o-Cresol (2-Methyiphenol) 95-48-7
p-Cresol (4-Methylphenol) 106-44-5
2 ,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9
Phenol 108-95-2
Resorcinol 108-46-3
Acrolein 107-02-8
Carbon disulfide 75-15-0
Ethyl methacrylate 97-63-2
Isobutyl alcohol 78-83-1
Ethylene oxide 75-21-8
Benzenethiol 108-98-5
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) 78-93-3
4-Methyl- 2 -pentanone (methyl isobutyl
ketone) 108-10-I
Methyl methacrylate 80-62-6
Methyl methanesulfonate 66-27-3
Acetophenone 96-86-2
*** DRAFT - August 15, 1989 ***
-------
BDAT LIST COMPOUNDS WIThIN EACH STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Group/Compound CAS Number
9. Other Polar Organic Coiniounds (continued)
p-Benzoquinone 106-51-4
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7
Butylbenzyl phthalate 85-68-7
Diethyl phthalate 84-66-2
Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2
Di-n-octy]. phthalate 117-84-0
1,4-Naphthoquinone 130-15-4
Acetonitrile 75-05-8
Ethyl cyanide 107-12-0
Methacrylonitrile 126-98-7
Disulfoton 298-04-4
Famphur 52-85-7
Phorate 298-02-2
Phthalic anhydride 85-44-9
1,4-Dioxane 123-91-1
Acetone 67-64-1
n-Butanol 71-36-3
Cyclohexanone 108-94-1
2-Ethoxyethano l 110-80-5
Ethyl acetate 141-78-6
Ethyl ether 60-29-7
Methanol 67-56-1
Pronamide 23950-58-5
III. Inorganics
10. Non-Volatile Metals
Barium 7440-39-3
Beryllium 7440-41-7
Chromium (total and hexavalent) 7440-47-3
Copper 7440-50-8
Lead 7439-92-1
Nickel 7440-22-0
Silver 7440-22-4
Vanadium 7440-62-2
*** DRAV - August 15, 1989 ***
-------
BDAT LIST COMPOUNDS WITHIN EACH STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Group/Compound CAS Number
11. Volatile Metals
Antimony 7440-36-0
Arsenic 7440-38-2
Cadmium 7440-43-9
Mercury 7439-97-6
Selenium 7782-49-2
Thallium 7440-28-0
12. Other Inor anics
Cyanide 57-12-5
Fluoride 16964-48-8
Sulfide 8496-25-8
*** DRAFT - August 15, 1989 ***
-------
XI
-------
EVALUATION FOR14
OVERVIEW OP ThE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS TRAINING COURSE
REGION: _____ DATE: / - q
1. How would you rate the quality of the presentation? (circle one)
Excellent Fair Poor
2. Were appropriate topics covered? (circle one)
No Partially
Suggestions for additions or deletions: _____________________________
3. How would you rate the quality of the visual aids? (circle one)
Excellent Good (Fa Poor
4. Did the review exercise (check one):
Help clarify the presentation? _____
Have little effect on understanding the presentation? _____
Add confusion to the presentation? _____
5. How difficult was the review exercise? (circle one)
Too hard Just about right Too easy
6. What did you like best about the course? ___________________________
7. What did you like least about the course? ____________________________
8. Other co=ents or suggestions:
Please use the space below to write any other comments you have on any
aspect of the course: content, format, logistics, etc.
-------